196 CHAPTER slx Longuoge in sociol contexts

and did not present evenrs in the correct order, as if they assumed that their listeners
already undeirtood what they were talking about. From these data, Piaget concluded
th"t p..schoolers are egocentric and unable to take their listeners' perspectives, that
"the effort to ,rnd.rst"nd other people and to communicate one's thought objectively
does not appear in children before the age of about 7 or7'/"
(192611974' p. 139).
ft $oUa be clear that both speech act theory and Piagett cognitive developmen-
tal theory srress the relevance ofcontext for using and understanding language. For the
speech acr theorisrs, conrext meant the participants as well as the task or setting and
p.io, .o.r',r.rsation. For Piaget, context meant the immediate physical context as well
as characteristics of the listener
(what the listener knows, etc.). fu you will see, subse-
quent researchers have investigated preschoolers in many contexts to see which contex-
tual factors affect the children's language. That is, they assessed specific claims and
aspects of these theories.
f,nNouncE
tN soclAl coNTEXTS
Communicative competence entails the appropriate use of language in social contexts.
It is precisely because communicative behaviors are so contextually sensitive that it is
di{ficult to describe clear developmental progressions for each of them
(though see
New Standards Speaking and Listening Committee, 2001, for general developmental
guidelines). Preschoolers usually perform differently in laboratory experiments than in
lr.ryd*y interaction and converse differently with strangers than with those who are
*orl fr*ilirr, making it hard to define and assess level of comPetence. This section
therefore focuses on several domains which provide relatively clear information about
development in the preschool years: nonegocentric language, requests, conversational
skills, and language varieties.
Nonegocentric
Longuoge
In some of the earliest efforts to assess young childrent communicative competence, re-
searchers asked whether preschoolers communicate egocentrically. Using research pro-
cedures modeled after Piaget's, these researchers demonstrated that young children
have the capaciry to take the perspective of the listener in certain circumstances. These
studies investigated referential communication, the ability to describe an item from a
set of similar iiems so that a listener can identify it. An everyday example of referential
communication is a child describing a specific snack she wants her mother to find in a
pantry full of food.
^
o'Neill
(1996) hadZ-year-olds ask a parenr for help retrieving a toy. children
were more likely to name rhe toy or its location or to point to it when parents did not
know its location than when they did. In other words, the children took the parenrc'
knowledge inro account when communicating. In contrast, preschoolers made un-
cle"r refe*rences
(e .g.,
"this one") and used gestures in trying to communicate with a
Longuoge in Sociol Conlexis
"talking"
computer (Montanari, Yildirim, Andersen, & Narayanan,2004). As these
studies suggest, preschoolers generally perform better in common situations than in
experimental situations (Ninio & Snow, 1999) and with familiar items (e.g., sets of
animals) than with unusual items (e.g., abstract shapes)
(Yule, 1997). Providing an
eyewitness account of an accident or crime might, therefore, prove to be especially
challenging for preschoolers.
Taking a difitrent approach to the question of egocentrism, Shatz and Gelman
(1973) investigated whether 4-year-olds would speak differently depending on who
their listeners were. The preschoolers were asked to tell both an adult and a 2-year-old
about a toy. Speech to the 2-year-olds tended to be shorter and simpler than that to
adults, and it contained more phrases to get and hold attention (e.g., hey, looh).Inter-
estingly, these same 4-year-olds tended to perform poorly on a referential communica-
tion task and a physical perspective-taking task.
So are preschoolers egocentric in their attempts to communicate? The answer de-
pends on context, in these cases the
rype
of task. !7hen preschoolers are familiar with
a fairly simple task and are motivated to do it, their language does not appear to be
completely egocentric. Although it may seem that this conclusion is inconsistent with
Piagett theory it is not. Piaget observed that preschoolers sometimes use egocentric
language and sometimes use more social language. They are not inherently egocentric.
Rather, they may behaue egocentrically in certain situations and are more likely to be-
have egocentrically than older children and adults, especially when the cognitive, lin-
guistic, and social demands on them are great.
Requesfs
Requests are interesting parts of communicative competence for at least two reasons.
First, requests exemplify the distinctions Austin made among the three components of
speech acts: locutionary illocutionary and perlocudonary acts. Listeners must under-
stand that very indirect, vague locutionary acts
(e.g., "I'm
bored,"
"Do you remember
that book I lent you?") and very direct, explicit locutionary acts
(e.g., "Entertain me,"
"Give me that book') may have the same illocutionary
Purpose
and perlocutionary ef-
fect. Adults are rhought to infer the meaning of indirect requests by considering both
their form and the conrext of their use . Researchers are interested in whether young
children have this understanding and therefore investigate children's comprehension of
indirect requests.
Second, effective speakers take context into account by varying the requests they
use in different situations. Speakers have many forms of requests at their disposal, not
only in terms of their direct and indirect structure, but in terms of whether they con-
tain semantic aggrayators
(words or phrases that intensify the request; e.g.,
"or else,"
"right now") or semantic mitigators (words or phrases that soften the request; e.g.,
"please" or giving reasons). Researchers are thus interested in how children produce re-
quests and whether they re cognize the relationship beween the forms and functions of
requests (see Becker, 1982,1984).
197
198 CHAPTER slx Languoge in sociol Contexts
Preschoolers' Comprehension of Indirect Requests
Both observational and experimental studies indicate that pteschoolers respond to indi-
rect requesrs as requests for action. Two-year-olds respond as appropriately to requests
their mothers phrase as questions as to those phrased directly
(Shatz, 1978), and 3- and
4-year-olds respond with appropriate actions when, for instance, telephone callers ash "Is
your Daddy there?" and when someone hints, "It's noisy in here" (Ervin-Tripp, 1977).
Other evidence rhar preschoolers understand indirect requests to be requests for
action is found in the way children normally refuse such requests. Garvey
(1975)
o6'
served 36 preschool dyads.
lVhen
children did not want to comply with indirect re-
quests, they often justified and explained in terms of their inabiliry to perform the
requested act (e.g., "I cant"), lack ofwillingness
(e.g., "I dont want to"), lack of obliga-
tion to comply (e.g., "I dont have to"), or their inappropriateness as the person being
asked to comply
(e.g., "No, you'). Their comments reveal not only that theyviewed in-
direct requests as requests, but that they understood the conditions under which they
could legitimately make requests and the conditions under which they should respond.
Experiments also show that preschoolers understand the intent of indirect re-
quests. Leonard and his colleagues
(Leonard,
'S7.ilcox,
Fulmer, 6r Davis, 1978) assessed
childrent comprehension of embedded imperatives such as "Can you X?" and "tVill
you X?" Children watched videotapes of everyday interactions in which an adult used
an embedded imperative to make a request of another adult. Children judged whether
the listener's subsequent behavior was in compliance with the request. Even 4- and 5-
year-olds performed at beter than chance on these requests, even when the requests
were that the listener stop or change a behavior. Ervin-Tlipp, Strage, Lampert, and Bell
(1987) obtained similar results.
It may be that indirect requests like hints are not very difficult for young children
to understand. Because some indirect requests are so common in everyday speech, they
may nor require logical reasoning or the conscious consideration of form and context
(Gordon & Ervin-Tlipp, l9B4). Preschoolers may routinely hear requests such as
"Lunch time"
(meaning "Clean up and wash your hands"), so that their intent has be-
come obvious and the response automatic.
Preschoolers' Production of Requests
Many contextual factors affbct the forms of requests adults use in different situations.
They include the roles of the rwo people conversing, whether the seming is personal or
transactional, whether the requested action can normally be expected of the listener,
and the relative starus or power of the two people. Most of the research on children has
focused on status.
In general, like adults, children tend to address direct requests with semantic ag-
gravators to listeners oflower status and indirect requests with semantic mitigators to lis-
teners of higher status. For example, preschoolers are more likely to use an imperative
(e.g., "Gimme an K') with a peer and a more indirect request
(e.g., "May I have an X?"
"Do you have an X?") with an adult
(Ervin-Tiipp
,1977;
Gordon & Ervin-tipp,l9B4;
Shatz & Gelman, 1973). During role play, they have dominant puppets enact more
Longuoge in Sociol Contextt 199
direct requests than submissive puPPets do (Andersen, 2000). They even make more
subtle differentiations, using requests that are more indirect with more dominant, big-
ger peers than with less powerful peers
(fflood & Gardner, 1980).
Preschoolers are, at least ro some degree, aware of the association between request
forms and the relative status of speakers and listeners and can recognize the social mes-
sages thar requesrs convey. Preschool-age children reported that direct requests with se-
mantic aggravators were
"bossier" than less direct requests with semantic mitigators,
which were seen as "nicer" (Becker, 1986). \7hen asked to make bossy and nice requests,
these children produced bossy requests that were more direct and aggravated than their
nice requests. In other words, a peer who fequests the way a higher-status
Person
re-
quests is bossy, whereas one who requests the way a lower-status person requests is nice.
Requests themselves are not inherently bossy or nice. Rather, it is the use of the forms
in particular contexts by particular people that imbues them with social nuances.
In summ"ry pr.r.hoolers are quite adept at comprehending and producing dif-
ferent request forms. They respond appropriately to indirect requests and understand
conditions of their use . They also vary the forms of their requests systematically when
speaking with individuals who are more or less powerful than they are.
Conversotionol Skills
The abilities ro take orhers' perspectives while communicating and to use requests are
components of conversations, which are even more complex communicative behaviors.
Conversations require children to take turns, stay on topic, and repair misunderstandings.
Thking Tirrns
Even young infants can alternate turns while communicating with adults. By preschool,
they rarely overlap rurns. However, preschoolers lack the precise timing of turns that
older children and adults exhibit. They tend to rely on obvious cues that a speaker is
done, rather than anticipating upcoming conversational boundaries, which often results
in long pauses between turns
(Garvey, 1984). Tirrn-taking is particularly difficult for
children when there are more than two speakers
(Ervin-Tiipp, 1979). Phrases such as
the sentence-initial
"and" and fillers such as
'y knov/' help older children hold the floor
and keep their turns more effectively
(Garvey, 1984;Pan 6r Snow, 1999).
Maintaining the Topic
Preschoolers' conversations are increasingly collaborative. These children rely less and
less on simple strategies like sound play, repetition, and recasts of their partners' utter-
ances to keep the conversation going
(Pan & Snow, 1999).They become better able to
elaborate on topics and themes
(Ninio & Snow, 1996). They can have discussions
about their days activities, get into prolonged debates about the relative merits of dif-
ferent television shows, and enjoy long bouts of pretend play.
Some types of conversations are particularly challenging for preschoolers, how-
eyer. Conversations over the telephone pose problems even though preschoolers have
many experiences using telephones
(\Tarren & Tate, 1992).
240 GHAPTER slx Longuoge in Sociol Contexts
One way ro maintain a face-to-face conversation is to use cohesive devices. These
provide ways to link talk to earlier parts of a conversation. Comprehension depends on
making the link. For example, 4'year'old Ben asks,
"W'heret Spiderman?" and his
brother Sam replies,
"He's here." The pronoun
"he" helps connect parts of the conver-
sation without the need to repeat a prior phrase
("spiderman is here"). Another such de-
vice is ellipsis, in which a speaker omits part of what was said before. For example, Ben
v/onders,
"Did that dinosaur fall into the volcano?"'When Sam says,
"No, it didn't," the
missing information
("fall into the volcano") can be found by referring to a more com-
plete form earlier in the conversation. These cohesive devices as well as others such as
'
connectives (e.g., because, so, then) become more frequent and diverse over the preschool
years (Garvey, l9B4) and beyond
(see discussion of anaphora in Chapter 5).
Giving and Responding to Feedback
In order for a conversarion to progress smoothly, listeners must provide feedback signal-
ing confusion, and speakers must respond appropriately to that feedback. Very young
children can repeat or verifr their utterances when asked to do so. Preschoolers can is-
sue and respond to queries requesting more specific responses, as in the following exam-
ple of an interaction between two 3%-year-olds, drawn from Garvey
(1984, p. 46):
Girl:
"But... uh... driverman. Ihavetodrivethis car."
&ry,
"'W.hat car? This car?" (touches a wooden car)
Girl:
"Yes."
However, preschoolers are inconsistent and often inept at asking for clarification when
others' communication is unclear and at repairing their own speech, especially when
their listener's feedback is not explicit or when the situation is unfamiliar or unnatural
(Garvey, 1984;Lloyd,Mann, & Peers, 1998). Elementary-age children are better able
to achieve mutual understanding in conversations.
It is not until later that children are able to insert
"uh-huhs," "rights," "I sees,"
and head nods at appropriate moments to indicate continuing attention and satisfac-
rory comprehension
(Garvey, 1984; Lloyd, 1992).This rype of response is referred to
as backchannel feedback.
Over the course of the preschool years, children become increasingly skilled at
taking rurns, mainraining the topic of conversations, and dealing with misunderstand-
ings and conversational breakdown. Although preschoolers are remarkably good con-
versadonalists, older children require less conversational support from adults and are
better able to conduct coherent, sustained conversations. Indeed, such communicative
comperence can continue to develop throughout the life span
(see Chapter 10 as well
as Berman, 2004; Ninio 6r Snow 7999; and Pan & Snow, 1999)'
Choices omong Longuoge Vorieties
Another aspect ofcommunicative competence involves the choices speakers make among
language varieties. For example, one would speak differendy while giving a formal
presenrarion at school than when playing in onet neighborhood; when talking to chess
Languoge in Social Contexts 241
buddies about strategy rhan when talking with younger siblings about television shows;
when talking with one's elderly, Cuban grandparents than with younger, European
American neighbors. These language varieties include registers, dialects, and lan-
guages. Registers (sometimes called speech codes or style) are usually thought of as forms
of language that vary according to participants, settings, and topics. Dialects are usu-
ally thought of as mutually intelligible forms of language associated with particular re-
gions or defined groups of people. And languages are forms that are
rypically
not
intelligible across groups. The distinctions among these three forms are not always
great; they are often based on social and political, rather than linguistic, considerations
(Linguistic Sociery ofAmerica, 2A07).The Linguistic Sociery ofAmerica notes, for ex-
ample, that different varieties of Chinese are considered dialects even though speakers
of these different forms cannot understand each other, and that Swedish and Norwe-
gian are separate languages but users ofeach understand the other.
No one language variety is inherently more appropriate than another (though lis-
teners have many stereorypes and prejudices concerning them). As with other aspects of
communicarive competence, whether a given variery is appropriate and effective depends
on the conrext in which it is used. Two examples of language varieties are those associated
with ethnicity and gender. Keep in mind that these varieties are only asociatedwirh eth'
niciry and gender; there are tremendous differences across group members.
Language and Ethnicity: African American English
AfricanAmerican English (AAE), avariery of English spoken by manyAfricanAmer-
icans, is characterized in adult usage by its phonological, syntactic (seeTable 6.1), and
pragmatic features. Phonological features that
best distinguish it from most other varieties of
English include simplification processes such as
consonant reversals and fi nal-consonant cluster
reduction (Bailey &Thomas, 1998). For exam-
ple, the word cold reduces to cole and ask
changes o ahs. Syntactic features include mul-
tiple negation, as in "He ain't got no car" and
subject-verb disagreement, as in "V{hat do this
say?" (Martin 8c'Wolfram, 1998). There are
also pragmatic features such as the use of
signifring (also referred to as sounding caP?ing,
and playing the dozens). Signifring is a type of
sarcastic or witty language play that allows
users to inidate.a verbal
"war" or make indirect
comments on socially significant topics. For ex-
ample, one can describe someone by saying,
"He is so cool that he even stops for green
lights" (Smitherman,2007). Rap and hip-hop
language are related speech events. Another
Mony Africon Americons speok o voriety of
English characlerized by its phonologicol,
syntoctic, ond progmotic feotures.
207 CHAPTER slx Longuage in Social Contexts
Somple Differences between Stondord English (SE) ond Africon Americon
Enslish (AAE)
SE AAE
Phonologt
Consonant deletions
Final-consonant cluster reduction
Unstressed-syllable deletion
Final-consonant deletion
Consonant substitutions
Final stop devoicing
l{l and /v/ for medial and final /th/
/d/ for initial /th/
Consonant reversals
Final /s/ + stop
Syntax
Muldple negation
Non-inverted question
Deletion of auxiliary
Sub
j ect-verb disagreement
Invariant
"be"
Regularized possessive
goYernment
hive
bad
mouth
these
ask
doesnt have
'$7.ho
is that?
How do you do this?
this says
She usually drives
He walks by himself
gov'ment
hi
bat
mouf
dese
aks
aint got no
\flho that is?
Ho',';;,6u do this?
this say
She be driving
He walks byhisself
Source: Compiled from Bailey &Thomas (199S) and Martin & \Tolfram (1998).
pragmaric characteristic of AAE is the use of topic-associating
(rather than topic-
focused) narratives, which you will read more about in Chapter 10.
Like any other form ofEnglish, children's production ofAAE differs from that of
adults. Unfortunately, little research has been devoted to developmental change in the
use of this form (\Vyatt,1995). Preschoolers have been observed in pragmatic
Perfor-
mances such as signifring
('Wyatt, 1995). Many other characteristics that distinguish
AA-E from Standard English (SE) do not emerge until after the preschool years (Battle,
1 996; Terrell &
Jackson,
2002) . Some of the earliest characteristics to appear are those
involving the verb phrase, deletion of the auxiliary and negation
(Battle, 1996;
'Washington
6c Craig, 1994).In contrast, forms involving the habitual, invariant be
and virtually all of the phonological features emerge rnuch later
(Battle, 1996; Terrell
&Jackson,2002).
Longuoge in Socio/ Conlexts
In addition to age, factors such as socioeconomic status and conrexr affect how
often children use AAL and which features they produce. It is more commonly used
among working-class and low-income than middle-income African Americans and
by boys more rhan girls (Craig
& washington,20a4). One 5-year-old African Amer-
ican girl ('Wyatt
& Seymour, 1 990) used AAE features 10 percent of the time while
describing pictures and photos, but 43 percent of the time when discussing the char-
acteristics, feelings, actions, and comments of other children. She omitted these fea-
tures completely when addressing her Caucasian classroom teacher and used them
approximately 40 percent of the time when speaking to A.frican American peers. Some
elementary-age African American children use AAE at home and other informal set-
tings and switch to SE in more formal, academic sertings, a tendency that is more
pronounced in adolescence as children become more aware of the social significance
of SE
(Battle,
1996).
\,Vhy would speakers vary their speech so much across serrings, and why would
there be so much variation in the extent ofAAE use among speakers? Their behavior may
be due to perceptions of the efFectiveness or value of different varieties in those settings.
In some settings, using a certain form enables speakers to establish and maintain social
bonds and to display cultural pride. In other settings, speakers may focus on the social
consequences oflanguage variety for teachers' attitudes. They may also recognize that us-
ing a certain variety has implications for educational and occupational access and success.
Language and Gender
Some research has suggested that there are feminine and masculine speech registers. For
example, women are said to be more likely than men to use standard phonetic forms
(e.g.,
pronouncing the final -inginwords), use polite forms such as rag questions or re-
quests, react rather than initiate in conversations, and use parricular lexical items (e.g.,
intensifiers, meaningless particles, politeness markers, rare color terms, expressive ad-
jectives, and euphemisms). There is a great deal of controversy about whether, in fact,
there are such gender dif[erences or whether these characteristics are more srereorypes
or a function ofrole rather than ofgender per se.
Overall, the language boys and girls produce is more similar than different. The
most consistent difference with respect to communicative competence is that young
girls tend to use more collaborative, supportiye, and mitigated speech sryles, whereas
young boys tend to use more controlling and unmitigated speech sryles in interaction
with peers (Holmes-Lonergan,
2003; Leaper & Smith, 2004; Miller, Danaher, Er
Forbes, I 986; Sachs, i 987; Sheldon, 1 990)
(though
note rhe opposite finding for Chi-
nese preschoolers by Kyratzis 6c Guo, 2001). For example, girls are more likely to ask
something like, "\7ill
you be the doctor for a few minures?" and "She needs the little
pill, right?" In contrasr, boys are more likely to produce such sentences as, "Come
on,
be a doctor" and "Gimme your arm" (Sachs,
l9B7). Similarly, preschool girls' stories
are more likely to describe stable, harmonious relationships (e.g.,
in families), whereas
boys' stories are more likely to involve conflict, acrion, and disruption (Nicolopoulou,
2002; Sheldon & Rohleder,1996).
203
244 GHAPTER slx Longuoge in Sociol Contexts
Some stylistic differences in girls' and boys' conversations are nicely illustrated in
DeHartt
(1999) observations of same-sex, dyadic interactions. In the following exam-
ples, both sets of 4-year-olds are playing with a toy village.
Jennifer:
Could I have the table?
Patricia: Okay.
(gives
Jennifer
the table)
Jennifer:
Thanks. \X/hat if . . .
Patricia: Oh, heret another biddy bed for me.
(picks up a new piece)
Jerunifer:
Yeah, you got a biddy biddy bed.
Patricia: Theret two biddy beds for me, for the daddy and the mommy.
Jerunifer:
No, that one is mine. I dropped it'
Patricia:
'il/hoops.
(drops a piece) Oh yeah.
(gives piece back to
Jennifer)
Itt
yours.
Contrast that example with one involving two boys:
Michael:
(teasing) Ha ha ha ha. I gor the person. I got the person ha ha.
Alan: I ha ha ha ha ha ha I got the person.
Michael:
(teasing) I got both of the brown dogs. I gor borh of the pups. I got
one of the pupPies'
Alan: I got a brown dog.
(pulls toys toward himself) Ah ha ha ha ha. I got
Michael: Hey, you have to spread
'em out
(messes up Alant toys; Alan pulls
them back) and take
'em.
Alan: Ah.
Michael: Dont.
(hits Alan on the head) Alan, ir's nor just yours. Dont be a
pig. Lett set'em up.
(swings lake from play set at Michael) \(hoa,
give me that.
(holds hand out to block)
No. Alan:
There are many differences across children in the extent to which they use these
gender-related speech sryles. Moreover, their tendency to use these sgvles varies contex-
tually. Preschool.., ,r. more likely to use them with peers of the same gender than
with peers of the other gender
(Killen & Naigles, 1995) and more with
Peers
than with
siblings
(DeHart, 1996). Gender differences also become more pronounced with age,
as you will learn in Chapter 10.
Language of Different Roles
Another indication rhat children understand the connection between different lan-
guage forms and context is the way they role-play. That is, by speaking differently
*h..r.ttr.ting the roles, they reveal their knowledge of language registers. Andersen
(2000) asked eighteen 4-,5-, and 6- to S-year-olds ro enact a family situation using
morher, father,
"rrd
yo,r.rg child puppets; a classroom situation with a teacher and
mo child puppets; and a doctor situation with a patient
PuPPet
and male and female
The Difficulty of Acquiring Communicotive Competence 205
puPpets in medical attire. Children marked the different roles prosodically (mostly
through pitch differences, bur also through inronation, volume, rate, and voice qual-
iry),lexically (e.g.,
some use of technical medical terminology), and synracrically. In
the family situation, for example, children used deep, loud voices as fathers, higher
pitch for mothers, and even higher pitch and often nasalization or whining for chil-
dren.
\Vhen
pretending to have the child address the father, they used more indirect
requests such as, "\7ould
you button me?" rhan they did when pretending to address
the mother. To her, they were more likely ro use direct requests such as, "Gimme
Daddys flashlight" (Andersen, 2000, p. 236).,f/hen pretending to be fathers, chil-
dren often used speech that was straightforward, unqualified, and forceful, and for
mothers they used speech that was more polite, qualified, and indirect (e.g.,
using
many hints such as "Baby's
sleepy''). Aronsson and Thorell (2002)
observed similar
behaviors in preschool play.
\fith age, children were able to use more linguistic devices to differentiate among
the roles (Andersen,
2000). Initially, they relied on prosodic features and different speech
acts, then added differentiated vocabulary and topics, and finally udlized syntax. Older
children were also better able to maintain these contrasts throughout their role play.
As you have seen, preschoolers have many varieties of language at their disposal,
including dialects and registers. M*y African American preschoolers are beginning
to acquire the features ofAfrican American English and to use rhem differently in dif-
ferent settings. Girls and boys are developing somewhat different styles, with girls
communicating more collaboratively with peers than boys do. During play, young
children demonstrate basic knowledge of the registers associated with differenr roles.
Preschoolers clearly have a command of some of the culrurally determined compo-
nents of communication.
{
HE DTFFTCULTY OF ACAU|R|NG
COMMU N ICATIVE COMPETE NCE
The preceding discussion shows that children must adapt their language to difiGrent
contexts. They must learn, for example, that they may yell when they are playing out-
doors but must use quieter voices inside and perhaps not even talk at all in settings such
as movie theaters and churches. Similarly, they must learn that they may discuss toilet-
ing matters and details of recent illnesses with family members and physicians, bur not
with strangers, and that members of their soccer team may understand soccer jargon
and expressions but that they must use other phrases with nonplayers. Not only must
children acquire a repertoire of communicative behaviors, they musr be able to recog-
nize characteristics ofdifferent contexts and then use the behaviors that are expected,
appropriate, and effbctive. This is clearly a difficult task for them.
In contrast with the morphological and syntacric rules described in Chapter 5,
there are usually not strict rules for communicative competence (Abbeduto
& Short-
Myerson, 2002; Becker, 1990). Rather, in specific contexrs, using or omitting a
206 GHAPTER slx Languoge in Socio/ Contexts
particular communicative
behavior is seen as relatively appropriate or inappropriate'
'For.rrr.rpl.,
children do not always have to say
Please
in order to be polite and appro-
p.i-,.. ii.t.
"r.
oth., ways to make polite requests'
,su"h
a1
1ri18"M^y
I have a
cookie?" The lack of hard-and-fast
rules probably makes it difficult for children to
learn whether and when to exhibit different behaviors'
Another factor that makes acquisition of communicative
comPetence difficult is
that many polite forms have no .le"r ref.rerrts. That is, it is not obvious what a form
,rrh
^,
pir)rrmeans.
Furthermore,
some forms, such as
"thank you," that seem to have
"
-.*rrirrg
(in this case, being thankful)
_are
often supposed to be used in situations
*h.n th.t meaning i, .orrtr"'di.ted
(such as when it is appropriate to thank elderly
Aunt Gertrude fo. ihe hideous soclcs she sent for one's birthday)
(Gleason, Perlmann'
6r Greif, l9}4).Therefore
the learning process is probably different from that de-
scribed for other words in Chapter 4'
Third, rhe conventions
for comPetent
communication
in one setting
(e.g',
home) are often different from those in tther settings
(e.g., school). To the extent that
these conventions are diffbrenr, children may have trouble learning and adjusting to in-
stitutional sertings and may also be judged negatively. The implications of this mis-
match berween home and r.hool ,r. iramatically illustrated by children whose cultures
are diffbrent from those of teachers and the classroom'
You will learn more about this later in the chapter'
{NrrurNcES
oN THE ACaulslTloN
OF COMMUNICATIVE
COMPETENCE
Acquiring communicarive
competence
isdifficult, but children have some help' There
"r.
, ,r,rrib.r of ways families and schools contribute to the acquisition process' Fur-
thermore, childrent knowledge and" their efforts to learn about communication
also fa-
cilitare their communicative
development'
Fomily lnfluences on the Acquisition
of Communicotive
ComPetence
In general, it can be said that caregivers
"so cialize" language. They use language to help
their children become
"o*p.,.ni-embers
of their societies and cultures, comPetence
reflected in part in the childrent language usage
(schieffelin & ochs, 1996)'
Virt,rily from birth, infants U.gi"io ,...ir. information about some of the com-
municative behaviors that will help Ihem meet their social needs. You have probably
seen many parenrs waye the hands of their.little, preverbd infants and say things like
"Say'hi' io M.r. Stanley'' or "Bye-bye, Grandpa"'
Much of the srructure of conversations
may be learned in early interactions be-
rween infants and caregivers, as indicated in chapter 2' Actions and talk
(e'g" the use
,:rf hrlto, plr^r,
^nd,
thaih you) arehighlyorganized
and predictable during social games
lnfluences on the Acquisition of Communicative Competence 207
or routines such as
Peekaboo
and in give-and-take with objects. Such games provide
children clear and consistent information about a small number of sociJly signifi."rrt
phrases. In these interactions, infants also learn about taking turns, rhe ,.rpo.rribili,i.,
of both participants to keep the interaction going, how to focus on a theme or topic,
and how to make the interaction cohere. Caregivers find ways to pull their infants into
the interaction, to help infants respond and participare, much as if they were having a
conversation (Ninio
8a Snow, 1995).
Once children exhibit some basic communicative competence, begin to partici-
Pate
more actively in interactions, and can anticipate sequences of behavior in the rou-
tines, caregivers adapt their interactions (Becker,
1990). A number of interesting
studies have been conducted on how they do this during the preschool years.
In a simple and clever study, Gleason and \7eint raub (1976)
tape-recorded what
happened at two homes as trick-or-treaters arrived on Halloween .rrening. They also
followed two mothers and their children as they went trick-or-treating door to door.
Many parents insisted that their children say "trick
or trear" and "thank
you," often us-
ing the
PromPt
say.Their teaching is illustrated in the following example (Gleason
&
\Teintraub, 197 6, p. 134):
Girl's mother: (approaching
a house) Dont forget to say
"thankyou."
(children
go to door and return to sidewalk) Did you say
"thank
you,,,
Sue, did you say "thank
you"?
Sue: Ya.
Girl's mother: Good.
Boy's mother: Ri.lry, did you say "thank
you"?
Girl's mother: Did you say "trick
or trear," Sue?
Boy's mother: (approaching
anorher house)
'lfill
you remember to say "trick
or treat" and "thank
you"?
Girl's mother: (children
have walked to door; she calls ro rhem from the side-
walk) Dont forget to say "thank you"!
Gleason and other colleagues (Gleason
er al., L9B4; Snow,
perlmann,
Gleason, &
Hooshyar, 1990) as well as other researchers (Herot,
2002) havemade similar observa-
tions. As seen on page 208, even carroonists acknowledge parental prompts!
order to replicate and extend these findings I conducted a one-year longitu-
dinal study of five families (Becker,
1994). Parents audiotaped everyday interactions
berween themselves and their preschoolers in their homes, particularly at the dinner
table, an important conrexr for language socialization (Blum-Kulka,
1997;Ely, Glea-
son, MacGibbon, & zaretsl<y,2001). First, parents commented about a wide variery
of communicative behaviors. They provided input about what children were expected
to say (e.g.,
please, polite requests, goodble, routines such as "trick
or treat," address
terms, slang), how children were expected to speak
(using
the appropriate volume,
tone of voice, and clariry), when children should speak, and how ro stay on topic.
Parents also used a variety of strategies in their comments about and reactions ro
their preschoolers' communicative behaviors. They prompted in several different ways,
2AB CHAPTER slx Languoge in Sociol Contexts
&t
Dolly's mother hos obviously prompted her
obout oppropriote birthdoy porly expressions'
(@ Bi! Keone, lnc. King Fealures Syndicote')
modeled, reinforced, occasionally posed hypothetical situations, evaluated behavior
after rhe facr, addressed childrens comments about communication,
and evaluated
others' communicative behavior
(see Thble 6'2)'
one of the provocarive aspects of these findings is that most of the parents' input
was indirect. sp.afi.rlly, p"r..r*' indirect comments on errors and omissions composed
an avefageof 61 p....rrt of ,h. totd input
(49-91Percent across the families). Indirect-
.r.., ,..ri, a ris\y way to teach .orrr*rrr,i.r,ive competence, because children might not
understand wh*i th.y are supposed to do. The finding that so much parental input is in-
direct is counterintuiti r., b.c",rs. parents believe that displaying competence is impor-
tant and a reflection of their own socialization comPetence
(Becker & Hall, 1989; Bryant'
1999).One would think that parents would be explicit in order to maximize the chances
of th.i, children performing.orr..tly.
Although these are not experimental findings and
therefore causal conclusions-cannot
be drawn, it is likely that indirectness challenges chil-
dren more cognitively and provides more information about communicative conven-
tions rhan does direct,.*plicit
input
(Becker, 1988). In fact, mothers of preschoolers
believe that indirect ,.rponr., plale cognitive burdens on children by helping them
'to
think rather than just prrrot" and
"figure it out on
[their]
owri'
(Bryant, 1999, p. 134) .
Parents are nor the only famlly members who socialize communicative comPe-
tence. Siblings in several cultures ha-ve been observed to prompt appropriate behavior
(Demuth, 1i86; Gl.rron, Hay' & Cain, 1989)' For example' a 5-year-old
American
lnfluences on the Acquisition of Communicotive Competence 209
Colegories of Poreniol lnput Regording Preschoolers' Communicolive Competence
Prompts
Direct comment on omission
Explicitly point out the omitted behavior or that the child must produce this behavior; e.g.,
"Say
'excuse me'when you cough."
Indirect comment on omission
Allude to the omission; e.g., "\7hatt
the magic word?"
Direct comment on rror
Explicidy point out the childk error or that the child must correct behavior; e.g., "Dont
talk with
your mouth fuIl."
Indirect comment on enol
Allude to the error; e.g.,
"\Mhat
did you say?"
Anticipatory suggestion
Suggest a behavior prior to an omission or error; e.g., "Dont forget to say'night-night' to Daddy."
Modeling
Mod.eling
Provide the appropriate behavior before the child has the opportuniry to produce it; e.g., "Excuse
me" as the child coughs.
Tlaching siblirug
Modeling for the preschooler by commenting on younger siblingt behavior; e.g., Mother: "'What
do
you say?" Sibling: "Thank
you." Mother: "You're
welcome. Very good!"
Parents demonstrate
Parents demonstrate prompts and behaviors as instruction; e.g., Father: "Go
get my milk." Mother:
"\fell,
what do you say?" Father: "Please."
Reinforcemeat
Verbal reinforcement following preschoolers' appropriate usage; e.g.,
"I
like the way you say
X]."
Otherforms of rnpat
Hyp o th e t i c a I s itu at i o n
Pose a hypothetical situadon for didactic purposes; e.g., "'W'hat would you say if that ape came up to
you and said'hi'?"
futroactiue eualuation
Comment on childt appropriateness well after the fact; e.g., "She said her prayers
fearlier
at lunch]
all by herself ! \7ord for word, too. I'm really happy about that."
Address child's comment
Respond to childt question, statement, or prompt about communicative competence; e.g., Child:
"Itt a bad word,
'ugly."' Mother: "It's
not a bad word, you just use it wrong."
Eualuate anotlter
Seek child's evaluation of another persont behavior; e.g., "Right,
Jane?"
Source: Becker (1994), pp. 136-137.
210 CHAPTER slx Longuage in SociolConlexls
girl apparently imitated her parents by instructing her younger sister,
"Dont talk while
you're eating"
(Gleason et al., 1989).
A.,,r.rrb., of researchers have suggested that different family members contribute
to the acquisition of communicative competence in different and potentially important
ways. That is, family members who know the child less intimately
(e.g., fathers wh31e
secondary caregivers) or who lack the capaciry and motivation to tune in to the childt
needs
(e.g., oldlr siblings) may pressure the child to communicate clearly and appropri-
at.ly *oi. than would family members who know the child most intimately
(e.g.,
mothers who are primary caregivers)
(Barton & Tomasello, 1994; Gleason, 1975;
Mannle Er Tomasello,lgST). Fathers and siblings, in this view, challenge children to
adapt and broaden their communicative skills and thus prepare them to
11----------------lk
yith
,,.*.rg.r, and about unfamiliar topics. Thus, fathers and siblings may serve as "bridges"
to the outside world,
"leading
the child to change her or his language in order to be
understood"
(Gleason, 197 5, p. 293).
There is some evidence ro support this bridge hypothesis. Relative to mothers, fa-
thers of infants have been observed to have more breakdowns in communication,
spend less time focused on the same object or action, be less successful at tuning in to
tleir children's currenr focus of attention, make more off-topic replies, and request
clarification more often
(Mannle & Tomasello ,
1987; Tomasello, Conti-Ramsden, 6c
Ewert, 1990). Fathers of preschoolers also use more imperatives with their children
than do mothers
(Gleason, 1975).A meta-analysis
(a statistical review of many stud-
ies) demonstrated that, across studies, mothers are more suPPortive
(e.g., they praise,
acknowledge) in their speech than fathers
(Leaper, Anderson, & Sanders, 1998). In
general, fathers appear to be less tuned in to children than mothers are.
Note that iess supportive conversational interaction is not necessarily a good
thing: Parents who failil give their preschoolers time to respond to requests tend to
have children with poor turn-taking skills
(Black & Logan' 1995)'
Nor surprisingly, older siblings are even less tuned in and conversationally respon-
sive than fathers. Hlff-Ginsberg *rrd Kr.r.ger
(1991) observed toddlers interactingwith
preschool-age siblings, ,- ,o
g-year-old
siblings, and their_mothers. The older siblings
were conversationally more like their mothers than were the preschoolers, but neither
group ofsiblings adapted their speech adequately to their younger siblings' age. Like-
i,ir., Tornrrello and Mannl.
(1985) found that preschool-age siblings of infants ac-
knowledged fewer urrerances rhan did their mothers. Mannle, Barton, and Tomasello
(1991) obr.*.d those differences even when infants conversed similarly with their
mothers and siblings. In general, siblings are more directive, less responsive, and less
adept than their mothe.,
"t
using techniques for maintaining conversations with
yo,r.rg., siblings and at taking into account the infants' conversational immaturity.
-
SiUli"gs can affect communicative competence in additional ways. Some re-
searchers ,rg,r. th"t children are motivated to participate in conversations between
their motheis and older siblings. Therefore, they learn how to enter conversations
effectively
(Barton &Tomasello ,
t991;Dunn & Shatz, 1989), as well as to maintain a
lnfluences on the Acquisition of Communicotive Compelence 211
ropic and take turns in such complex, triadic conversations (Barton & Tomasello,
1994;Hoff-Ginsberg & Krueger, 1991). Younger siblings also have the.opportunity to
observe conversations berween their mothers and older siblings and are thereby ex-
posed to a variery of communicative styles.
If siblings affbct the acquisition of communicative competence, one would expect
first-born children to differ from later-born children in their communicative skills.
Hoff-Ginsberg (1998) investigated this possibility with l'l- to 2%-year-olds. Although,
as previous research has shown, the first-born children exhibited more advanced lexi-
cal and grammatical development, the later-born children had more advanced conver-
sational skills in interactions with their mothers.
Even if they do not have siblings, preschoolers may be part of conversations
with several children and adults at the dinner table, a party, or at preschool, for ex-
ample. These multiparry conversations operate differently than dyadic conversations
do
(Blum-Kulka & Snow, 2002). Multiparry conversations allow children to hear
more talk, hear greater varieties of talk, and observe and assume different conversa-
tional roles. Such conversations require children to deal with participants' varying
degrees of background knowledge and to be assertive and clever in finding ways to
participate.
This section has focused primarily on literature describing middle-class U.S.
families because that is the population on which most of the research has been done.
However, societies and cultures
yary
greatly in the pragmatic behaviors that adults so-
cialize and the ways that they do so. For example, Canadian Inuit parents do not be-
lieve children can reason until they are 5 years old. These mothers do not rypically
converse with their infants or view their vocalizations as talk. They do not drill or re-
hearse language forms (Genesee, Paradis, & Crago, 2004).Insofar as those children
ultimately acquire communicative competence, it is clear that they learn by monitor-
ing the conversations of speakers around them. (See Aukrust, 2004; Blum-Kulka,
1997; Blum-Kulka & Snow, 2002; Rabain-Jamin, 1998; and Schieffelin & Ochs,
1986, for information about the socialization of communicative competence in other
cultures.)
There are several limitations in this literature that should be noted. First, causal
conclusions cannot be drawn because the research is descripdve and correlational. Nei-
ther experimental studies nor interventions have been done on the influences of fami-
lies on the acquisition of communicative competence. Second, there are many
variations across families with similar configurations
(Mannle & Tomasello,lgBT).
Not all mothers behave the same way, nor do all fathers or all siblings. For example,
Davidson and Snow
(1996) failed to find that middle-class, highly educated fathers of
kindergartners used more challenging language than mothers.
'We
must also exercise
caurion in generalizing results of studies of relatively few families. Third, context influ-
ences parental behavior to a greater extent than parental gender does
(Lewis, 1997).
The setting, the task, and other situational characteristics strongly affect how family
members interact with preschoolers.
212 CHAPTER slx Longuage in Sociol Contexts
Schools' ond Peers' lnfluence on the Acquisition
of Communicotive Competence
Teachers who provide opportunities and encourage children to talk for a wide variery
of purposes, in different situations, and with different audiences also help children
l."rn to communicate effectively
(Chall & Curtis, l99l). More specifically, children
need a variety of experiences communicating in order to learn the functions of lan-
guage, different forms of discourse, and the conventions for using language appropri-
at.ly. Val"able experiences include informal conversations between children and
teachers and among children
(not to mention with the principal, other teachers,
Par-
ents, and members of the community), games, small-group projects, storytelling, role
playing, and the integration of communication across the curriculum
(Chall & Curtis,
1991). Children should not just be talked to, they should be able to develop commu-
nicative competence in relevant, interesting, everyday situations. Having access to a
variery of materials, interacting in small areas or centers within the classroom, and hav-
ing long periods for interaction also appear to promote communicative competence in
the preschool years
(Cole, 1995).
Furthermore, teachers explicitly teach some rules governing communicative be-
havior specific to the classroom
(Fivush, 1983). Effective teachers announce both re-
strictive rules
(e.g,, no screaming) and prescriptive rules (e.g.,
Pay
attention, follow
roudnes) from the beginning of the school year and attempt to correct children's vio-
lations of these rules. In contrast, there are other rules that children must infer from the
ongoing interaction. Fivush observed that teachers do not explicitly teach children
about turn-taking or that only teachers can initiate topics.
School also affords children the opportunity to interact with peers. Peers proba-
bly affect communicative competence in a variety of ways. They may be similar to sib-
lings as relatively uncooperariye conversational partners and thus contribute to the
pr.rr,rr. preschoolers feel to communicate more clearly and effectively
(Mannle 6C
Tomasello, l9B7).Interactions with peers are frequent, sustained, and emotionally en-
gaging, and so provide a developmental context that promotes narrative and other
.ol-o.ri."ti"eikilk
(Nicolopoulou 8c Richner,2004). Peers also participate in forms
of communicarion that are different from those of adult-child speech
(Blum-Kulka &
Snow, 2004), but, like adults, may correct peers' communicative behavior
(Nakamura,
2001). Their special kinds of humor and disagreements, the topics about which they
talk, and their explicit socialization about language provide communicative experiences
that no doubt complement those experienced with adults.
Teachers can foster communicative competence in preschoolers who have diffi-
culties interactingwith peers
(Brown & Conroy, 2OO2). Effective intervention includes
training peers to use srrategies that engage less skilled peers in interaction. Teachers can
also use sociodramatic play to teach and prompt new skills. Finally, teachers ca{1 re-
inforce communicarive competence and help introduce children to the
"potential
social rewards of peer interactions'"