Kaleidoscope:
An SCO Journal of Graduate Student Research
Vol. 1, No. 1, Fall
2002, pp. 18-36
_____
Angela
Jacobs is currently an instructor in the Speech Communication Department at
Eastern
Intercultural
Communication, and Speech Communication Research. She
is currently
working toward my dissertation titled “Family
interactions within the context of youth
sports.” Other research interests include family
systems theory, children’s storytelling
performance,
cross-cultural communication, gender communication, autoethnography,
ethnography, and conversation analysis. Current
projects include presenting research
on autoethnography as a
way of understanding disease and parent and children’s
communicative roles in decision making processes.
_____
Foreword
My ultimate goal in this study was to provide a
voice for children within communication research. Too often, children are
excluded from our research because we lack the knowledge necessary to give them
that voice. The following study was an attempt to examine children from a
conversation analysis perspective. I wanted to give children a voice by
demonstrating how they use turn-taking strategies and manage
talk-in-interaction separate from how adults accomplish this.
At the time I wrote this paper, I believed that
children lacked the ability to perform turn-taking strategies as effectively as
adults. I mention several instances where children fail to initiate
conversation, identify transition relevance points, make repairs, and stay on
topic. I also mention that adults typically do extra work in maintaining
conversations with children because they (children) lack the necessary skills
to do so.
My position has changed somewhat since writing this paper. I do not necessarily believe that children lack the skills necessary to hold effective conversations with adults. Children perform conversations quite well, as a matter of fact. I simply think (now) that children do talk-in-interaction differently than adults. Children perform their narratives because they do not have the words to use, they take their time in formulating answers, and they perform off-topic acts (such as singing and counting) because these topics pop into their heads at random moments. Does this make children less skilled at conversations? I’m not sure, but probably not. Because of this, it may be more advantageous to examine how children perform conversations differently rather than less effectively than adults.
Introduction
Much
research has been done in the area of conversation between adults, specifically
dealing with the organization of turn-taking in conversations. Unfortunately,
relatively little research has been done in the area of children’s
conversational interactions. Studies have shown that children begin acquiring
language skills from the moment of birth and gradually sharpen their
turn-taking skills in conversation. What has not been studied much is how
children take turns in conversations, or how children arrange conversational
turns into sequences. Sacks, Schegloff, and
Adults also demonstrate what
types of responses are appropriate for children to use in conversation by
fitting their responses to the child’s utterances (Naremore & Hopper,
1990). This type of act helps demonstrate for the children what is an
appropriate turn at talk (e.g., one person speaks and the second person
provides a second pair part to the first utterance). As mentioned earlier, it
is to be expected that children’s skills will not be as advanced as adults.
This usually requires the adults to work harder at making the conversation work
when speaking with children. It is expected then, that adults will take
additional steps in the turn-taking sequences that normally would not occur in
an adult conversation; adults may be required to pick up, interpret, comment on, extend, and
repeat what children say in conversations in order to keep the conversation
flowing (Camaioni, 1979). The question remains then as to how adults and
children jointly (and successfully) accomplish conversations. The purpose of
this study is to examine an adult/child conversational interaction to determine
how such conversations are managed.
More than four hours of conversation was recorded
between a parent and child during their dinner conversations. B is the father
who has agreed to record the conversations. K is the five year old who actively
participates with B in the conversations. M is the two year old who joins in
the conversation at various times and provides background chatter throughout
the majority of each conversation. Three conversations were chosen for this
particular study, ranging anywhere from five minutes to twenty minutes each.
Due to long gaps and lapses in talk throughout a majority of these
conversations, only those conversations with on-going talk were chosen for
analysis. The remainder of the paper will focus on a variety of findings within
the parent/child conversations. More specifically, the following areas will be
analyzed: Sequences of talk, gaps, overlaps, and interruptions, topic
maintenance, and repair sequences. Examples are provided from each of the three
transcripts in order to illustrate the findings.
Sequences of talk
A sequence of talk consists of two or more
consecutive conversational acts. The focus of this particular section will be
on the various sequences that make up the entire conversational episode. Each
of the conversations recorded consists of extremely short sequences of talk,
where either the child or the adult shifts the topic frequently. For the
purpose of this study, each shift in topic is treated as a new sequence of
talk. There were three primary sequences of talk that occurred within the data:
(1) the adult asks questions, followed by child’s answer, (2) the adult asks
questions, the child answers, the adult then comments on the answers, and (3)
the child uses a summons, the adult acknowledges, and then the child makes a
verbal expression (with or without adult’s comment upon it).
These sequences are
consistent with Camaioni’s (1979) findings that children usually make some
verbal expression, which prompts adult comments, and that children perform some
action, which prompts comments from the adult. The only difference between
Camaioni’s findings and the present study is the use of a summons as a method
for initiating talk. A majority of the children’s verbal expressions in this
study begin with some type of summons toward the adult in order to get his
attention. The following is a detailed examination of the aforementioned
sequences:
1. Adult asks questions followed by child’s
answer.
This
sequence is the most prevalent when it comes to initiating conversation. Each
of the three conversations analyzed for this study begin with B’s (adult)
asking a question to K (child) about what she has done at school during the
day. The conversation usually begins with a question by B and an answer by K.
These sequences continue in this manner until interrupted by M, or K initiates
a different sequence of talk.
Conversation 2.1
8 B: So
Whadja do?
9
(2.1)
10 K:
We pla:::yed
uhm ca:ndy la::nd, uhm (w-) we
11 played race ca::rs and (uh fire)
12 B:
[ How
do you play race cars
13 K:
Fire drills:: and:: we got to talk on the
14
radio:: and we got ta’ building four
15
(1.9)
16 K: (And
we got ta’ say it bit louder like this)
17 ((shouts))
BUILDING FOUR like that
18 B: Why’dja
say that
B initiates the conversation with a question in line 8, and K provides an answer in line 10. B then initiates a second question, which is not picked up by K. Instead, K continues with her explanation about the fire drills incident. K’s failure to pick up Bs question in line one may demonstrate her lack of knowledge in the organization of turn-taking. K may not necessarily recognize her turn as having to build off of B’s previous statement. It seems rather that K may not have been finished with her turn at talk so continued until she was finished. When B asked his question, K didn’t recognize a need to stop her explanation and address this new question. Rather than re-ask his question from line 12, B builds his turn off of K’s last statement. This act by B demonstrates his acknowledgement of K’s need to finish her utterance. This question and answer sequence serves as a way for B to keep the conversational turn-taking moving. A typical pattern is for the adult to ask a question and then provide more specific follow-up questions in order to keep the conversation moving, such as what B does in line 12.
Adults also use directives in order to get the child to do what the adult wants. They also use leading questions in order to get the child to participate more in the conversation, or when they want the child to elaborate more on their answers. This use of directives and leading questions is called interrogatives, which limit the child’s ability to respond (Corsaro, 1979).
Conversation 2.1
59 B: So tell me all about your fire drill
60 K: Hhm?
61 B: What else did you do
62 (1.6)
63 K: Uh::
64 B: What kinda fire drill was it
65 K: Mmm just a real one so (.) we (.) got in
66 Single file? (.) >>that means a line<<
B uses a directive in line 59 when he asks K to tell him about the fire drill. When K does not respond immediately to this directive, B uses a question in 64 in order to elicit information about the type of fire drill that K had at school. This constrains the range of information that K can give about the fire drill. It also demonstrates that B shows some concern for K’s ability to understand the question. When she doesn’t pick up on B’s question in line 61, but leaves a 1.6 second pause, B redirects the question so that K can understand what type of answer B is looking for.
2. Adult asks questions, child answers
followed by adult’s
comment on the
answer:
This sequence usually occurred when B spoke to M, a secondary participant in the conversation. M typically provides background chatter in the conversation, and does not usually initiate topics for discussion. B regularly attempts to include M in the conversation, and does so by asking him questions, letting M answer, and then commenting on his answer.
Conversation 2.1
41 B: Wha’ you do at school buddy
42 M: (Ball)
43 B: You play with the balls?
44 M: Mm hm play
B asks M a question and M provides an answer. B then expands on M’s utterance of the word ball. M can not formulate full sentences yet and can only provide short one word sentences. Nevertheless, M understands the turn-taking sequence and is able to provide some answer to B’s question. B then comments on M’s answer in line 43 about M’s word “ball.” B’s statement can also be seen as a follow-up question for clarification. Because M hasn’t provided a detailed explanation of what he did at school, B provides some elaboration for him by asking if M played with the balls. In line 44 we can see that M has understood B’s statement in line 43, because he shifts his answer to match B’s word “play.”
B also uses this sequence of question, answer, and comment with K when she does not provide enough information to his questions.
Conversation 1.1:
45
46 B: Whadja’ do at school today boo?
47 K: I already told you
48 B: No you didn’t. You said you played
in a tunnel
49 K: Oh
50 B: That’s all you said
51 M: ((Chatter))
52 B: So’d you play in the tunnel all day?
53 K: Huh uh
54 B: No? So what else did you do
Again, B initiates the conversation by asking K a question. K provides an answer, but clearly it is not a preferred answer for B. Essentially, K’s response is a stand-in for a prior answer to this question. B has asked this question before and K is letting B know that she has already answered this question. B then denies that K answered the question with his comment “no you didn’t.” He then contradicts himself by citing the tunnel information, proving that K did indeed answer this question. What appears to happen in this instance is that B and K have differing opinions about the question B asks in line 46. K apparently read the question as “what is one thing you did at school today.” She has already told B one thing she has done and is therefore pointing out the redundancy of his question. B seems to read the question as “what all did you do at school?” Since B is asking about her entire day at school, he is asking for more information than just about a fire drill. K acknowledges this comment with “oh” in line 50, but she does not extend her answer.
As Sacks et al. (1978) point out, children do not typically understand how to project TRPs, and thus often do not take their turn at talk. K may not understand that it is her turn to provide a more detailed answer, nor does she recognize B’s comments as a request for an elaboration. B must do more work to get the information he wants by asking a series of follow-up questions. In line 50 B does a follow-up to his previous comment (in line 46), again pointing out that K did not fully answer his question. Again, K does not treat this second comment as a request for more information. Instead she says nothing. B then self-selects and asks K a direct question in line 52 about her playing in the tunnel. He asks if she has played in the tunnel all day, demonstrating that his original question in line 46 was a solicitation for more information about her day other than having a fire drill. K then provides a short answer, but still does not recognize B’s question as a request for more information. B is then forced to use more direct questions in line 54 in order to move the topic forward.
Throughout the conversation, B also uses minimal responses after K and M’s statements in order to show that he is listening to what is being said. These minimal responses consist of words such as "Oh," "yeah,” and “Mmm” and serve as second pair parts to the children’s statements. These utterances are used as minimal answers to fulfill B’s turn at talk so that K and M can talk more.
Conversation 2.1
65 K: Mmm just a real one so (.) we (.) got in
66 single file? (.) >>that means a line<<
67 (1.3)
68 B: Yeah?
69 K: and (.) we:: go::t single file outside?
70 When we came back in? then we learned the
71 fire drill was over. It went RI:::NG and then
72 we got up? and we ran outside, out the gate.
The “yeah” comment in line 68 is an acknowledgment that B has listened to what was saying. Second, B has successfully taken his turn at talk and relinquishes the floor to K so that she may continue with her talk.
3. Child initiates with a summons, adult
acknowledges it, child gives verbal expression followed by adult’s comment on
it.
This sequence typically happened when K initiated the conversation; M used this technique less frequently mainly because he did not initiate talk in many of the conversations. McTear (1985) found that children usually use one of two methods for initiating talk in conversation: using a summons such as “guess what?”, or by calling direct attention to the object they wish to talk about such as “hey look.” K used the summons in most instances where she initiated talk. B did not use this technique when he initiated talk. Instead, he began with direct questions followed by an address term (e.g., what did you do at school buddy?). K typically used the summons “daddy” to call attention to her initiation of talk.
Conversation 2.1
83 K: Dad?
84 B: Hmm?
85 K: Is fire the only thing that boys can take care
86 of?
Conversation 1.1
31 K: Daddy?
32 B: Yeah
33 K: After the hard shell? can I try one of those
34 Soft shells
35 B: You eat all of yer hard shell, yeah
36 K: ((softly)) Okay
In this sequence of talk, K begins with a summons to B and then waits for a response. B gives his acknowledgement of the summons, and then K continues with her questions. This is the typical sequence of talk during most conversational initiations by K. There were a few instances when B did not respond to K’s summons. Where typically an adult would wait for an acknowledgement before continuing their talk, K continues with her talk as if the summons has been acknowledged.
Conversation 2.1
104 M: (Done)
105 K: [Daddy
106 B: [ No done. Eat.
107 K: [ I think I just want to be a teacher
108 Instead of being a fireman
109 B: Well ya know what you can do? (.) you can
be a
110 teacher and you can be what’s called a
111 volunteer firefighter
K’s decision to continue with her utterance even though B did not acknowledge it may have been due to B’s preoccupation with responding to M. On the other hand, K may have been using the summons (in this instance) to draw attention to her next statement, therefore, not requiring a response from B. B does acknowledge her statement in line 109 with a comment about her statement.
Gaps, Overlaps, and Interruptions
Gaps
Children allow considerably longer gaps in conversation than do adults (mainly because they are doing other things while conversing). These gaps occur when children take longer than usual to take up topics presented to them. As mentioned earlier, children gradually sharpen their turn-taking skills as they grow older. A five year old will typically allow a 0.8 to 1.5 second gap in the conversation before picking up the topic again. Two year olds, on the other hand, allow anywhere from 1.1 to 1.8 second gaps before picking up the talk (Naremore & Hopper, 1990). Lapses are also prevalent in children’s talk. These lapses occur either during or after a TRP, when the current speaker has not selected a next speaker, no listener has self-selected, nor has the current speaker elected to continue (Nofsinger, 1991). In other words, when no speaker is selected through any of the three turn-allocation options presented by Sacks et al. (1978), the conversation will come to a stop, or lapses for a few minutes. Both gaps and lapses in talk are prevalent throughout the conversations between B, K, and M. These gaps and lapses tend to cause some miscommunication at times.
59 K: He played duck-duck-goose
60 B: Oh::
61 (2.1)
62 K: And: :
63 (6.0)
64 B: Whad’ you do at school buddy
65 M: ((Chatter))
66 K: Daddy! Daddy I haven’t told you all the
67 Things I did at school today
The first gap occurs in line 61 with a 2.1 second gap in talk. Sacks et al. (1978) say that if the current speaker does not select next, then at the TRP any listener may begin a turn. The silence in 61 can be seen as a gap, then, because B has provided a second pair part to K’s utterance in line 59 with his utterance “oh.” This utterance serves as a follow-up to K’s utterance and does not necessarily call for any further response. Since B does not self-select as next speaker in line 61, both K and M are eligible to select as next speaker. Neither K nor M self-select, causing a gap in the conversation.
A lapse in talk occurs in line 63, and causes some misunderstanding among the participants. Six seconds pass and no one has selected as next speaker. B then self-selects as next speaker by asking M about his day. K then immediately points out that she has already self-selected as next speaker, and that B shouldn’t change the topic. Clearly a misunderstanding has occurred. B sees the lapse in talk as an opportunity to initiate a new topic for talk. K doesn’t treat the 6.0 second pause as a lapse in talk. This silence may be normal to her because her skills at turn-taking are not as sharp as B’s at this point.
As is evident from the above example, gaps and lapses occur frequently in B and K’s conversation. These gaps and lapses usually require B to determine when it is and is not appropriate to self-select as next speaker. Otherwise, the conversation falters or ends.
Conversation 2.1
29 B: what radio were you talking into
30 (2.8)
31 K: (we didn’t have a microphone) (.) we got to
32 Talk in a microphone
33 (4.5)
34 B: Who’d you talk to
35 K: Mmm (.) what? (.) I guess I just talked to
36 Tyler
37 (8.0)
38 M: (Whaya doin dad?)
39 (1.3)
40 M: (Whaya doin dad)
41 B: Whad’ you do at school buddy
B begins this segment of talk by asking K a question. There is a 2.8 second pause in line 30, where B has finished his utterance (the first pair part) and has selected K as the next speaker. K doesn’t begin her turn immediately. She pauses for 2.8 seconds. This can be seen as a pause and not a gap because the turn belongs to K (Nofsinger, 1991). K does not take an immediate turn at talk. B also does not select as next speaker. K then responds in line 31. Ervin-Tripp (1979) suggests that children generally have more gaps and lapses in their talk due to their inexperience in the turn-taking system. K’s pause in line 30 then may be seen as the time she needed to formulate an utterance that would fit B’s prior utterance.
A second silence occurs in line 33. This silence serves as a gap in the talk because no speaker has been selected as next speaker, nor has any speaker self-selected. There is no required response after K’s utterance in line 32 and thus a gap occurs. B initiates more talk in line 34. He does this by asking another question.
Finally, an 8.0 second lapse in talk occurred in line 37. K has provided a response to B that does not require a further response from B. Unlike the gap in line 33; B does not pick up the topic in line 38. A lapse in the talk occurs because B does not initiate more talk. Instead, the topic is somewhat renewed by M. M’s utterance in lines 38 and 40 are probably some response to what B is doing at the dinner table, and should not be looked at as an attempt to initiate conversation. M’s utterances do prompt B to shift his attention towards M and initiate a new topic of talk about M’s day at school.
Overlaps and Interruptions
There are typically fewer overlaps and interruptions made by children in adult-child conversations. When interruptions do occur, they tend to be ignored by adults. And, the younger a child is, the more common their interruptions are ignored (Ervin-Tripp, 1979). This may pose a problem for successful conversational interactions between adults and children. Children are often not accepted in conversations as an equal participant because they lack the ability to keep the conversation flowing. In the conversations collected for this study, K rarely interrupts B. M, on the other hand, interrupts frequently, and is ignored frequently. This may occur because of his age and inexperience with the rules of turn-taking. M’s talk is mostly incoherent and does not seem to add anything substantial to the conversation. His utterances, in fact, do not appear to be interruptions at all. These utterances may simply be self-talk, or they may be a way for M to be a part of B and K’s conversation. M’s typical interruption consists of loud chatter or repeating B and K’s utterances.
Most important, though, is that B and K do not treat M’s utterances as interruptions. Instead, they ignore these instances of talk and continue with their conversation. This segment of talk supports Ervin-Tripp’s (1991) finding that younger children tend to be ignored in conversations with adults.
The following sequence demonstrates how B and K ignore M’s utterances.
Conversation 1.1
133 B: What kind of cheese
134 M: [ (more) cheese (.) (more) cheese
135 K: White. Mostly=
136 M: =(more) cheese (more) cheese?
137 B: [ Mmmm
M begins to talk over B in line 134. This utterance should not be seen as an interruption, however. M’s utterances are prompted by B’s question to K about the type of cheese she wants. M continues to ask for more cheese and B and K continue their conversation. His asking for more cheese does not appear to be an attempt at controlling the topic of conversation. B and K seem to ignore M’s request and continue to talk as if M had said nothing at all. Rather than interruptions, perhaps we should label M’s talk as parallel talk. His talk of cheese is prompted by B’s question to K about what type of cheese she wants. He continues to talk about cheese while B and K continue their conversation. This parallel speech serves as a way for M to be part of the conversation, but also to state his needs. B and K do not acknowledge M as a conversational partner and ignore his utterances.
Topic
Maintenance/Off Topic Acts
Many children are not accepted as equal conversational partners simply because they lack the proper turn-taking skills and at times provide irrelevant talk (off topic acts) during conversations. Such off topic acts include talking to one’s self, singing, and performing rather than speaking utterances (Corsaro, 1979). These off topic acts are generally ignored by adults and are not seen as part of the conversational sequence. Such acts should not be overlooked as irrelevant acts, though. Often times these seemingly off topic acts serve as a means for children to initiate conversation, similar to a summons such as “hey dad.” The following sequence helps illustrate this possibility.
Conversation 1.1
138 (2.2)
138 K: ((sings)) I:’m a: li:ttle lepre?chaun dressed
139 In gree::n. If:: you e:ver ca:tch me: no one
140 could (( tune of “I’m a little teapot”)).
141 (1.3)
142 K: Ya wanna hear this song?
143 B: Mm hm?
K begins singing the leprechaun song after a short gap in the conversation. This song appears to have no real function at first glance. If we follow this act through the conversation, however, we can see a potentially new function: K uses the song to get B’s attention and possibly to initiate talk with B. In line 143 K asks if B wants to hear this song. This question takes place after K has already sang the song. Using the song is a way to forgo the summons to get B’s attention. K has his attention because she performed a song already and can continue to sing. Songs rarely get interrupted which makes this an effective way for K to initiate and maintain a turn at talk.
These off topic acts may also serve as a way to redirect a topic. The following segment illustrates how K successfully changes the topic of talk.
Conversation 1.1
87 B: whad’ you have at school buddy
88 K: Daddy I ate three hamburgers and (.)
89 ((swallows)) I ate (.) five noodles
90 M: ((chatter))
91 B: Five noodles
92 M: ((chatter))
93 K: (Dad watch) One. two. three. four. five.
94 B: Yeah
Prior to B’s utterance in line 87, K has been describing what she had for lunch. A gap in the talk occurs in line 85, so B initiates a recipient shift and asks M what he had for lunch. K continues to talk rather than allow M the chance to answer B’s question. She provides a description of what she had for lunch (e.g., three hamburgers and five noodles). B then responds to K rather than continue his talk with M. K has successfully shifted the topic from M’s lunch to her lunch. After a lapse in talk, K begins to demonstrate her counting abilities. This act seems like an off topic act, where K is simply counting. B does treat it as an off topic act and does not continue the conversation. K’s act has successfully shifted the topic from M’s lunch to her lunch and her ability to count. In a way, this off topic act has served as a way for K to initiate and maintain an extended turn at talk. Unfortunately the topic is never maintained very long in any of the conversations between B and K. If the same topic is maintained for an extended period of time B usually does it through the question and answer sequence. When K is the initiator of talk, she usually will hold the topic for a few short turns and then stop. If the topic is held for longer, it is usually non-sensical (e.g., singing, counting), repetitive talk in which B is minimally engaged. The following example illustrates an instance in which K attempts to maintain a specific topic, but becomes repetitive.
Conversation 1.1
66 K: and I ate all of my seconds. I ate all of
67 thirds.
68 B: Mmm
69 K: I had a lot
70 (1.4)
71 K: I ate all my lunch, so:: I was done
72 B: Oh
73 K: That’s a lot
74 B: Mm hm
75 K: I ate a lot. Didn’t I
76 B: sounds like you ate pretty good
77 K: Except I didn’t like the hamburger but I just
wanted the noodles
K maintains this topic for approximately 12 turns of talk before B shifts the topic in line 86 (not shown). It should be noted that B’s shift in topic was not done deliberately as a way to change the topic. A gap occurred in the conversation and B selected as next speaker, giving him the opportunity to continue K’s talk or change to a new topic. He chose to change the topic.
Prior to this shift, however, we can see that B is minimally engaged in conversation with K as she talks about how much food she ate. She is repetitive and continues to talk about the large amounts of food she ate. It appears that B doesn’t know how to respond to this sequence of information and thus gives only minimal responses. K is required to use a tag question in line 75 to elicit a response from B.
Repair
Sequences
Children are able to make self-repairs in their talk by 18 months. Children between the ages of three and five also have the ability to respond appropriately to repair initiations of others (Naremore & Hopper, 1990). Most repair sequences in children’s talk, however, focus on the child’s initiation for the adult to repair some statement. These repairs are formed as clarification requests (McTear, 1985) and can take one of two forms:
(1) Non-specific requests for repairs
B: Who’d you talk to
K: Mm (.) what?
(2) Specific requests for repair
K: what does it- never mind mean?
B: it means:: don’t pay it any more attention. Forget about it
K: what’s forget about it mean
Typically when B made some utterance that K did not understand she would use one of the above clarification requests to initiate a repair on B’s behalf. B would then redirect the question (or statement) to make it clearer for K. Neither B nor K used the self-initiated repair as often in this particular data-set. When K did initiate self-repairs, she used the XY sequence (Schegloff, Jefferson, & Sacks, 1977).
Conversation 2.1
X Y
K: I can- I wanna be a girl firefighter
Conversation 1.1
X Y
K: Not the Brittney and the brown- eh blond hair uhm
But chelsea (.) uhm (1.8) in the brown hair
These repair sequences seem fairly easy for K to accomplish. She simply replaces one word with another and has corrected the utterances on her own. Other-initiated repairs seem more difficult for children. Children often reformulate their utterances rather than repair them when asked to do so. This usually consists of the child rearranging terms in order to fix whatever needs repair. This replacement of terms demonstrates that younger children are not as skilled in other-initiated repair sequences. Children also have a more difficult time understanding exactly what needs repaired. Typically, children see other-repair initiations as an attempt for some grammatical repair (Naremore & Hopper, 1990). If an adult does an other-initiated repair, the child may see this as a clue that they have said something wrong, and may attempt to state the question differently to make themselves more clear to the adult (Atkinson, 1979).
Conversation 2.1
85 K: Is fire the only thing that boys can take care
86 Of
87 B: Huh?
88 K: I said (1.2) is firemen only for boys
B does an other-initiated repair sequence in line 87. He isn’t sure what K is asking and initiates a repair from K. Rather than simply restate what she said in line 85, K reformulates her question. This strategy is consistent with Atkinson’s findings that children typically lack the knowledge for such repair sequences, and thus, will reformulate the question thinking that there was a flaw with the original statement. In the above conversation, B may not have been initiating a repair. He could have simply wanted K to repeat the question because he did not hear it. K may have understood this request as such because she does begin her next utterance with “I said.” But rather than restate what she originally said, K might have sensed that her question in line 85 didn’t come out quite right so she reformulated her utterance.
Discussion
Through close examination of adult/child interactions, we are able to gain a better understanding of how adults and children manage conversational interactions. Children tend to approach conversation differently than adults, as was demonstrated in this study. Different approaches can make it difficult at times for participants to manage conversations effectively. The success of such conversations is usually dependent on adults’ abilities to pick up, manage, interpret, comment on, extend, repeat, and sometimes demonstrate appropriate conversational acts within adult/child conversation.
The sequences of talk in adult/child conversations are also an important process for maintaining successful conversations. Three sequences of talk occurred in this data-set, all of which involved questions to initiate conversation. This type of topic initiation isn’t always reflective of adult conversations. This question-answer strategy is one of the most effective ways to intimate and maintain conversations with children, however. As discussed earlier, if the adult does not continue to initiate or pick up topics by using the question-answer sequence, then the conversation lapses or stops completely until the adult initiates a new topic.
Certainly much more research needs to be done on adult/child conversations. The following study was helpful in identifying areas for concern within adult/child conversation, but was limited by time constraints and the number of conversations selected for the study. More work should be done in order to understand how parallel talk (such as M’s) functions in conversations (if it does). More attention also needs to be given to children’s playfulness and performance in conversational interactions. In what ways do children use narrative performance (such as singing and counting) as a way to engage in conversations with adults? Also, when children lack the narrative skills necessary to tell a story, how might narrative performance (acting out the conversation) serve as conversational turn-taking? Finally, K and M frequently re-performed one another’s utterances within their conversations. B also performed some of K and M’s utterances by repeating their words and mimicking their actions. It would be worthwhile to analyze how these re-performances are used and what functions they serve in adult/child interactions.
References
Atkinson, M. (1979). Prerequisites for reference. In E. Ochs & B. Schieffelin (Eds.), Developmental pragmatics (pp. 241-334). New York: Academic Press, Inc.
Camaioni,
L. (1979). Child-adult and child-child conversations: An interactional
approach. In E. Ochs & B. Schieffelin (Eds.), Developmental pragmatics
(pp. 335-370).New
Academic Press, Inc.
Corsaro, W. (1979) Sociolinguistic patterns in adult-child interactions. In E. Ochs & B. Schieffelin (Eds.), Developmental pragmatics (pp. 373-397). New York: Academic Press, Inc.
Ervin-Tripp, S., & Mitchell-Kernan, C. (1977). Language,
thought, and culture: Advances in the study of cognition. New York: Academic Press, Inc.
Ervin-Tripp, S. (1979). Children’s verbal turn-taking. In E. Ochs & B. Schieffelin (Eds.), Developmental pragmatics (pp. 398-412). New York: Academic Press, Inc.
McTear, M. (1985). Children’s
conversation.
Naremore, R., & Hopper, R. (1990). Children learning
language: A practical introduction to communication development. New York:
Harper & Row Publishers.
Nofsinger,
R. E. (1991). Everyday conversations.
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E., & Jefferson, G. (1978). A simplest systematics for the
organization of turn-taking for conversation. In J. Schenkein (Ed.), Studies
in the organization of
conversational interaction</