CHILDREN'S STRATEGIES WHEN REPORTING APPROPRIATE …discussions in Clark, 1-980; Tunmer et al.,...

Pragmatics l:1.27-70International Pragmatics Association

CHILDREN'S STRATEGIES WHEN REPORTINGAPPROPRIATE AND INAPPROPRIATE SPEECH BVENTS

Maya Hickmann & David Warden

ABSTRACT

This study examines the ef fects of ut terance form andappropr iateness on how chi ldren report conversat ions.Children between 7 and 9 years were asked to narratefi lmed dialogues that contained two t14>es of targetu t te rances : (a ) dec la ra t i ves , in te r rogat ivesr o rimperatives that \^rere used appropriately as directives i( b ) declarat ives and interrogat ives that wereinappropr iate f rom the point of v iew of informat ionexchange, i . e. , that should not have been used by theinter locutors as means of g iv ing or request inginformation, given background knowledge conditions . Whenreport ing the appropr iate direct ive targets , the 7 / B-year-olds f requent ly t ransformed declarat ives into moreexpl ic i t imperat ives, whi le the 9-year-olds ' reports didnot vary systemat ical ly wi th direct ive t1r1>es. With respectto the inappropr iate targets, omissions were more frequenta t 7 /B years , t rans format ions a t 9 years . Trans format ionsconsisted most of ten of changing the mood or modal i ty ofinappropr iate declarat ives to make them appropr iate. Somerol ,e reversals also occurred with inappropr iatein te r rogat ives . F ina l l y , ch i ld ren o f a l1 ages omi t ted ortransformed other events preceding or fol-l-owing the targetut terances, so as to make the dialogues coherent moreg loba l l y . These f ind ings show ch i ld ren 's sens i t i v i t y tothe forms and funct ions of ut terances in conversat ions,but they also suggest developmental- changes in theirreport ing strategies. The younger chi ldren preferfunct ional ly t ransparent reports and they omit ut terancesin cases o f inadequate cond i t ions o f use . Wi th inc reas ingd9€, chi ldren use more complex strategies to adapt someinappropr iate ut terances Iocal ly by t ransformingsys temat ica l l y the i r fo rm, the i r cond i t ions o f use / and/orthe i r func t iona l va lue .

1 . fn t roduc t ion

Ivlult ifunctionality and contextdependence are twocentral propert ies of language use that must be confronted

DOI: 10.1075/prag.1.1.03hic

28 Mava Hiclonann & David Warden

by children during their development. Thus, the same typeof u t te rance can serve severa l func t ionsr € .9 , dec la ra t i veutterances descr ib ing states of af fa i rs can be the meansto phat ic contac t , d i rec t i ves , jokes , insu l ts t e taccusat ions. Converselyr \ t r€ can use di f ferent types ofu t te rances as means towards par t i cu la r goa ls , e .g . ,imperat ives, interrogat ives, and declarat ives can al lserve to direct others to do something. The aim of thepresent study is to examine chi ldren's sensi t iv i ty to suchre la t ions among fo rms, func t ions , and contex ts as i t i sref lected j -n how they report conversat ions. For th ispurpose, the analyses below focus on narrat ives that weree l i c i ted sys temat ica l l y w i th f i lned d ia logues . Par t i cu la rat tent ion is placed on whether both the forms ofut terances and their appropr iateness from the point ofv iew of informat ion exchange af fect chi ldren's report ings t r a t e g i e s .

Developmental research in psychol inguist ics andsociol inguist ics has shown a growing interest for thestudy of pragmatics. Over the years th is interest hasresulted in a large and heterogenous set of writ ingsconcerning very diverse components of chi ldren, sI inguist ic competence and impl icat ions for social andcogni t ive aspects of development. Domains of study haveinc luded po l i teness , moda l i t y , d i rec t and ind i rec t speechacts , s ty l - i s t i c reg is te rs , de ic t i c and anaphor icr e f e r e n c e , e t c . ( e . 9 . , B a t e s t I 9 7 6 i E r v i n - T r i p p a n dlv l i t che l l -Kernan, 1977; Ochs and Sch ie f fe l in I I979 iK a r m i l o f f - S m i t h , 1 9 7 9 i B r u n e r , 1 9 8 3 ; H i c k m a n n , L 9 B 7 ;Andersen, 1990) . Desp i te the grea t d ivers i ty among them,al- I these studies share a conmon interest inmult i funct ional i ty and context dependence dur ing languagedevelopment . Indeed, chi ldren' s abi l i ty to relate forms ,funct ions, and contexts is an essent ia l pragmaticcomponent of the competence they must acquire to becomenat ive speakers . Thus, chi ldren must learn that, g ivenpart icular speech si tuat ions, the same utterance form canhave several- funct ions and di f ferent ut terance forms canhave the same func t ion .

Chi ldren's developing pragmatic knowledge has beenexamined on the bas is o f d i f fe ren t k inds o f da ta , rang ingf rom natura l i s t i c observa t ions o f ch i ld ren 's p roduc t ionsto more controlLed exper imental- s i tuat ions. According toa number of such studies, young chi ldren seem to have somesurpr is ingly precocious knowledge -- and perhaps even some"awareness" - - o f language use r € .g . r they use and respondef fec t i ve ly to " ind i rec t " d i rec t i ves , ad jus t the i r speech

Children reporting speech events 29

a s a f u n c t i o n o f r o l e r e l a t i o n s ( e . g . , a g e a n d s t a t u s ) rand judge which ut terances woul-d be pol i ter and/or moreappropr ia te fo r a spec i f i c speaker (e .g . , some rev iews andd i s c u s s i o n s i n C l a r k , 1 - 9 8 0 ; T u n m e r e t a l . , 1 9 8 4 ; G o m b e r t ,1 9 9 0 ) .

For exampre , Andersen (1990) shows tha t ch i ld renbetween 4 and 7 years of age use appropr iatery di f ferentt lpes of ut terances when they act out ro les in plays i t u a t i o n s ( e . 9 . , f a t h e r , m o t h e r , a n d c h i l d i n a f a r n i l ycontex t ) . ch i l -d ren o f a l l ages d isp layed a complex se t o fsoc io l - ingu is t i c sk i11s , a l though some deveropmenta ld i f fe rences were a lso found. For exampJ-e , ch i ld ren re l ieda t f i r s t more on vo ice qua l i t y r oo phono log ica l mark ingsand on prosody, but wi th increasing age they rel ied moieon the content ta lked about and on lexical i tems, then onthe forms of ut terances such as direct ives. The oldestchirdren used the widest and most di f ferent iated range ofdirect ive forms, but even the 4-year-olds var ied iheseforms sys temat icar ry r e .g . , us ing more impera t ives whenplaying the rore of parents addressing chirdren than vicev e r s a .

More research is necessary, however, to determine theprec ise na ture o f such sk i lLs . Thus , i t i s no t c rearwhether chi ldren who vary ut terance forms as a funct ion ofroLes are abl-e to tark about these form-role relat ionsexp l ic i t l y . More genera l l y , surpr is ing ly l i t t l -e i s knownabout how chi l -dren represent di f ferent speech eventsr inqu is t i ca l l v no t on ly when they ta rk about them, bu ta lso when they s imp ly repor t them. Ana lyses o f ch i rd ren ,sreported speech could provide evidence concerninq var iousaspects of chirdren's pragmatic knowledge. For exampre,the verbs of saying they use to quote di f ferent t lpes ofs p e e c h e v e n t s ( e . 9 . , a s k i n g , t e l l i n g , p r o m i s i n g ) c o u l dindicate how they classi fy speech events and var iat ions int h e i r r e p o r t i n g s t r a t e g i e s ( e . g . , o m i s s i o n s ,transformat ions ) could indicate their sensi t iv i ty tou t te rance fo rm, func t ion , and/or appropr ia teness incontex t .

Some ind i rec t ev idence concern ing ch i ld ren 'srepresentat ions of speech events comes from exper imentals tud ies f ocus ing on ch i l -d ren 's in te rpre ta t ions o f verbs o fsaying. I These studies, however, have made di f ferentc la ims w i th respec t to the fac to rs de termin ing ch i ld ren ,sper fo rmance. Thus , chomsky (1969) in te rpre ts her resu l tsas showing chi l -dren' s graduar acquis i t ion of s lmtact icru l ,es ( the " l r l in ima l D is tance pr inc ip re" ) . rn th is s tudy

32 Maya Hiclonann & David Warden

utterances consisted of assert ions wi th or wi thout them o d a l v e r b C R O f R E ( ' t h i n k , b e l i e v e ' ) r e . g . r " i t ' s t h emonkey tha t sp i l led the cup" versus " I th ink /be l ieve i t ' sthe monkey that spi l led the cup". I f the speaker had notwitnessed the event, in pr inciple he was not in a posi t ionto assert who had done the deed without qual i fy ing hisassert ion by means of a modal device. Conversely , Lf hehad witnessed the event, he was in a posi t ion to producea nonmodal- ized assert ion, so that his use of a modaldevice was at best odd. Chi1dren at a l l agles \ ,veresensi t ive to mismatches between the speaker 's epistemicstate and his ut terance. For example, when the speaker hadwitnessed the event, but produced a modal ized ut terance,they of ten omit ted the modal device in their reports andinvented events during the interview or attributed to theassert ion some addi t ional funct ional value which made i tappropriate. However, only the older children were able todi f ferent iate s i tuat ions and ut terance t14>es expl ic i t lyin their metal inguist ic judgments. For example, when thespeaker had not been a witness and had produced anonmodal ized assert ion, they stated that he should nothave made the accusation because he could not have knownwho had done the deed.

Re la ted f ind ings come f rom Aksu-Kog 's s tud ies (L988) o fthe product ion and comprehension of " evident ia ls " byTurk ish ch i ld ren f rom 3 to 6 \ years . These ob l iga torymodal markers in Turkish indicate whether thepropos i t iona l con ten t o f dec la raL ive u t te rancescorresponds to informat ion that has been direct lyw i tnessed by the speaker ( "d i rec t ev idence" ) o r tha t i sknown from indirect sources, including inference andhearsay ( " indirect evidence " ) . Aksu-Kog's studies show anear ly abi l i ty to di f ferent iate the two epistemicperspect ives of wi tnesses versus nonwitnesses. However,chi l -dren f i rst re ject the possibi l i ty that a speaker couldta lk about events he has no t w i tnessed. In add i t ion , i t i snot unt i l later that they can relate both perspect ives tothe cor respond ing l ingu is t i c dev ices ava i lab le in the i rnat ive language. For example, chi ldren were asked in onestudy to ident i fy the speaker of modal- ized decLarat iveu t t e r a n c e s , i . e . , t o a t t r i b u t e t h e m t o w i t n e s s e s v s .nonwi tnesses . Before 5 years , ch i ld ren thought" asser t ions " to be appropr ia te on ly fo r w i tnesses , bu tcoul-d not say what utterances wouLd be appropriate f ornonwitnesses . Between 5 and 6 years, they at t r ibuted tononwitnesses quest ions or declarat ives that were modal izedp e r i p h r a s t i c a l l y ( " i t s e e m s " ) . F i n a l I y , b y 6 i 4 y e a r schi ldren were able to at t r ibute correct ly to wi tnesses vs.

Children reporting speech events

nonwitnesses declarat ives that were modal ized by means ofboth t lT)es of evident ia l inf lect ions. Among al lappropr iate uses of the evident ia ls wi th nonwitnesses,the quotat ive funct ion is the latest to be acquired.

fn sunmary, then, when young children are presentedwith isolated sentences instruct ing them to perform aspeech ac t ion ( to te l l , to ask) o r to ident i f y theappropr iate speaker for such an act ion given backgroundcondi t ions, their performance indicates that they aresensi t ive to the contexts in which ut terances const i tuteappropr iate requests for informat ion or assert ions offacts. Other resul ts show that they may not be able toassoc ia te par t i cu la r l ingu is t i c dev ices to d i f fe ren tesp i temic perspec t ives , par t i cu la r ly a t a meta l ingu is t i cLevel , even i f they show some sensi t iv i ty to the rerat ionbetween ut terances and epistemic states . chi tdren, sperformance in narrat ive s i tuat ions also suggests thatth is sensi t iv i ty to contextual factors leads thern totransform inappropr iate assert ions when report ing them,even before they can produce expl ic i t metal inguist icjudgments about them. I t is not c lear, however, whetherchirdren transform not only inappropr iate declarat ives,but arso other t lT)es of inappropr iate ut terances, such asinterrogat ives, when report ing conversat ions in narrat i .vefo rm or when judg ing them. More generar ly , i t i s d i f f i cur tto fur ther compare the resul ts of these studies, g iven thevery d i f fe ren t na ture o f the tasks and s t imu l i invo lved.

The study below further examines how children reportdialogues, wi th part icular at tent ion to whether theirreports vary as a function of utterance form andappropr iateness. For th is purpose, chi ldren were asked tonarrate f i lmed dialogues in which several types of targetut terances had been inserted. These dialogues containedut te rances o f d i f fe ren t fo rms ( impera t ives , dec la ra t i ves ,interrogat, ives ) , a l l of which were used appropr iately asdirect ives to get someone to fetch something dur ing thed ia logues . They a lso conta ined dec la ra t i ve andinterrogat ive ut terances that were inappropr iate f rom thep o i n t o f v i e w o f i n f o r m a t i o n e x c h a n g e , i . e . , t h e ycons t i tu ted inappropr ia te asser t ions or reques ts fo rinformat ion, g iven the background knowledge of thepar t i c ipants . The ana lyses focus on ch i ld ren ,s reca l I ,omiss ions , o r t rans format ions o f these ta rge ts , as we l l ason more global narrat ive strategies involv ing other eventswhich preceded and fol lowed them in the dialogues.

33


the in te r locu tor to know i t .

wi th the except ion of the targets, the conversat ionswere made to be as s imi lar to each other and as naturar aspossible. The ut terances surrounding the targets includeda var iety of other t1ryes of speech events which were aI Iappropr iate and which were distr ibuted. randomly acrossdialogue versions. However, wi th mater iars of t t i is k ind,i t is of course di f f icurt to ensure that d.egree oiinappropr iateness j -s total ly ident icar acrossconversa t ions . - As is typ ica t o f a t l language use, i t i sarways possibre to imagine some contei t , even a far-fetched one, in which an ut terance that is inappropr iatestr ictry f rom the point of v iew of informat io i - e* lhangecan be interpreted as appropriate, given some otherf unctionar varue ( s ) . Thu; ,

- an ass-ertion that is

inappropriate from the point of view of informationexchange because of insuff ic ient background. knowredge onthe part of the speaker can be interpieted as a , 's t iong "o r " rugky" guess , espec ia l ry i f i t i s poss ib le to assumethat- the speaker either has a high degr-ee of certainty onthe basis of soTg imagined source of background knowt6age( including world knowledge ) . r t can therefore becomeappropr iate, even i f the guess turns out to be rdrong.simi larry, inappropr iate quest ions can be interpreted i "a t t e m p t s t o ' c o v e r . u p "

J i . " . , p r e t e n d i n g n o t t o k n o w t h e

requested informat ion ) .

Tabl-e 1 i l lustrates the propert ies of the mater ia lswith one of the f i lmed dialogues ( the other dialogues ared iscussed in de ta i l in sec t ibn 4

'be low) . The d ia iogue in

T lb le 1 (CHEESE. r ) -con ta ined an inapt r i ropr ia te qu5s t ion(Ken's quest ion in the fourth speaking turn "what is thereto e3 t?" ) . and a dec la ra t i ve d i rec t i ve (F iona 's u t te rancein the n in th speak ing tu rn "The kn i fe ' i s in the d in ingroom" ) .

rn summdryr - th ree separa te vers ions ( r , r r , and r r r ) o feach o f the th ree scenar ios (CHEESE, PRESENi , and n ix r lwere prepared. Five target ut terances ( three appropr iate jtwo inappropriate ) were inserted in the diarogub-s fbr eachscenar io , d is t r ibu ted across the th ree vers ions . Thedistr ibut ion of these target ut , terances is shown in table2 .


TABLE 1 : EXA},IPLE OF DIALOGUE WITH INAPPROPRIATE QUESTION

1 . Fiona: ( on the phone ) Okay. Bye. ( puts phone down )

2. Ken: ( enters wi th bag ) Hi , Fiona. How are you?( s i t s d o w n )

3 . Fiona z Hi, Ken. Are you hungry? ( Ken nods )I 'm a f ra id there 's no th ing to ea t ton igh t .I forgot to go to the shop.

4. Ken: Never mind. I went to the shop and boughtsome f ood. What r,s there to eat?

5 . F ionat WeL l , you ' re the one who went to the shop l

6 . Ken: I bought bread and cheese.

7 . Fiona z Oh thank goodness ! I shal-L make cheesesandwiches.

8 . Ken: I 'LL he lp you make them.

9 . Fiona z Al-r ight . (gets plates ) The kni fe js in thedining room.

10 . Ken : Okay . I ' l- 1, get it .( leaves whi le Fiona unpacks bread, thenreturns wi th kni fe )

1 1 . F i o n a z W e l l , c u t t h e c h e e s e .( Ken cuts the cheese, Fiona puts cheese onbread. They eat wi th obvious hunger )

38 Mwa Hiclonann & David Warden

TABLE 2 z TARGETS INSERTED IN THE DIAI,OGUES*

SCENARIO VERS ION PART UTTERANCE TYPE

CHEESE BC

BC

c

Inappropr iate quest ionDecl-arat ive direct ive

Inappropr iate assert ionWh-direct ive

Imperative directive

I I

I I I

PRES ENT I T

I I I

I

Bc

Bc

c

fnappropriate questionDeclarat ive direct ive

Inappropr iate assert ionWh-direct ive

Imperat ive direct ive

B I K E I I I

I

r r

BC

BC

C

Inappropr iate quest ionDeclarat ive direct ive

Inappropr iate asssert ionImperative directive

Wh-direct ive

*Direct ives were always appropr iate. Targets were only

inser ted in Par ts B (core exchange) and C (c losure) , neverin Part A ( background at the beginning of the f i lmedd ia logue ) .


2 , 2 P r o c e d u r e

Chi ldren were shown f i lms on a teLevis ion set and theywere asked to report what had happened in each f i lm. Theretel l ing task took the form of a game, in which thenarrator was a wiLness tel l ing what had happened to thepol ice. Chi ldren were tested in pairs and took turns inbeing witness and pol iceman/woman: chi ld 1 narrated thef i rs t f i lm, ch i ld 2 the second one, and ch i ld 1 the th i rdone. The chi ld act ing as wi tness heard the dialoguesthrough headphones which were connected to the te levis ionset, so that the chi ld act ing as pol iceman/woman could nothear the d ia logues . In add i t ion , the ch i ld ac t ing aspolicenan/woman sat behind a blackboard where helshe couldnot see the TV screen. This chi ld was equipped with aportable tape-recorder, which she switched on when thewitness made the report .

The presentat ion of the exper imental f i lms was precededby a pract ice session dur ing which the nature of the taskwas explained to the chi ldren. For th is purpose, they wereshown a short v ideo consist ing of a ser ies of br iefepisodes, each one of which contained one appropr iateutterance. Chi ldren took turns as wi tness andpol iceman/woman f or each episode. These episodes contai 'nedinstances of the fo l lowing t l rpes of events, i l lustratedi n ( 3 ) t o ( 7 ) : q u e s t i o n s s e e k i n g i n f o r m a t i o n ( c f . ( 3 ) ) ,a s s e r t i o n s p r o v i d i n g i n f o r m a t i o n ( c f . ( 4 ) ) , d i r e c t i v e s o fv a r i o u s f o r m s ( c f . ( 5 ) t o ( 7 ) ) .

( 3 ) A : W h a t t i m e i s i t ? ( B s h o w s h i m )

( 4 )

( 5 ) ( A i s p o u r i n g aA: The sugar i s

coming to v is i t tomorrow.

cup o f tea fo r se l f and B)in the cupboard . (B ge t ,s i t )

A : MyB : O h

mother is! ! ! !

( 6 ) (A s i t t ing at table wi th sheet of paper ontab le )A : G i v e m e a p e n ( B d o e s i t )

( 7 ) (A puts c igaret te in mouth )A: Where are the matches? (B gives them)


2 . 3 . S u b i e c t s

The main data base consists of 42 narrat ives producedby 28 9-year-old chi ldren of equivalent background fromtwo Glasgow pr imary schoo1s. A11 28 ch i ld ren were in the i rf i f th year o f p r imary schoo l . F ive pa i rs o f ch i ld renworked w i th Vers ion I f i lms , four pa i rs w i th Vers ion I If i l m s , a n d f i v e p a i r s w i t h V e r s i o n I I I f i l m s . F o rcompara t ive purposes , a to ta l o f 32 nar ra t i ves were a lsoco l - Iec ted f rom 16 ch i l -d ren o f 7 /8 years us ing Vers ion f If iLms. Among these chi ldren, B were in their th i rd year ofpr imary school and B in their fourth year ( there were at o t a l o f 1 6 n a r r a t i v e s i n e a c h s c h o o l g r a d e ) . '

3 . RecaI I o f the ta rqe t u t te rances

3 . 1 . Response cateqor ieg

Chi ldren's reports of the target ut terances were codedi n t e r m s o f t h r e e m a i n c a t e g o r i e s : ( a ) o m i s s i o n s , ( b )verba t im repor ts , and (c ) t rans format ions . Omiss ionsincluded cases where the chi ldren lef t out the ent i retarget ut terances from their narrat ives .5 Verbat im reportsincl-uded cases where they reported the or ig inal ut teranceexact ly or wi th minor changes. With imperat ive direct ives,verbat im reports included most ly imperat ives such as ( I ) ,as wel l as a couple of vou- imperat ives such as ( 9 ) .

(B) She went "go and ge t the kn i fe . "(Target : "Get me the kn i fe " )

( 9 ) A n d s h e s a i d " . . . y o u b e t t e r g o a n d g e t m e t h epump. "( Target: "Get me the pump " )

The th i rd response ca tegory cons is ted o f cases wherechi ldren transformed the ut terance and/or some aspect ofthe s i tua t ion in some s ign i f i can t ways . When thesetransformat ions occurred with reports of the direct ivetarget ut terances, they were of the f o l lowing f our t1r t r>es:(a ) ind i rec t ask- repor ts , (b ) more t ransparent repor ts ,( c ) d i r e c t i v e s w i t h w i I I a n d c o u l d , ( d ) r o l e r e v e r s a l .E x a m p l e s o f e a c h a r e s h o w n i n ( 1 0 ) t o ( 2 0 ) b e l o w .

( a ) i n d i r e g t r e p o r t s w i t h t h e v e r b a s k , e . 9 . , ( 1 0 ) t o( 1 2 ) ) ; "

Children reporting speech events 4I

( 10 ) The lady asked the man to get the kni fe out of thed in ing room.(Target : "The kn i fe i s in the d in ing room" )

( 11 ) She asked Char l ie to go and ge t the sc issors .( T a r g e t : " G e t m e t h e s c i s s o r s " )

( I 2 ) S h e a s k e d f o r t h e s c i s s o r s .( T a r g e t : " W h e r e a r e t h e s c i s s o r s ? " )

(b) declarat ive direct ives t ransformed into moret r a n s p a r e n t w h - q u e s t i o n s ( e . 9 . , ( 1 3 ) ) , i m p e r a t i v e s( e.g. , ( 14 ) ) , or sequences combining imperat ives wi tho t h e r u t t e r a n c e t y p e s ( e . 9 . , ( 1 5 ) t o ( 1 2 ) ) ;

( 1 3 ) A n d t h e l a d y s a i d " W h e r e ' s t h e s c i s s o r s ? "(Target : "The sc issors a re in the cupboard" )

( 1 4 ) S h e s a y s " G o a n d g e t m e t h e k n i f e . "( target : " The kni f e i s in the dining room', )

( 15 ) She went " go and get the pump, i t ' s in thecupboard. "(Target3 "The pump is in the drawer" )

(16 ) The woman says "Where , s the sc issors? , , and wasl ike that " In the cupboard " ' ,Go and get them"(Target : "The sc issors a re in the cupboard" )

( 17 ) And she sa id "Get me the sc issors . " And he sa id"Where is the sc issors?" And she sa id " fn thecupboard . "(Target : "The sc issors a re in the cupboard" )

(c )modar ized ques t ion d i rec t i ves o f the type w i lL -vou orc o u l d - y o u ( e . 9 . , ( 1 8 ) a n d ( 1 9 ) ) ;

( 1 8 ) S h e s a i d " W i l l y o u g e t m e t h e p u m p ? "(Target : "Get me the pump" )

( 19 ) She sa id "Cou1d you ge t me the sc issors? "( T a r g e t : " W h e r e a r e t h e s c i s s o r s ? " )

(d ) a role reversal , whereby the target is reportedverbat im, but at t r ibuted to the wrong character, ass h o w n i n ( 2 0 ) .


(20) He says "Oh dear , where 's the pump?"(Target : "Where is the pump?" u t te red by W)

Transformat ions of the inappropr iate quest ions andasser t ions were o f th ree types : ( a ) ro le reversa ls , ( b )mood changes, ( c ) moda l i t y changes . fn a I I cases , thetransformat ions lead to more appropr iate speech events.Examples o f each type are g iven in (2 I ) to (23) be low.Example (2I) was el ic i ted wi th the dialogue shown in tableI I in which M asks a quest ion to which he but not W

obv ious ly has the answer . Examples (22) and (23) wereel ic i ted wi th another version of th is scenar io, in whichW asserts that M bought eggs, al though she obviously doesnot have information concerning what M bought (which turnsout to be bread and cheese ) . We return to thesetransformat ions in more detai l bel-ow.

( a ) ro le reversals, whereby chi ldren reported the targetverbat im, but at t r ibuted i t to the wrong character,thereby making it appropriate, giiven the backgroundknowledge o f the two in te r locu tors ( e . g . , (2L) ) i

(21-) She said "What have you got to eat? "(Target : "What i s there to ea t?" u t te red by M)

(b)mood changes, whereby they t ransformed an inappropr iateassert ion into a quest ion that was more appropr iate,given the background knowledge of the two interlocutors( e . 9 . , w i t h c l e a r r i s i n g i n t o n a t i o n i n ( 2 2 \ ) i

(22) And the woman sa id "You bought eggs??"( Target : " You bought eggs " )

( c ) modal i ty changes, whereby they used a modaL devicewhich transformed an inappropr iate fact ive assert ioninto an appropr iate nonfact ive one, thereby making theut te rance more appropr ia te ( e . g . , ( 23 ) ) .

(23) And she sa id " f hope you haven ' t bought eg l l s "( Target ! " You bought, eggs " )

3 ,2 . Reca l l o f the aDDroDr ia te d i rec t i ves

As shown in table 3 , chi ldren's reports of theappropr iate direct ives are more or less evenLy distr ibutedacross the th ree response ca tegor ies , w i th one no tab leexcept ion a t 7 / I years : ' a t th is age ch i td ren ra re ly


recaLl-ed verbat im or omit ted declarat ive direct ives,producing instead ut terances of other types. Anong thetransformat ions that were produced at 7 / 8 years, themajor i t y (8 ins tances) cons is ted o f repor t ing dec la ra t i vedirect ives in the form of imperat ives and/or of quest ion-a n s w e r s e q u e n c e s a s i n ( 1 3 ) t o ( 1 7 ) a b o v e . A f e wtransformat ions of th is k ind were also found at 9 years,bu t they were l -ess f requent (3 ins tances) . A t th is d9e,most o f the ch i ld ren 's t rans format ions cons is ted o find i rec t repor ts conta in ing the verb ask (c f . (10) above) ,part icular ly wi th i rnperat ive direct ives (4 instances) andless f requent ly w i th ques t ion d i rec t i ves (2 ins tances) o rwith declarat ive direct ives ( 1 instance ) . Such reportsaLso occur red w i th ques t ion d i rec t i ves a t 7 / I years (4instances ) . Few of the remaining types of t ransformat ionso c c u r r e d , i . e . , c o u L d - a n d w i l l - d i r e c t i v e s ( 2 i n s t a n c e s a t9 years wi th quest ion and imperat ive direct ives,respec t ive ly ) and ro le reversa ls (on ly 1 ins tance a t 7 /8years w i th a ques t ion d i rec t i ve) .

TABLE 3: REPORTS OF TARGET DTRECTIVES*

AGE REPORT WH-QUESTION DECI,ARATIVE TMPERATTVE

9 yrs Verbat im 43tO m i s s i o n 3 6 tTransformat ion 2I*

37 .5 t37 . s t25\

33 t33 r33 t

7-8 yrs Verbat im 29*O m i s s i o n 4 8 tTransformat ion 24*

9 t1 B t7 3 *

( n . a . )

*Percentages are based on nine f i lms for the 9-year-olds

(c f . tab le 2 \ and on th ree fo r the 7 l8 -year -o lds (Vers ionsI I o f the scenar ios ) .

3 .3 . Reca l I o f the inappropr ia te ques t ions and asser t ions

As shown in table 4, verbatim reports of inappropriatequest ions and assert ions are relat ively infreguent. In

44 Mava Hicl<rnann & David Warden

add i t ion , some var ia t ions occur w i th age. fn par t i cu la r ,the 7 / B-year-olds f requently omitted both t14>es ofinappropr iate ut terances . fn contrast , the 9-year-oldsomit ted inappropr iate quest ions more frequent ly thaninappropr iate assert ions, which they also reproducedverbat im or w i th s ign i f i can t t rans format ions . Wi thinappropr ia te ques t ions , a I1 t rans format ions (3 ins tancesa t 9 y e a r s , 3 a t 7 / 8 y e a r s ) c o n s i s t e d o f r o l e r e v e r s a l s ,such as the one in example (2L) above. Suchtransformat ions were rare wi th inappropr iate assert ions(2 instances at 9 years ) r these ut terances being most lytransformed by means of mood changes ( 4 instances at 9years ) , as shown in example (22) above r or modal i tychanges (4 ins tances a t 9 years | 2 ins tances a t 7 /8years ) , as shown in ( 23 ) above. We return to thesedi f ferent t14>es of t ransformat ions below.

TABLE 4 T REPORTS OF INAPPROPRIATE QUESTIONS AND ASSERTIONS"

AGE REPORTINAPPROPRIATE

QUESTIONSINAPPROPRIATEASSERTIONS

9 yrs VerbatimOmiss ionTrans formation

6 87 5 *1 9 E

27?-33 r40 t

7 - 8 y r s Verbat imOmi s s ionTrans format ion

7 3 t27 t

1 5 t6 9 tt 5 t

*Percentages are based on s ix f i lms fo r the 9-year -o lds

(c f . tab le 2 ) and on two fo r the 7 /9 -year -o lds (PRESENTI I a n d C H E E S E I I ) .

3 . 4 . Summanr of chiLdren's recal- l -

In srunmary, children in both aqe groups omitted andtransformed both appropr iate and inappropr iate targetut terances, al though some age di f ferences emerged in th isrespec t . In the case o f the appropr ia te d i rec t i ves , some


ef fec t o f fo rm was found a t 7 and B years , bu t no t a t 9years. Thus r r ro systemat ic pattern was found in howf requent ly the 9 -year-ol-ds recal led, omit ted, andt rans formed d i f fe ren t types o f d i rec t i ves . In compar ison,the 7 and 8-year-olds f reguent ly t ransformed declarat ived i rec t i ves , bu t no t in te r rogat ive d i rec t i ves . Theset rans format ions cons is ted most ly o f rep lac ing thesed e c l - a r a t i v e u t t e r a n c e s ( e . 9 . , " t h e k n i f e i s i n t h e d i n i n groom" ) into more transparent ut terances of the fo l lowingtypes : ( a ) s imple imperat ives, in which the expecteda c t j - o n w a s m e n t i o n e d e x p l i c i t l y ( e . 9 . , " G e t t h e k n i f e " ) ;( b ) sequences of ut terances that decomposed thedeclarat ive into an imperat ive and one or more ut terancesspeci fy ing the locat ion of the requested object e i therw i t h i n a s p e a k i n g t u r n ( e . 9 . , " G e t t h e k n i f e , i t ' s i n t h ed in ing room" ) o r across speak ing tu rns (W: "Get the kn i fe "M: "Where is i t? " W: " I t ' s in the d in ing room" ) . Thesetransformat ions c lear ly show that these chi ldrenunderstand the f unct ional val-ue of these ut terances inthe context of the dialogues, but prefer to report themby means of t ransparent ut terances that present th isfunc t ionaL va lue exp l i c i t l y .

In the case of the inappropr iate target ut terances,there were more transformations at 9 years and moreomiss ions a t 7 /8 years . Th is age d i f fe rence resu l tedmainly f rom the older chi l -dren's tendency to t ransf orminappropr iate assert ions, whi le omit t ing inappropr iatequest ions, in comparison to the younger chi ldren, whotended to omit both t14>es of ut terances. In contrast tothe d i rec t i ves , then, some e f fec t o f fo rm appears a t 9years w i th these ta rge ts . In a1 l age groups , ch i ld ren 'somissions and transformat ions of these inappropr iateutterances show their sensi t iv i ty to the contextualre levance o f u t te rances . In add i t ion , bo th types o fstrategies are part of their at tempts to create globalnarrat ive coherence when report ing the conversat ions asa who l -e .

In o rder to fu r ther in te rpre t ch i ld ren 's omiss ions andtransformat ions of the inappropr iate targets in terms ofglobal coherence, i t is necessary to examine the largercontex t o f the i r nar ra t i ves . In par t i cu la r , ch i ld ren o f tenomitted and transformed not only the inappropriatetargets, but a lso other speech events which preceded andfol l -owed them. Thus, i f a dialogue contained a quest ion-answer sequence in which the quest ion was inappropr iate,ch i ld ren 's omiss ions or t rans format ions o f th is ques t ionhad consequences for how they reported the answerr ds wel- l

46 Maya Hiclonann & Davi.d Warden

as for the previous events that establ ished the relevantbackground condi t ions for the ent i re quest ion-answersequence. We therefore turn to more qual i tat ive analyseswhich examine whether chi ldren used more global strategieswhen report ing each one of the dialogues that contained aninappropr ia te u t te rance.

4. Narrat ive strategies wi th inappropr iate tarqets

The qual i tat ive analyses below focus on how chi ldrennarrated the background (Part A) and core exchange (PartB ) of the s ix dialogues that contained ei ther aninappropr iate quest ion or an inappropr iate assert ion( th ree d ia logues o f each type: , c f . tab le 2 ) . Our in te res tIies in whether and how children attempt to resolve theconversat ional inappropr iateness of the target ut teranceswhen they report the entire conversations in the f o::ur ofnarrat ives, i . e. , whether and how they report not onlythe targets, but a lso the ut terances surrounding them.

The chi ldren's narrat ives can be roughly div ided intoth ree groups : ( 1 ) in a few cases ch i ld ren reca l ledverbat im al l key background events of Part A and al l keyevents dur ing the core exchange o f Par t B ; (2 ) in a fewcases they reca l led none o f these events , reca l l ing on lythe events dur ing the c losure in Part Ci ( 3 ) in themajor i ty of narrat ives, chi ldren omit ted some of theseevents and recal led others, somet imes transforming themin s igni f icant ways. Part icular at tent ion is placed belowon the thi rd group of narrat ives, among which wedist inguish strategies which involved report ins the targetut terances with or wi thout t ransformat ions (hereafterStrategy R ) f rom those which involved omit t inq the targetu t te rances (hereaf te r S t ra tegy O) . Wi th in each o f thesebroad strategies, there were a number of var iat ions, whichwe descr ibe belowr €rs a funct ion of whether chi ldrentransformed and omit ted other key events in Parts A and B.Table 5 summarizes how the di f ferent t14>es of narrat iveswere distr ibuted in the two age groups as a funct ion oftarget type.

For each of the s ix dialogues containing inappropr iatetarget utterances, r^re f irst present and summarize the keyevents of the background and core exchange ( Parts A andB), d i f ferent iat ing backqround ut terances that precededthe inappropriate target and subseguent utterances thatimmedia te ly fo l lowed i t be fore the c losure (Par t C) . Wethen br ief ly summarize the chi ldren's report ings t r a t e g i e s .


TABLE 5: NARRATIVE STRATEGIES WITH oDD DIALOGUES*

AGE REPORTS OF DIALOGUES WTTH ODDP A R T S A & B Q U E S T I O N S A S S E R T I O N S

9 yrs AItNoneSome/Strategy RSome,/Strategy O

) ir7 5 t

7 t

6 0 t33 r

7 /B y rs A I INoneSome/Strategy RSorne/Strategy O

) ir7 3 2

2323 1 t1 5 t3 1 t

t"';;;.";"; ;-;;;;;-; i;-r-i-i;" -;;;-;;-

r:;;------ "( cf . table 2 ) and on rwo f or the 7 /A--y";r]"ial ( cHEEsEI I , PRESENT I I ) .

ALL: ulJ-key events in parts A & B are reported verbat in.None: _ar l key events in parts A & B are omit tedSomeZStrateqr O: some key_s

".r"rrt" in parts A/B arereported verbatim or transtormed, but the inappropriatetarget is omit ted.

Somg/Strateqv R 3 some key eventsverbatim or transformed, amongtarge t .

4 ' 1 ' 1 ' G H E E S E - g c e n a r i o ( v e r s i o n r ) . T h e e x c e r p t i n ( 2 4 )shows the sequence-o?Ecigrourra an& subsequent utterancessurrounding the target question 1 arso see tabre 1 ) . Giventhe precedinq backgronnd utterances, and as highl ighted byllt". r-llseque-nt utferances, it is ,rrrr"a"onabre to assumethat M's question is a genuine ."g,. ."t for information,because onty M can answer i t .

in Parts a/g are reportedwhich the inappropriate

48 Mava Hiclqnann & David Warden

( 2 4 ) C H E E S E r

BACKGROUND 1

BACKGROUND 2

TARGET

SUBSEQUENT 1

SUBSEQUENT 2

M :

M :

There is no th ing to ea t .I forgot to go to the shop.

f went to the shop. I got some food.

What rs there to eat?

W: But you're the one who went to shopl

M: I bought bread and cheese.

Six 9-year-old chi ldren reported this dialogue. Thro ofthem reported the target ( Strategy R ) and four omitted it( Strategy O ) . Both of the children who reported the targetresol-ved the probJ,em by adopt ing a role-reversal solut ion.A s s h o w n i n e x a m p l e s ( 2 5 ) a n d ( 2 6 ) , t h i s s o l u t i o nconsisted in at t r ibut ing the quest ion to the \ roman, whomight reasonably be seeking the informat ion ( in al lexamples below the reported targets are shown in bold ) .Both chi ldren achieved further consistency by means ofaddi t ional- changes in the dialogues. Both also omit ted thewoman's exclamat ion that immediately fo l lowed the target,so that the second subsequent ut terance now const i tutesthe man's appropr iate anslrer to the woman's appropr iateques t ion . In add i t ion , as shown in (26) , one ch i ldreported the target quest ion twice, once with a rolereversal ( "What have you got to eat? " ) and once beforewithout role reversal , but as part of the backgroundcond i t ions , where i t i s appropr ia te ( "What 's fo rd i n n e r ? " ) .

(25) There was this man and woman and she was in thehouse and then she just came off the phone and aman came in and he sa id " f 'm hungry" . And she sa idshe was hungry but there was no food left. But hehad brought some food and she asked him what thefood was and he said that he had bought bread andc h e e s e . I I I S c o t | - / 9 )


(26) She 's speak ing on the phone and she says "bye" andthen and then and then this man came in and thenhe went and sat down and said "What'6 for dinner? , 'and she says " f ' ve go t noner r lo food, so \ ^ re canr thave anything to eat. " And he says " I went down tothe shops. " And then she said "I{t lat have you gotto eat? " And he said " f 've g,ot bread and cheese . , ,

t . . . l I S u z a n n e / 9 ]

Among the four children who omitted the inappropriatetarget, three achieved further consistency by alsoomitting the immediately subsequent utterance. Examplesare shown in (27 ) and ( 28 ) .

(27) F i rs t l y , the lady was s i t t ing a t the tab le and theman came in and the lady said "Are you hungry? "and the man -- and the lady said there was no foodIef t to eat and the man said he went and boughtsome food, bread and cheese, and they had cheeses a n d w i c h e s . t . . . 1 [ J a n / 9 ]

( 28 ) This lady was on a phone and a man came in and shesays "Are you hungry?" And she says "There,s nof o o d . " A n d t h e n h e s a y s " T h a t , s a l r i g h t , f , v ebrought some with me " and he took cheese and al - o a f o u t o f h i s b a g . t . . . l [ C a m p b e l l / 9 ]

As shown in (29) , the four th ch i ld revea led her d i f f i cu l tyby omit t ing I*1 ' s odd quest ion , but then report ing W, ssubsequent ut.terance ( " I thought, you were the one who wentto the shop" ) . As a resu l t , the nar ra t i ve i s odd. Notethat such odd narrat ives were very rare in the presents a m p l e s .

(29) Th is man Ken came in . The lady says "you must behungry. " And he says "Yes I am" and she says "Ohw e l l t h e r e ' s n o f o o d . " H e s a y s " I t d o e s n , t m a t t e ranyhray , I ' ve go t some in the sack . " She sa id " Ithought you were the one who went to the shop. " Sohe brought b read and cheese. t . . . I ;Karen/91

4 . 1 . 2 . P R E S E N T s c e n a r i o ( V e r s i o n I I ) . T h e s e q u e n c e o fbackground and subsequent utterances surrounding thetarget quest ion in th is scenar io is shown in ( 30 ) . Onceaga in the ques t ion is inappropr ia te , s ince i t i sunreasonabl-e to suppose that the man does not know whatpresent he has bought and/Dr that he expects the woman toknow.

50 Maya Hiclcrnann & David Warden

( 3 0 ) P R E S E N T r r

BACKGROUND 1 [M comes in holding a present behind hisback l

BACKGROUND 2 M: Here js a surprise present I have boughtfor your birthday. Igives present]

TARGET M: I 'm so cur ious . What i s i t? What i s i t?

SUBS EQUENT I{ : I have no idea .

Sixteen chi ldren narrated this f i lm, f ive 9-year-oldsand eleven 7 / 9-year-o1ds . Four chi ldren reported thetarge t ques t ion "What i s i t? " w i th a s ign i f i can ttransformat ion ( Strategy R ) and the remaining twelvech i ld ren omi t ted i t (S t ra tegy O) . A l l the ch i ld ren whoused Strategy R reported the quest ion wi th a rolereversal , whereby they ascr ibed this ut terance to thewoman, and they maintained further coherence by omittingher subsequent utterance " I have no idea " . Examples areshown in the excerpts ( 31 ) and (32\ produced by a 7-year-o l "d and a 9-year -o ld , respec t ive ly .

( 3 1 ) S h e s a i d " H u 1 l o , C h a r l i e " a n d h e s a i d " I ' v e g o t asurpr ise present for you. " She said " I fhat is i t?"and he sa id " I t ' s a p resent fo r your b i r thday . "And she took i t . t I I P e t e r / 7 ]

( 32 ) A man came in with a present and the lady said"Yfhat is it? " And then the man said " Open it " ands h e o p e n e d i t a n d i t w a s a b e r e t . t . . . I [ L a u r a / 9 ]

A11 of the twelve children who used Strategy O omittedboth I '1 's inappropr iate quest ion and W's subsequent reply( " I have no idea" ) . Th is s t ra tegy is i l l us t ra ted in the7 - y e a r - o l d ' s n a r r a t i v e ( 3 3 ) a n d i n t h e 8 - y e a r - o l d ' sn a r r a t i v e ( 3 4 ) .

Chidren reporting speech events 51

( 33 ) I t was the lady's bir thday and the man got her asurpr ise present and she sa id "The sc issors a re inthe cupboard" and the man sa id " f '11 go and ge tthem. " So he went and got them and the Iady openedup her present. Then she put i t on and then shewanted a mirror so the man got i t . And then sheI o o k e d i n i t a n d t h a t w a s a I I . [ J u 1 i e / 7 ]

( 34 ) They were in this kind of room thing and there wasthis man and the lady. I t was the lady's bir thdayand the man was hiding a present behind his backand gave i t to the lady. The lady said "Thank you"and thingrmy. And the man said " Open it " and shesa id and the lady sa id "Where 's the sc issors?"and the man went and got them. She opened it andi t was a hat, a black hat and she put the blackhat on and she looked really funny and the manwent and got the mirror to see for the lady tos e e w h a t s h e L o o k e d l i k e . I D e b b i e / 8 ]

4 . 1 . 3 . B I K E s c e n a r i o ( V e r s i o n I I I ) . T h e s e q u e n c e o f e v e n t sand ut terances surrounding the target quest, ion in th isscenario is shown in ( 35 ) . Given the preceding backgropndcond i t ions , i t i s unreasonab le to assume tha t the man 'squest ion "How did that happen? " is a s incere request forinformat ion, s ince he knows qui te wel l what happened. Thisquest ion is therefore inappropr iate f rom the point of v iewof informat ion exchange, al though one possibleinterpretat ion is that the man is "cover ing up" for h isear l - ie r deed by f e ign ing ignorance. In th is case W'ssubsequent assert ion can be interpreted as an accusat ionbased on a good guess and M's subsequent ques t ion as ani r n p l i c i t d e n i a l o f t h i s a c c u s a t i o n .

( 3 5 ) B I K E I I I

BACKGROUND 1

BACKGROUND 2

TARGET

SUBSEQUENT 1

SUBSEQUENT 2

[ M d e f l a t e s t y r e o n W ' s b i c y c ] e i n W ' sabsence l

W: I[y bike has a f ]-at tyre .

M: How did that happen?

W : Y o u L e t t h e a i r o u t .

M: Who, me?

52 Mava Hickrnann & David Warden

Five 9-year-ol-ds narrated this f i lm. Only one of themreported the target quest ion ( Strategy R ) and ther e m a i n i n g f o u r o m i t t e d i t ( S t r a t e g y O ) . A s s h o w n i n ( 3 6 ) ,the chiLd who used Strategy R seems to convey the not ionof de fense and prosecut ion in the d ia logue, i . e . , them a n ' s f e i g n e d i g n o r a n c e ( " H o w ' s t h a t ? " ) i s f o l l o w e d b y a naccusat ion f rom the woman ( " Because you let the air outo f i t " ) .

(36) The man was, I th ink , was le t t ing the a i r ou t thewheels. And the wife came in, the lady came in andshe had a plant and she put it down and I think itwas on top of a cupboard. And then he was gonny goout a r ide, a r ide and she asked him could she gowi th h im and then, and then, and then he sa id " f 'mg o i n g t o t h e r i v e r " a n d s h e s a i d " I ' I I c o m e , I ' I lcome wi th you. " She goes " f ' ve go t a f }a t t y re . "He goes "Ho\r 's that?" She goes "Because you lett h e a i r o u t o f i t . " t . . . I [ K a r e n / 9 J

The conrmon strategy among the children who usedStrategy O was to report some or al l background events, toomit M's quest ion, and to proceed immediately wi th W'ssubsequent u t te rance. In the excerp t (37) , W's backgroundand subsequent utterances become part of the sarne speakingturn, forming together an accusat ion ( " she said her tyrewas let down and i t was her husband who let i t down" ) ,which is fo l , lowed by a denial" on the part of I ,1 ("Whom e ? " ) .

( 3 7 ) T h e m a n w a s f i x i n g . . . I e t t i n g t h e a i r o u t o f t h ebike and he went of f to get his bike and the ladycame in wi th a plant, put i t on the table. And theman came in wi th his bike, said he was going tothe water and the lady sa id she ' l l come too . Andshe said her tyre was let down and it was herhusband. who let it down. And the husband said "Whom e ? " t . . . 1 [ R o b e r L / 9 ]

In the excerpt ( 38 ) , the chi ld resol-ves the problem dueto M 's odd ques t ion by omi t t ing no t on ly th is ques t ion ,bu t a lso a l l key events w i th the except ion o f W'ssubsequent u t te rance . For example , the ch i ld does no tment ion the fac t tha t M def la tes W's ty re a t the beg inn ingof the f i lm and does no t repor t h is den ia l a f te r W'su t te rance .


(38) WeI l there was th is man and he was look ing a t th isbike. And the woman came in wi th a plant and puti t over on the table. The man went and broughtanother bike and he said he was going to ther iver. And then the woman sayd "Can I come withyou? " And then she went and looked at her bike andshe says "You let out the air . " The woman says" T h e p u m p ' s i n t h e d r a w e r . " . . . T h e n s h e a s k e d t h eman to pump up the tyre . I I"Ii che 1 le / 9 ]

4 .2 . D ia loques w i th inappropr ia te asser t ions

4 . 2 . 1 . C H E E S E s c e n a r i o ( V e r s i o n I I ) . A s s h o w n i n ( 3 9 ) ,th is version of the CHEESE scenar io begins in the sameway as Vers ion I in (24) . In th is case, however , Par t Bcontains a speaking turn in which W asserts that M boughteggs . G iven the background cond i t ions , i t i s unreasonab lefo r W to in f o rm I { o f what he bought . Th is asser t ion istherefore inappropr iate, unless one assumes ei ther thatW is guessing what M bought or expressing the hope thathe did not buy eggs. The second interpretat ion isencouraged by her subsequent assertion that she does notl ike eggs. M then denies having bought eggs and informsW that he has bought bread and cheese

53

( 3 9 ) C H E E S E r r

BACKGROUND 1 W:

BACKGROUND 2 M:

TARGET W:

SUBSEQUENT M:

There :"s nothing to eat.I forgot to go to the shop.

I went to the shop.I got some food.

You bought eggs . I don' t l-ike eggs .

N o , I d i d n ' t .Actual ly, I bought bread and cheese.

A to ta l - o f 18 nar ra t i ves were e l i c i ted w i th th is f i lmf rom f i ve 9 -year -o lds and th i r teen 7 /8-year -o lds . Fourchi ldren reported the target assert ion wi th somet rans format ions (S t ra tegy R) , and s ix ch i l -d ren omi t ted i t(S t ra tegy O) . The remain ing ch i l -d ren e i ther reca l led a l lk e y e v e n t s ( f o u r c a s e s ) o r n o n e o f t h e m ( f o u r c a s e s ) . T h echi ldren who reported the target assert ion t ransformed i t

54 Mava Hiclonann & Davi"d Warden

in two ways that made it appropriate. One type oft ransformat ion, that was used by two 9-year-olds,consisted of changing the assert ion into an interrogat iveb y m e a n s o f a w h - q u e s t i o n i n ( 4 0 ) ( " W h a t d i d y o u b u y ? " ) o rby means o f r i s ing in tonat ion , as shown in (41) ( "You buye g g s ? ? I d o n ' t l i k e e g e l s " ; a l s o s h o w n i n ( 2 2 ) a b o v e ) .

(40) Wel l , the woman was in her house and she put downthe phone and the man came in from work and thewoman sa id "Sor ry , there 's no th ing fo r your tea . "But the man said "Don' t worry, I bought some. " Andthe wonErn said "What did you buy? " And the mansaid he bought some bread and cheese. t . . . ll enn /9 l

( 4 I ) The woman was on the phone talking to somebody andthe man came in and the woman said " I never wentto the shops . " And the man said " I went to theshops. " And she said "You buy eggs?? I don't I ikeeggs. " And the man sa id " f ' ve no t bought eggs ,I ' v e b o u g h t c h e e s e a n d b r e a d . " t . . . 1 [ P e t e r / 9 1

The other type of transformation, that was used by two 7-year-olds, consisted of adding modal devices to thefact ive assert ion in order to change i t into a nonfact iveone. These dev ices mark the express ion o f a fa lse be l ie fi n ( 4 2 ) ( " t h e l a d y t h o u g h t i t w a s e g g s " i n ( 4 2 \ ) a n d o fa h o p e i n ( 4 3 ) ( " I h o p e y o u h a v e n ' t b o u g h t e g g s c o s Idon ' t l i ke e l lgs " ; a lso shown in ( 23 ) above ) .

(42) The lady was on the phone and she sa id "A l I r igh t ,cheer io " and a man comes in and says "HuI Io ,Fiona. " He was hungry but the lady had nothing toeat. So he had brought some things in and thelady thought i t was eggs and he said i t wasn' t , hesaid i t was bread and cheese, and i t was . t . . . lI Audrey/ 7 ]

(43) The man came in and she said "are you hungry?" andhe sa id "S tarv ing t " And she sa id " f 'm sor ry , bu tI ' m a f r a i d t h e r e ' s n o t h i n g t o e a t . " A n d t h e m a nwent " Oh wel1 , never mind, I bought some Iwent shopping" and she said "I hope you haven'tbought eggs, 'cos I don' t l ike eggs" and he said" I h a v e t ' t , I b o u g h t s o m e b r e a d a n d c h e e s e . " [ . . . ]I Cather rne / 7 ]

Note tha t ch i ld ren a lso changed o ther aspec ts o f thed ia logues to ach ieve fu r ther coherence. For example , in

ChiMren reporting speech events 55

(40) the ch i l -d omi ts M 's subsequent den ia l , resu l t ing inan appropr ia te ques t ion-answer sequence. S imi la r ly , in(42) M 's subsequent u t te rances are fo l lowed by a conmenton the part of the chi ld concerning the truth value oft h i s r e p l y i n r e l - a t i o n t o W ' s f a l s e b e l i e f ( " h e s a i d i twasn ' t , he sa id i t was bread and cheese, and i t was " ) .

When chi ldren omit ted the target assert ion ( s ix 9-year-olds and four 8-year-olds ) , they also omit ted theden ia l in M 's subsequent u t te rance. As i l l us t ra ted ine x a m p l e s ( 4 4 ) a n d ( 4 5 ) , t h e r e s u l t i n g s e q u e n c e s a r eappropr ia te , i .€ . , M 's subsequent speak ing tu rn becomes acont inuat ion o f background u t te rance 2z in example (44)the ut terance " I 've already got food in the bag " isf o l - L o w e d b y " I ' v e g o t b r e a d a n d c h e e s e " ; i n e x a m p l e ( 4 5 )the u t te rance "That 's OK cos I ' ve bought some food" i sfol lowed by "he had brought bread and cheese. "

(44) There was a woman and thingmy, she was just af terbeing on the phone when this man came over to herand she said "Oh no, I forgot to go to the shops. "He said "Never mind, I 've already got food in theb a g . " A n d h e t h e n s a i d " I ' v e g o t b r e a d a n d l " v egot cheese " and then he put them out on the table.t . . . 1 [ l " I a r i l y n / 8 ]

(45) Th is lady was s i t t ing in the house and she wasphoning and this man came in. She said to him " Ihaven' t been to the shops today" and he says"That 's OK cos I ' ve bought some food. " And he hadb r o u g h t b r e a d a n d c h e e s e . t . . . I [ l a c k i e / 9 ]

4 . 2 . 2 . P R E S E N T s c e n a r i o ( V e r s i o n I I I ) . A s s h o w n i n ( 4 6 ) ,Part A of th is f i lm begins in the same way as Part A ofvers ion I I in ( 30 ) w i th the except ion tha t M 'sinappropr ia te ques t ion "What i s i t? " in (30) becomes anappropriate background utterance in ( 4 5 ) , when uttered byW. In her next speaking turn, however, W produces thetarge t u t te rance " I t ' s a p ink d ress " , wh ich is aninappropr ia te asser t ion o f fac t , un less i t i s in te rpre teda s a ( w r o n g ) g u e s s o n h e r p a r t .


( 4 6 ) P R E S E N T I I I

BACKGROUND 1

BACKGROUND

BACKGROUND

BACKGROUND

TARGET

SUBSEQUENT

2 .

[M comes in holding a present behind hisback l

IvI: I bought a present f or you .

W: I 'm so cur ious . What r .s i t? What - r ,s i t ,?

Open i t .

I t ' s a p i n k d r e s s .

M : B u t y o u h a v e n ' t s e e n w h a t ' s i n s i d e t

M :

W :

Five narrat ives were el ic i ted f rom 9-year-olds wi ththis dialogue. Two chi ldren reported the target assert ionwith some transformat ion (Strategy R) and three omit ted i t(Strategy O). Both of the chi ldren who adopted StrategyR transformed the assert ion into a quest ion ( " Is i t a pinkdress? " ) , thereby making it more appropriate, given thebackground condi t ions . Note that , unless th is quest ion isinterpreted as the expression of a hope on the part of W,i t presupposes that she has some background knowledge,i . e . , s o m e r e a s o n t o m a k e s u c h a s p e c i f i c g u e s s ( a sopposed to a wh--quest ion ) . As shown in ( 47 ) , one of thechi ldren fel t the need to draw at tent ion to the dispar i tybetween this guess and the woman's knowledge by nodi fy ings u b s e q u e n t e v e n t s i n t h e d i a l o g u e s , i . € . , w i t h a s e q u e n c ec o n s i s t i n g o f M ' s q u e s t i o n ( " H o w d o y o u k n o w ? " ) a n d W ' sa n s w e r ( " I d o n ' t k n o w " ) .

(47 ) There was a man and he brought th is lady apresent. The Iady says "What is i t? " and the mansays "Open i t up." So the lady said " Is i t a pinkdress?" And the man says "How do you know?" andt h e l a d y s a i d " I d o n ' t k n o w . " S o s h e s a i d t o t h eman "Cou ld you ge t me the sc issors?" So he wentand got the scissors and she cut the paper up andi t w a s a h a t . [ G r e g / 9 ]

When chi l -dren omit ted the target assert ion, they alsoomit ted other key events in Parts A and B. As i l lustratedin examples ( 48 ) and ( 49 ) , these narrat ives began withbackground cond i t ions (M g iv ing the present to W) , thenproceeded immediately wi th the c losure in Part C of the

d ia logue

( 4 8 )

Children reporcing speech events 57

( in which W opens the present ) .

Charl-ie came in and he gave the lady the presentand she sa id "Thank you very much, Char l ie . " Andthen she asked for the scissors and Charl ie wentand got the scissors. And she cut i t open andCharl ie said " Happy birthday " to her . 1 f,ynn/ 9 l

There was a man and a lady and the man's name wasCharl- ie and the lady's name was ehm. . . I th ink i twas Sylv ia. And the man came in wi th a surpr iseb i r thday present . And tghe lady sa id " I 'm socur ious . " And she went Where 's the sc issors?" Andthe man and Char l - ie sa id " I ' I l j us t go and ge tthem. " And Charl ie got the scissors and she openedi t u p . t . . . 1 [ P a m e l a / 9 )

( 4e )

4 . 2 . 3 . B I K E s c e n a r i o ( V e r s i o n I ) As was the case withV e r s i o n I I I i n ( 3 5 ) , P a r t A o f ( 5 0 ) e s t a b l i s h e s t h a t Md e f l a t e s W ' s t y r e . I n c o n t r a s t t o ( 3 5 ) , h o w e v e r , W , squest ion "How did that happen? " in ( 50 ) is now anappropr iate part of the background. M's assert ion thatW's tyre has a puncture is inappropr iate, g iven that heis respons ib le fo r the deed, un less i t i s assumed o fcourse that he is " cover ing up " for h is deed andintent ional ly }y ing . W then denies lv l ' s assert ion, butw i t h o u t c h e c k i n g i t s v a l i d i t y ( e . 9 . , s h e h a s n o t y e tIooked a t the ty re ) , so tha t th is den ia l i s a lsoinappropr ia te , un less i t i s assumed tha t she has guessedM ' s d e e d .

( 5 0 ) B r K E r

BACKGROUND 1.

BACKGROUND 2.

BACKGROUND 3.

TARGET

SUBSEQUENT 1 .

SUBSEQUENT 2 .

I M def ] -ates tyre on W' s bicycle in W' sabsence l

l*l: Your bike has a f Lat tyre .

W: How did that happen?

I v l : I d o n ' t k n o w . I t ' s a p u n c t u r e .

W : N o , i t ' s n o t a p u n c t u r e .

M: How do you know?


Five narrat ives were el- ic i ted f rom 9 -year-ords wi ththis dialogue. Arr of the chi ldren repor ied the targetassert ion ( strategy R ) and omit ted the subsequentut terance 2 . However, wi th the except ion of iheseregurar i t ies , ch i ld ren 's s t ra teg ies in repor t ing thetarget and other key events of the background and coreexchange ( Parts A and B ) varied somewhat. An exampre isshowl - in . (s1) : Th is ch i rd adopts a ro le reversa l s t ra tegyra t t r ibu t ing the ta rge t asser t ion to w ( "she sa id she n laa puncture " ) and omits all background events and arrsubsequent ut terances, proceeding direct ly to the c losure( Part C ) . The resul t is somewhat odd.

( 51 ) There was this lady and she came in wi th th isplant and she was shiver ing so she took of f hercoat and put the plant down* and then and thenthis man came. He was ca1led Hamish. And hebrought h is b ike and he says " I ,m go ing down tothe r iver and-- and-- and i tn in:< ha said "wourd.you rike to . " No. she said she had a puncture. Andshe said "WiIl you get me the pump'i and she waspumping i t up. That , s i t . I Suzanne/ 9 )

The narrat ive (52) shows a di f ferent strategy. Thechi ld descr ibes the f i rst background condi t ion ( t I det latestyre ) , at t r ibutes the target assert ion and backgroundutterances 2 and 3 to l , I , a l r wi th in the same speakingturn , then proceeds with w' s subsequent ut terJnce 1, ;omi t t ing M 's subsequent u t te rance 2 .

(52) There was this man and he was putt ing down a tyre.And this lady patr ic ia came in. And the man, s namewas Neesh. And she came in wi th a plant. And hecame back and he sa id " r 'm jus t go ing down w i thh is own b ike" and he says " I ,m go ing dbwn jus t tothe river for a ride on my bike . She says ; Oh I , d.l-ike to come with you . " And he says ;WeU, yousee, you've got a puncture on your tyre. ft,sdown, see. However can that be?" And she says "Ohthat ' s no t a punc ture . " so he gave her th is b igthing over and she put i t up and that was the lasif s e e n o f i t .

The remaining three narrat ives consisted. of report ing-th"- target as sert ion , but omit t ing w, s precedinfbackground ques t ion . Th is s t ra tegy is i l - rus t ra ted in (53) :A var ia t ion cons is ted o f t rans forming the ta rge t s l i lh t i ywith a modal- construct ion r ds shown in ( 54 )- ( " r t lookil " ike a puncture " ) . Another var iat ion coni isted of


at t r ibu t ing M's background u t te rance 2 to W ( "She sa id' O h i t ' s g o t a f l a t t y r e " ) .

(53) The man came in and he let the lady's tyres downon her bike. And then the lady came in with aplant and put i t on the table. Then the man said" I 'm going on a bike r ide, would you l ike tocome? " And the lady said "yes " , And then the mans a i d " O h n o y o u c a n ' t , y o u ' v e g o t a f l a t t y r e . "And then the lady fel-t the tyre and she saw it wasa f lat tyre. And the nan said " I t 's a puncture."And the lady sa id "No, i t ' s no t , b r ing me thep u m p . " t . . . I I C r a i g / 9 ]

( 54 ) There was this man and he was beside this bike andhe let down the front tyre on the bike. Then hew e n t a w a y . t . . . 1 H e s a i d " Y o u r b i k e ' s g o t a f l a ttyre. " He said " It looks l ike a puncture. " And shesa id "No, tha t ' s no t a punc ture . You be t te r go andget me the pump. " [Scot t /9 ]

5 . D i s c u s s i o n

The aim of th is study was to examine var iat ions in howchildren between ? and 9 years of age report conversationsin narrat ives as a funct ion of the forms andappropr iateness of the reported ut terances. Analyses ofthe narrat ives were presented, wi th part icular at tent ionto whether chi ldren reported, t ransformed , or omit tedappropr iate and inappropr iate ut terances r ds wel l as otherevents that preceded and folLowed them. The resul ts showthat the chi ldren are sensi t ive to the funct ional value ofut terances and to their appropr iateness, al though theirreport ing strategies change with age.

The e f fec t o f fo rm on ch i ld ren 's repor ts can be f i rs texamined by comparing their reports of three types ofappropr iate direct ives : imperat ives , declarat ives, !&.-ques t ions . The 9-year -o l -ds ' repor ts , omiss ions , andtransformat ions were randomly distr ibuted amongimpera t ives , dec la ra t i ves , and ques t ions . In cont ras t ,the 7 / B-year-o1ds tended to t ransform declarat ived i rec t i ves ( "The kn i fe i s in the d in ing room") most ly byrepor t ing them as impera t ives ( "Get the kn i fe " ) , in wh ichthe requested ac t ion was ment ioned exp l i c i t l y , o rsomet imes in conjunct ion wi th other ut terances, whichrequested or provided the locat ion of the requested object( " G e t t h e k n i f e , i t ' s i n t h e d i n i n g r o o m " ) . A l t h o u g h t h e s e

60 Mrya Hicl<rnann & David Warden

t ransformat ions show that chi ldren understood thefunc t iona l vaLue o f dec la ra t i ve d i rec t i ves , they a lsoindicate their preference for more transparent reports ofthese u t te rances . Some add i t iona l ev idence f rom ch i ld ren 'sreca l- l- of utterances other than the targets ( whi chrandomly included imperatives among other speech events )indicates that imperatives were frequently reportedverbat im, occasional ly omit ted, but rarely t ransformed.I f th is pattern is conf i rmed with a larger sample ofnarrat ives, i t would indicate young chi ldren's reluctanceto report re lat ively nontransparent direct ives as suchand their preference for reports that present theirfunc t iona l va lue more t ransparent ly ,

The ef fects of both form and appropr iateness can bealso examined by comparing chi ldren' s reports of thefol lowing types ut terances, both of which wereinappropr iate f rom the point of v iew of informat ionexchange: declarat ives which were inappropr iately used tomake an asser t ion ( e . g . , because the speaker cou ld no tknow the asserted informat ion) and quest ions which wereinappropr iately used to seek informat ion (because thespeaker already knew the informat ion and,/or could notexpect the inter locutor to know i t ) . The resul tsconcerning these inappropr iate target ut terances can besummarized as f o l - l -ows. First , there was a general tendencyto omit guest ions more frequent)-y than assert ions whenthey were inappropr iate. Second, th is tendency was moremarked among the 9-year-olds than among the 7 / 9-year-o lds , who tended to omi t bo th types o f u t te rances . Th i rd ,when inappropr iate quest ions and assert ions were reported,they were of ten t ransformed by means of var ioust rans format ions . In th is respec t , inappropr ia te ques t ionstended to be transformed more often by means of rolereversals, whi le inappropr iate assert ions tended to betransformed more of ten by changes in mood or modal i ty.Final ly, chi ldren of ten omit ted or t ransformed not onlythe inappropr iate targets, but a lso other events thatpreceded and fol lowed them in the dialogues, in such a waythat the resul t ing sequence was appropr iate.

The spec i f i c s t ra teg ies used w i th each d ia logueindicate that , when confronted with declarat ive andinterrogat ive ut terances that are odd from the point ofv iew of informat ion exchange, chi ldren between 7 and 9years of age make the dialogue appropr iate in one of twoways. Some strategies consist of adapt ing the speech eventso that i t is appropr iate f rom the point of v iew ofinformat ion exchange ( e . g . , by changing the form of the

Children reporting speech events 6 l

ut te rance or i t s cond i t ions o f use) . Other s t ra teg iesconsist of at t r ibut ing to the speech event anotherfunc t iona l va lue ins tead o f o r in add i t ion toinformat ion exchange. This second type of strategyinvoLves subordinat ing the representat ive component ofu t te rances to o ther func t ions o f language (e .9 . , p lay inga t r i ck , accus ing , guess ing , d i rec t ing , express ing af e a r ) .

These strategies show a certain sensi t iv i ty to therelat ions among forms and funct ions in context at 7 to 9years of age. The data al-so show that the 9-year-olds tendto t ransform odd ut terances more of ten than the youngerchi ldren, who tend to omit them. Relat ive cogni t ivecomplexi ty might explain to some extent th is di f ferent ia luses o f omiss ion vs . t rans format ion s t ra teg ies a t 7 /8versus 9 years . Thus , omiss ions sure ly cons t i tu te asimpler type of strategy than transformat ions, s ince theydo not require changes from one type of form-function-context re lat ion to another more appropr iate one. Thisresul t , then, would suggest that the younqler chi ldren canbe sensi t ive to the oddness of some utterances in contextbefore they are able to transform them in order to rnakethem more appropr iate.

Rel-at , ive complexi ty might al-so be related to thedi f ferent ia l pat tern that was found with inappropr iateasser t ions versus ques t ions . Thus , ch i l -d ren 's s t ra teg ieswhen report ing inappropr iate targets var ied not only wi thd9€, bu t a lso w i th u t te rance t14>es. In par t i cu la r , thefact that there were fewer omissions and moretransformat ions at 9 years than at 7 /B years is mainlydue to the ol-der chi ldren's tendency to t ransf orminappropr iate assert ions, whi l -e they omit ted inappropr iatequest ions l ike the 7 /8-year-olds. These transformat ionsnost ly operated on mood and modal i ty, both of whichrequire fa i r ly complex not ions and I inguist ic devicesrel-ated to both presupposi t ion and subject iv i ty, such asthe fac t i ve vs . nonfac t ive proper t ies o f u t te rances andspeakers ' express ion o f the i r a t t i tudes , inc lud ing t ,he i rassessments o f t ru th in re la t ion to the i r ep is temics ta tes . As d iscussed prev ious ly , such no t ions have beenshown to develop gradual ly and to be ful ly acquired at are la t i ve ly la te age.

In addi t ion to cogni t ive complexi ty, a number of otherfac to rs may p lay a ro le in how ch i ld ren se lec t var iousnarrat ive strategies. Among them, the extent to whichdi f ferent ut terances advance the plot l ine may account


for the l - ikel ihood with which they wi l l be omit ted f romch i ld ren 's nar ra t i ves . Th is fac to r may indeed account no tonly for the relat ively high frequency with which chi ldrenoni t ted inappropr iate quest ions in comparison toasser t ions , bu t a lso fo r the i r omiss ions o f o therut terances in the narrat ives, including some appropr iatequest ions. For example, the appropr iate version of theCHEESE scenar io (Version I I I ) contained the fol lowingsequence of events: the man asserted " I went to the shop,I got some food " , then the woman asked "What did youbuy? " , to which the man replied " I bought bread andcheese. " Al though W's guest ion was an appropr iateutterance seeking informat ion, chi ldren of ten omit ted th isques t ion , repor t ing on ly the man 's u t te rances . As is o f tenthe case in many everyday conversat ions, the quest ion inthis exchange is not essent ia l for the referent ia l contentor plot l ine per s€r but rather acts as a l ink between twoassert ions across speaking turns and thereby maintainsinterpersonal contact between the two interlocutors. Itwas therefore guite natural for children to omit thequest ion. More general ly, i t is probable that the extentto which utterances are central to the main story l ine andcontr ibute new informat ion wi l l af fect what chi ldrenreport and omit , part icular ly when the narrat ive s i tuat ionfocuses on completeness and accuracy of content ( in th iscase, a s i tuat ion involv ing a wi tness and the pol ice ) .

The degree to which utterances are informative andcontr ibute to the unfolding of the plot l ine in anarrat ive may also part ly account for why chi ldren'stranformat ions di f fer wi th inappropr iate quest ions andasser t ions . Thus , s ince asser t ions bear more we igh t fo rproposi t ional content in narrat ive s i tuat ions such as thepresent one, it is probable that they involve a strongerassociat ion wi th their speaker. That is, in comparison toquest ions, assert ions might be more strongly associatedwith the person that has the necessary backgroundknowledge and therefore role reversals might be awkwardwi th these u t te rances . Indeed, reca l l tha t ch i ld ren ' smod i f i ca t ions o f the inappropr ia te asser t ions cons is ted o fchanges in mood and modal i ty, whi le their modif icat ions ofthe inappropr iate quest ions (which v/ere relat ivelyinfrequent ) a lways consisted of ro le reversals . The formertype of t ransformat ion invol-ves a modif icat ion in theI ingu is t i c fo rm o f the u t te rance ( in tonat ion , word order ,wh-element, matr ix c lauses with modal verbs, etc . ) . Incontrast , ro le reversals do not involve such changes, butrather a sort of "perspect ive shi f t " , whereby theutterance i tsel f remains unchanged, but is at t r ibut ted to


the inter l -ocutor who has the appropr iate epistemic state.

An overall pattern that emerges from the present studyis that chi ldren show both some sensi t iv i ty to contextualrelevance when confronted with inappropriate speech eventsand some abil ity to create narrative coherence when theyare asked to report such speech events . Thus, chi ldrenwiII endeavour to have the j-r reports "make sense " duringthe narrat ives and consequent ly they wi l l omit ort ransform utterances to that end, including not only theinappropr iate targets, but a lso var ious ut terancessurrounding them in the f i lmed conversat ions. In th isrespectr w€ saw that omissions and transformat ions ofthese surrounding ut terances occurred in the narrat ives ofchi l -dren of a l l ages, regardless of whether chi ldrenoni t ted or t ransformed the targets. With very fewexcept ions, the great major i ty of the resul t ing sequencesindeed made more sense than the original ones and no agedi f ferences were found in th is respect in the samplescons idered.

The qual i tat ive analyses showed chi ldren's at tempt tocreate narrative coherence by various means involving whatmight be ca I led bo th " loca l - " and "g1oba l " s t ra teg ies . Suchnot ions have been invoked in other studies of narrat ives k i l l s ( e . 9 . , B a m b e r g , 1 9 8 7 ) . W e m i g h t u s e t h e m h e r e t odescr ibe ch i ld ren 's nar ra t i ve s t ra teg ies as fo l lows: g ivena part icular conversat ion wi th an inappropr iate targetut terance, IocaL strategies correspond to what chi ldren doto the target i tsel- f when report ing the conversat ion,whi le global strategies correspond to what they do to theutterances surrounding this target. Using the terms inthis wdy, then, most chi ldren used both local and globalstrategies. However, t ransformat ions of the targetsinvoLved much clearer local modif icat ions than omissions,that did so only by defaul t . Thus, the younger chi ldren,who tended to use omission as their sole strategy, can bedescr ibed as us ing most ly a g loba l s t ra tegy . Incomparison, the older chi ldren, who used both omission andt rans format ions , can be descr ibed as us ing bo th loca ] andg l o b a l s t r a t e g i e s .

Whi Ie these resu l ts a re suggest ive , fu r ther da tacol l -ect ion is necessary to complement the avai lable database and to answer quest ions which ar ise therefrom. Inpart icular, more data is necessary to conf i rm whetherdi f ferent ia l - strategies across age groups correspond toa developmental progression. Thus, dt one extreme, morenarrat ives should be el ic i ted systemat ical ly f rom chi ldren

63


under 9 years, including not only chi ldren in the ear lyyears of pr imary school , but a lso preschool chi ldren. Atthe other extreme, narratives produced by adults wouldprovide a comparative reference point for developmentalc l -a ims . On the basis of th is more complete data base, i twould be possible to determine the fol lowing: whetheromissions of inappropr iate assert ions character ize thestrategies of young chi ldren, whi le t ransformat ionscharacter ize those of o lder chi ldren and adul ts; how ear lysuch omission strategies begin and whether they areaccompanied by other changes in the conversat ionssurrounding the targets; whether adul ts also t ransforminappropr iate assert ions, but omit inappropr iateq u e s t i o n s .

We also need to explore further the parameters of"odd.ness " f or chi l -dren Jt a i t terent developmental stages.In the present study, the "oddness" of ut terances in thest imul i was def ined merely by v i r tue of theirappropr iateness in context f rom the point of v iew ofinformat ion exchange, part icular ly by v i r tue of thespeakers ' background epistemic states. There are of coursenumerous other ways in which utterances might be odd. Forexample, d i rect ive ut terances can be more or lessappropr iately used as a funct ion of the interpersonalroles in the s i tuat ion, as they might be def ined by v i r tueof var iab les such as age and s ta tus . These par t i cu la rvar iables were purposeful ly held constant in the mater ia lsof the present study, but they could be manipulatedsys temat ica l l y in a fu r ther s tudy o f ch i ld ren 's repor tedspeech. Other var iables that , may inf luence how chi ldrenreport speech events and that should be further examinedinclude the perceived relevance, comprehensibi l i ty , andsal ience of var ious speech events r ds weII as the extentto which al ternat ive interpretat ions are possible forinappropr iate speech events in dialogic contexts.

F ina l l y , a l though ch i l -d ren 's per f o rmance in the presentnarrat ive task shows that they are sensi t ive to theappropr iateness of ut terances embedded in dialogues, i tdoes not show as such whether they are able to ref lect onthe part icular propert ies of these ut terances in relat ionto the i r con tex ts . I t i s fu r thermore poss ib le tha td i f fe ren t s t ra teg ies vary w i th respec t to leve l o fawareness , e . g . , loca l t rans format ions o f ta rge ts and/orof surrounding ut terances, whereby chi ldren select newand more appropr iate l inguist ic forms, might involve ahigher level of awareness than omissions. Addi t ionalinformat ion concerning chi ldren's abi l i ty to provide


judgrments about more or r-ess appropriate speech events istherefore necessary to fur thbi 6xplore the nature ofchirdren's strategies and of their r inguist ic knowledge.


Footnotes

*We thank the anonymous reviewer who thoroughly commented

a previous version of th is paper.

1 . Surpr is ing ly few natura l i s t i cverba dicendi are avai lable," e r r o r s " s u c h a s ( a ) a n d ( b )communication ) :

observations relevant toe . g . , ear ly spontaneous

(from Bowerman, personal

(a ) Mother : A1r igh t , s i t down now.C h i l d : D o n , t a s k m e ! ( 1 ; 1 0 )

( b ) C h i l d 1 : " w h a t , s D a d d y . d o i n g 2 "c h i l d 2 z " r ' l , f g o t e r r D a d d y w h a t h e ' s d o i n g ' , ( 2 i 7 )

2- The fac to rs a f fec t ing the uses o f d i f fe ren t d i rec t i ves ,such as the sett ing and rore relat ions between thedialogue part ic ipants, lvere he]d constant across aLrf i rms. Ar l d ia logues took prace in a home environment.when chirdren speci f ied a rore relat ion at ar l , theyreported the dialogues as involv ing a husband and wifel

3 . rn th is respect, some var iat ion might have occurredacross the scenar ios , desp i te our e t fo r ts to cont ro ltheir propert ies . For example, dr ternat iveinterpretat ions of t l " inappropr iate targets might bemore readi Iy avai labre in some cases thJn in oi ,hers .such var iat ions do not seem to have af fected theoveral l pat tern of data, but should be further examineds y s t e m a t i c a l l y .

4. one pair of 9-year-ords who worked with version rrf i lms had to be ref t out of the sample, because thenarrat ives produced by one chi ld were crearryinsu f f i c ien t . As fo r the sampre o f 7 /B-year -o lds , thadat.a col lect ion was meant to provide exiLoratory pirotdata and i t was not done as systemat icairy as r i t i r the9-year -ords : each ch i rd p roduced one, t i vo , o r th reenarrat ives, not always to the same chi ld, but never toa chi ld who had already seen the f i lm or heard abouti r .

5. omiss ions o f d i rec t i ves inc luded cases in wh ich noment ion was made o f the u t te rance a t a ] r , regardress o fwhether chirdren did ment ion that ' on-" of thepart ic ipants went to f etch the object ( , 'he went to getthe kni f e " ) a.ndlor guoted one of them as saying tfrathe /she wourd . do so ( " 1 ' t r ge t the b icyc le pump" ) .rncruded among the omissionl was one

-9-yeai-ord; s

report containing the verb forqet ( " she forgot the

7 .


kni fe so the man went and got i t " ) .

The extent to which " indirect " quotations " transf or:[r"ut terances depends on numerous factors (cf . Hickmann,1985; L99I l in p ress ) . The fo l low ing dec is ions weremade concerning chi ldren's direct and indirect reportswith the verbs say and ask in the present corpus.Verbat im reports of the direct ives included only directquotat ions, wi th one except ion: an indirect quotat ioncontaining sav and report ing a declarat ive direct ive(" the lady said that the pump was in the drawer" as areport of the target " the pump is in the drawer" ) .Indirect reports containing ask were aLl- included amongt rans format ions , a l though the s ign i f i cance o f thesetransformat ions depends a great deal on the or ig inalut terances reported. Thus, such reports do nottransform question or imperative directives as much asdecl-arative ones . However, in contrast to indirectreports with sar/, they all invol-ve some interpretationof the type of speech event reported, i . e . , theyrepresent the event as an instance of a type cal led" a s k i n g " .

Most o f the 7 /9 -year -o lds ' omiss ions o f Wh-quest ionsoccur red w i th CHEESE I I , ra ther than w i th B fKE f I . Notethat the quest ion direct ive in CHEESE I I ( "Where is thekn i fe?" ) was fo l lowed by the in te r locu tor ' s s ta temento f h is in ten t to ac t ( " I ' 11 ge t i t " ) , whereas the onein BIKE II ( "Where is the pump? " ) was followed by as ta tement descr ib ing the loca t ion o f the ob jec t ( " I t ' sin the drawer " ) . fn both cases , the inter locutorfetched the object just af tgr th is response. Furtherdata col- lect ion would be necessary to determine whetherthis var iabl-e has any ef fect on how frequent ly chi ldreno m i t q u e s t i o n v s . d e c l a r a t i v e d i r e c t i v e s ( c f . t a b l e 3 ) .

68 Mwa Hicl<tnann & David Warden

Re fe rences

A k s u - K o E , A . ( 1 9 8 8 ) T h e a c q u i s i t i o n o f a s p e c t a n d m o d a l i t v :The case of past reference in Turkish. CambridgeU n i v e r s i t y P r e s s .

A l l e r , W . K . , A L l e r , S . K . , S a a d , L . M . ( L 9 7 7 ) T h ea c q u i s i t i o n o f ' a s k ' , ' t e l I ' , ' p r o m i s e ' , a n d ' s h o w 'structures by arabic-speaking chiLdren. Paper presentedat the 6th Annual L inguist ics Symposium, Universi ty ofWisconss in , Iv l i lwaukee.

A n d e r s e n , E . S . ( 1 9 9 0 ) L e a r n i n q t o s p e a k w i t h s t y l e : a s t u d yof the soc io l inqu is t i c sk i l l s o f ch i ld ren . London:Rout ledge.

Bamberg , M. (1987) The acqu is i t ion o f nar ra t i ves : learn insto use lanquase . Ber l in: Mouton de Grulr ter .

Bassano, D. , Champaud, C. , H ickmann, M. ( 1988 ) Ep is temicmoda l i t y in French ch i ld ren 's repor ted speech. Paperpresented at the Third European Conference onDevelopmental Psychology, Budapest, Hungary.

B a t e s , E . ( 1 9 7 6 ) L a n g u a q e a n d c o n t e x t l t h e a c q u i s i t i o n o fpragmatics . New York: Academic Press .

B o c k , J . K . , H o r n s b y , M . E . ( 1 9 8 1 ) T h e d e v e l o p m e n t o fd i rec t i ves : how ch i ld ren ask and te l l . Journa l o f ch i ldl a n q u a s e , B , 1 5 1 - 1 6 3 .

Bowerman, M. ( 1979 ) The acqu is i t ion o f complex sentences . InP. F le tcher and I "1 . Garman (Eds . ) , Languaqe Acqu is i t ion .Cambr idge: Cambr idge Un ivers i ty Press .

Bowerman, M. ( 1983 ) How do chi ldren avoid construct ing anover ly general grammar in the absence of feedback aboutwhat is not a sentence. Papers and Reports on Chi ldLanguaqe Development, Stanford Universi ty, Departmento f L i n g u i s t i c s .

B r u n e r , J , S . ( 1 9 8 3 ) C h i l d ' s t a l k : l e a r n i n q t o u s e l a n q u a g e .New York : Nor ton .

Champaud, C. I Bassano, D. , H ickmann, I , I . ( in p ress) I " loda l i tS6p is tSmique e t d iscours rappor tS chez l 'en fan tf r a n g a i s . T o a p p e a r i n N . D i t t m a r a n d A . R e i c h ( E d s . ) ,The acqu is i t ion o f moda l i t v . Ber l - in : Spr inger Ver lag .


Chomsky, C. (1959) The acqu is i t ion o f swntax in ch i ld renf rom f i ve to ten . Cambr idge, MA: M. f . T . Press .

C h o m s k y , C . ( f - 9 8 2 ) ' A s k ' a n d ' t e I I ' r e v i s i t e d : a r e p l y t oWarden. Journa l o f Ch i ld Lanquage 9 , 667-78.

C l a r k , E . V . ( 1 9 7 3 ) W h a t ' s i n a w o r d ? o n t h e c h i L d , sa c q u i s i t i o n o f s e m a n t i c s i n h i s f i r s t l a n g u a g e . I n : T .Moore ( Ed. ) , Coqni t ive development and the acquis i t ionof l -anguage. New York: Academic Press .

C l a r k , E . V . ( 1 9 8 0 ) A w a r e n e s s o f l a n g u a g e : s o m e e v i d e n c e f r o mw h a t c h i l d r e n s a y a n d d o . I n A . S i n c l a i r , R . J .Jarve l la , and W. J .W. Leve l - t (eds . ) , The ch i ld , sconcept ion of lansuase. Ber l in, Heidelberg ! Spr ingerVer lag .

E r v i n - T r i p p , S . ( 1 9 7 5 ) I s S y b i l t h e r e ? : t h e s t r u c t u r e o fsome American Engr ish direct ives. Languaqe in societv5 , 2 5 - 6 6 .

E r v i n - T r i p p , S . , M i t c h e l - 1 - K e r n a n . C . ( E d s . ) ( I 9 7 7 ) C h i l dd iscourse . New York : Academic Press .

Gomber t , J . E . (1990) Le d6ve l -oppement m6taL inqu is t iq ,ue .Par is : Presses Un ivers i ta i res de France.

H a r r i s , R . J . ( l - 9 7 5 ) C h i l d r e n ' s c o m p r e h e n s i o n o f c o m p l e xsentences. Journal of Exper imental Chi ld Psvcholoqv,1 9 , 4 2 0 - 4 3 3 .

H ickmann, M. (1985) t ' Ie tapragmat ics in ch i ld language. fn : E .Mertz and R. Parment ier ( Eds . I , Semiot ic mediat ion:psychol-oqical- and sociocul- tural perspect ives . New York IAcademic Press .

H ickrnann, l ' 1 . (Ed. ) ( 1987 ) soc ia l and f unc t iona l - approachesto lanquaqe and thought. Or lando, Flor ida: AcademicP r e s s .

H ickmann, M. ( 1991 ) Le d iscours rappor t6 : aspec tsm6tapragmatiques du langage et de son d6veloppement.B u L l e t i n d e P s v c h o l o q i e . T o m e X L I I I , N o . 3 9 9 , t oappear .

Hickmann, l '1. ( in press) The boundar ies of reported speech innarrat ive discourse: some developmental aspects . Toappear in : J . Lucy (Ed. ) , Ref lex ive language: Repor tedspeech and metaprasmat ics. Cambridge Universi ty Press.

70 Maya Hiclonann & David Ward.en

H i c k m a n n , M . , B a s s a n o , D . , C h a m p a u d , C . ( i n p r e p a r a t i o n )Pragmatics and metapragmatics in the development ofep is temic moda l i t y . To appear in C. de Lemos and C,S inha (Eds) , D iscourse in the cons t ruc t ion o f languaqgand sel f . Harvester-Wheatsheaf .

l r la ra tsos , I { . (1974 ) How preschoo} ch i ld ren unders tandmiss ing complement sentences . Ch i Id Devefopment , 45 ,7 0 0 - 6 .

Karmi lo f f -Smi th , A . ( 1979 ) A func t iona l approach to ch i ldlanquaqe: a study of determiners and reference.Cambridge: Canbr idge Universi ty Press.

O c h s , 8 . , S c h i e f f e l - i n , B . B . ( E d s . ) ( l - 9 8 9 ) D e v e l o p m e n t a lp ragmat ics . New York : Academic Press .

Tanz I C . (1983) Ask ing ch i ld ren to ask : and exper imenta linvest igat ion of the pragmatics of re layed quest ions.J o u r n a l o f C h i l d L a n q u a q e 1 0 , L 8 7 - 9 4 .

T u n m e r , W . 8 . , P r a t t , C . , H e r r i m a n , I , I . L . ( e d s . ) ( 1 9 8 4 )I " le ta l inqu is t i c awareness in ch i ld ren . Ber l in , Spr ingerV e r l a g .

W a r d e n , D . ( 1 9 8 1 ) C h i l d r e n ' s u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f ' a s k ' a n d' t e l l ' . J o u r n a l o f C h i l d L a n g u a q e B , l - 3 9 - 4 9 .

W a r d e n , D . ( 1 9 8 6 ) H o w t o t e l l i f c h i l d r e n c a n a s k . J o u r n a lo f C h i l d L a n q u a q e 1 3 , 4 2 I - 4 2 8 .

Date post:	09-May-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	1 times
Download:	0 times

CHILDREN'S STRATEGIES WHEN REPORTING APPROPRIATE …discussions in Clark, 1-980; Tunmer et al.,...

Documents