7>pragmatic development Flashcards
What is acquired grammar/words/phonology used for?> (5)
- requesting/persuading (speech acts)
- sharing info/gossiping
- telling stories
- telling jokes
- conversations
How can conversations go wrong (pragmatically)>
- 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)
Referring expressions: adult’s ‘preferred argument structure’>
1> new referents= lexical NP (“a frog”)
2> given referents= pronoun or null form (“it”/0)
Use of referring expressions in children’s spontanteous speech>
found children use different referring expressions for new & given early on from age 2;4 (e.g. “ a frog” vs “he”)
what is children’s referring expressions determined by?>
- whats new/given
- what the interlocuter can/cannot see (“he” when interlocuter CAN see; “the frog when CANNOT see)
Referring expressions experiment: new/given & could/couldnt see>
- 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
Referring expressions experiment: new/given & could/couldn’t see> results>
- 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
two levels of perspective taking>
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)
perspective taking- level 1 study> 2 cars
- 2 cars shown to child: 1 adult can see (yellow) & 1 cant (red)
- asked child qn “can you help her find it?”
perspective taking- level 1 study> 2 cars> results
- 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)
perspective taking- level 2 study> car & tree>
- 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?”
perspective taking- level 2 study> car & tree> results>
- 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
perspective taking- level 2 study> screens & rabbits>
- white and yellow screen between adult & child, with 1 blue bunny behind each screen
- adult asks child “can you give me the green rabbit?”
perspective taking- level 2 study> screens & rabbits> results>
- children pick the rabbit behind the yellow screen, even though both look blue (not green) to them
Referential communication tasks> study on B&W background & objects>
- 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
Referential communication tasks> study on B&W background & objects> results>
- 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
Referential communication tasks> study on B&W background & objects> alternative condition>
- 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?”
Referential communication tasks> study on B&W background & objects> alternative condition> results>
- children rightly pick the car that is visible for the speaker as well
Ambiguous referring expressions study> sticker book>
- 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”
Ambiguous referring expressions study> sticker book> results>
-children below 5 would often produce under-informative & ambiguous expressions (e.g. “the frog”)
- only at 5 were able to do
How can kids be trained to use unambiguous referring expressions?>
- feedback from interlocuter (“which frog?”)
- interlocuters use ambiguous referring expressions
- interlocuters use unambiguous referring expressions
What do results from referring expressions/ perspective taking/ referential communication & ambiguous referring expression tests tell us?>
- overall demonstrates once children have acquired a lang system, they still have problems using it appropriately & adapting to different commmunicative contexts
Relevance before quantity study>relevance> sticker finding game>
- 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
Relevance before quantity study>relevance> sticker finding game> results>
- 3+ already answered they would trust character who provides more relevant info
