7>pragmatic development

Question 1

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

Answer 1

• requesting/persuading (speech acts)
• sharing info/gossiping
• telling stories
• telling jokes
• conversations

Question 2

How can conversations go wrong (pragmatically)>

Answer 2

• over informative
  (e.g. “felix is my friend. Yesterday felix …”> use of full name as unusual, should replace with pronoun 2nd time)
• under-informative
  (e.g. “we went to the zoo with him”> when havent introduced an entity; “can you give me the shoe”> havent discussed prior)

Question 3

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

Answer 3

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

Question 4

Use of referring expressions in children’s spontanteous speech>

Answer 4

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

Question 5

what is children’s referring expressions determined by?>

Answer 5

• whats new/given
• what the interlocuter can/cannot see (“he” when interlocuter CAN see; “the frog when CANNOT see)

Question 6

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

Answer 6

• children aged 2, 3 & 4
• video played with clown in
• 1 condition where asked about referent as new (“what happened?”); other where asked about referent as given (“was that the clown? what happened?”)
• added another condition to each where the interlocuter could see/couldnt see the videeo

Question 7

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

Answer 7

• 2 years olds sensitive to new/given distinction & more likely to produce “the clown” than “he” when the referent is new
• 2 year olds not sensitive to can/cannot see distinction
• 3 & 4 year olds sensitive to both new/given & can/cannot see distinction & likely to produce “the clown” rather than “he” when the referent is not visible

Question 8

two levels of perspective taking>

Answer 8

1> knowing what others can & cannot see (2, 2;0)
2> understanding that others may see things in a different way (4;0-5;0)

Question 9

perspective taking- level 1 study> 2 cars

Answer 9

• 2 cars shown to child: 1 adult can see (yellow) & 1 cant (red)
• asked child qn “can you help her find it?”

Question 10

perspective taking- level 1 study> 2 cars> results

Answer 10

• most chose red car (as it is one adult cannot see)
• thus show some understanding of perspective of adult (^but dont necessarily integrate this into lang theyre using)

Question 11

perspective taking- level 2 study> car & tree>

Answer 11

• child on one side of the house where see house & tree side by side; adult on other side of house where see tree as BEHIND house
• adult asks child “does it look to me like the tree is behind the house?”

Question 12

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

Answer 12

• 4& 5 children would say “yes” to qn (“does it look to me like the tree is behind the house?”) even though the tree is infront from their perspective

Question 13

perspective taking- level 2 study> screens & rabbits>

Answer 13

• white and yellow screen between adult & child, with 1 blue bunny behind each screen
• adult asks child “can you give me the green rabbit?”

Question 14

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

Answer 14

• children pick the rabbit behind the yellow screen, even though both look blue (not green) to them

Question 15

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

Answer 15

• children aged 4-12
• grid with black and white background presented to children
• black background as ONLY child can see
• white background as BOTH can see
• asked “can you give me the smallest car?” from other person

Question 16

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

Answer 16

• children wrongly pick the car that’s smallest from THEIR perspective, even though it can’t be seen from the interlocuter’s perspective
• thus takes time for children to coordinate their non-ling perspective taking skills with linguistic skills

Question 17

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

Answer 17

• children aged 6
• same grid with b& w background
• again black only child can see
• again white both can see
• only 2 cars on grid
• adult asked “can you give me THE car?”

Question 18

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

Answer 18

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

Question 19

Ambiguous referring expressions study> sticker book>

Answer 19

• kid had to fill sticker book
• had to get adult to get the sticker (&knew which needed)
• needed frog with hat as opposed to frog without (2 were available)
• tested which children asked for “frog with hat” vs “frog”

Question 20

Ambiguous referring expressions study> sticker book> results>

Answer 20

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

Question 21

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

Answer 21

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

Question 22

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

Answer 22

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

Question 23

Relevance before quantity study>relevance> sticker finding game>

Answer 23

• children aged 3 & 4
• given sticker finding game (hidden under 1 of 3 cups)
• 2 cartoon characters tell info (1 as relevant; other as non-relevant info)> “these are pretty cups” vs “sticker is under blue cup”
• child is asked which character they trust more

Question 24

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

Answer 24

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

Question 25

Relevance before quantity study> both> sticker finding game>

Answer 25

- children aged 3, 4, 5 - had a sticker finding game (hidden under 1 of 3 cups) - two cartoon characters tell info (1st as 'under-informative' thus violating quantity; "sticker is under one of the cups"; 2nd as more informative "sticker is under blue cup") - asked which would trust more

Question 26

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

Answer 26

- for 3 only sensitive to maxim of RELEVANCE (thus indecisive on who is more trustworthy) - for 4/5 sensitive to maxim of quantity and relevance (thus chose one who provide right amount of info)

Question 27

scalar implicatures=

Answer 27

violation of the maxim of quantity (e.g. "i've eaten some of the cookie" when eaten all)

Question 28

conversational implicatures=

Answer 28

violation of the maxim of relation; context dependent (e.g. A:"do you want some coffee", B:"ive got an exam tommorrow"> not relevant on surface>either=need for caffeine (yes), no free time (no))

Question 29

Earlier understanding of conversational implicatures can be found when?>

Answer 29

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

Question 30

earlier understanding of conversational implicatures study> (breakfast foods)

Answer 30

- 3-4 year olds - about breakfast foods - 2 characters presented: 1st asks "would you like cereals or a roll?"; 2nd replies "i ran out of milk yesterday" - need to interpret meaning of 2nd utterance (will go for roll as have no milk)

Question 31

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

Answer 31

- 3/4 year olds can understand implicature ("ive run out of milk">will go for roll as have no milk)

Question 32

what are jokes based on>

Answer 32

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

Question 33

linguistic devices for telling a coherent story>

Answer 33

- tense - 'if' clauses - coherence-

Question 34

linguistic devices for telling a coherent story> tense>

Answer 34

- stories are usually not about here and now, thus children need to master tense ("yesterday we went to the zoo")

Question 35

linguistic devices for telling a coherent story> 'if'-clauses>

Answer 35

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

Question 36

linguistic devices for telling a coherent story> coherence

Answer 36

- includes sub clauses, pronouns & complex grammar & conjunction ("after he found the frog in the forest, the boy went back home")

Question 37

Features of narratives before 3> (3)

Answer 37

- parents produce most of it & dialogue-like - involves parents scaffolding - autobiographic ("what kind iss it? um ba, "shark?" yeah")

Question 38

features of narratives at 3>

Answer 38

- still a dialogue but most utterances & topics are initiated by child (leading story) - still need adult, to tell story ("you know what i was doing" "what?" "i was doing work")

Question 39

features of narratives at 4>

Answer 39

- can produce on their own, not using dialogue form - use of subordination & complex language ("i have two sisters, one with blond hair like me and the other with long balck hair....")

Question 40

are girls better lang users?> (2)

Answer 40

- idea of girls learning lang faster - girls tend to talk more than boys

Question 41

- girls vs boys speech>

Answer 41

- girls tend to use more affiliative speech (politeness, compromise)> as a social bonding function -boys tend to use more assertive speech (e.g. insults, directions)> to influence other's behaviour, not socially bond

Question 42

problems with idea of 'gender differences'?

Answer 42

- these are small - only occur at certain ages - probably not biological but cultural >caused by how/ how much parents talk to children >caused by activities each enjoy