Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The communicative patterns of preschool hearing-impaired children : a pilot study Parson-Tylka, Terry 1980

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1980_A8 P37.pdf [ 5.59MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0054358.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0054358-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0054358-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0054358-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0054358-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0054358-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0054358-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0054358-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0054358.ris

Full Text

THE COMMUNICATIVE PATTERNS OF PRESCHOOL HEARING-IMPAIRED CHILDREN A PILOT STUDY by TERRY PARSON-TYLKA U n i v e r s i t y of Manitoba, 1973 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF' MASTER OF ARTS i n THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Department of S p e c i a l Education) We accept t h i s t h e s i s as conforming to the required standard B.Hec., THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA J u l y , 1980 | ^ Terry Parson-Tylka, 1980 In p r e s e n t i n g t h i s t h e s i s in p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t o f the requirements fo r an advanced degree at the U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r reference and study. I f u r t h e r agree t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e c o p y i n g o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may be g r a n t e d by the Head of my Department or by h i s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . It i s u n d e r s t o o d that copying or p u b l i c a t i o n of t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l g a i n s h a l l not be a l l o w e d w i thout my w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n . Department o f The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Co lumbia 2075 Wesbrook Place Vancouver, Canada V6T.1W5 ABSTRACT A system f o r examining t h e f u n c t i o n s of language and modes of communication used by p r e s c h o o l h e a r i n g - i m p a i r e d c h i l d r e n and t h e i r mothers was d e v e l o p e d and p i l o t t e s t e d . T r a n s c r i p t i o n and c o d i n g of v i d e o - t a p e i n t e r a c t i o n s r e v e a l t h e u s e f u l n e s s of t h e system. A f u n c t i o n a l a n a l y s i s determined t h a t m o t h e r - c h i l d dyads c o r r e l a t e h i g h l y i n t h e i r use of f u n c t i o n s , but not i n t h e i r use of modes. S i x minute time samples c o r r e l a t e h i g h l y w i t h 15 minute time samples. L i m i t a t i o n s and i m p l i c a t i o n s of t h i s r e s e a r c h a r e d i s c u s s e d . TABLE OF CONTENTS i i i Page LIST OF TABLES v LIST OF FIGURES v i CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION 1 I I LITERATURE REVIEW 9 HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE 9 PRAGMATICS IN CHILD STUDY 11 RECENT RESEARCH 20 A MODEL FOR APPRAISAL OF PRESCHOOL CHILDREN'S USE OF LANGUAGE 25 PRAGMATICS AND HEARING IMPAIRED CHILDREN 30 RELATED RESEARCH • • • 3 5 ' I I I THE STUDY 40 DEFINITION OF TERMS 40 THE POPULATION 41 THE INSTRUMENT 43 , FUNCTIONS 43 MODES 52, PROCEDURE . , 55 Page CHAPTER IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 58 SUITABILITY OF THE CODING SYSTEM 59 FUNCTIONS 60 QUESTIONS 70 MODES . 74 SUITABILITY OF USING A SIX-MINUTE SAMPLE 84 V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 89 BIBLIOGRAPHY . 95 APPENDIX A. LIST OF TOYS 104 B. CODER'S TRAINING MANUAL 105 C. STUDY CORRESPONDENCE 125 LIST OF TABLES Table Page I . COMPARISON OF FUNCTIONS OF LANGUAGE FROM VARIOUS SOURCES 21 I I . HISTORICAL SURVEY OF PRAGMATICS IN EDUCATION OF THE HEARING IMPAIRED 31 I I I . DEMOGRAPHIC DATA 42 IV. FREQUENCY OF COMMUNICATIVE AND UNCODABLE ACTS AND PERCENT FREQUENCY OF INTER-CODER AGREEMENTS ACROSS MOTHER-CHILD DYADS 59 V. FREQUENCY AND PERCENT FREQUENCY OF FUNCTIONS - 15 MINUTE SAMPLES 61 VI. CORRELATIONS BETWEEN MOTHERS AND CHILDREN FOR USE OF FUNCTIONS 70 V I I . FREQUENCY OF USE OF QUESTION TYPES 72 V I I I . FREQUENCY AND PERCENT FREQUENCY OF MODES 75 IX. CORRELATIONS BETWEEN MOTHERS AND CHILDREN FOR USE OF MODES 83 X. FREQUENCY AND PERCENT FREQUENCY OF FUNCTIONS - 6 MINUTE SAMPLES 86 XI. CORRELATIONS BETWEEN 6 AND 15 MINUTE SAMPLES FOR USE OF FUNCTIONS . . • 88 v i LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. CODING SYMBOLS 54 2. FREQUENCY AND PERCENT FREQUENCY OF FUNCTIONS - DYAD 1 . . . 63 3. FREQUENCY AND PERCENT FREQUENCY OF FUNCTIONS - DYAD 2 . . . 64 4. FREQUENCY AND PERCENT FREQUENCY OF FUNCTIONS - DYAD 3 . . . 65 5. FREQUENCY AND PERCENT FREQUENCY OF FUNCTIONS - DYAD 4 . . . 66 6. FREQUENCY AND PERCENT FREQUENCY OF FUNCTIONS - DYAD 5 . . . 67 7. FREQUENCY AND PERCENT FREQUENCY OF MODES ^ DYAD 1 76 8. FREQUENCY AND PERCENT FREQUENCY OF MODES - ".DYAD 2 77 9. FREQUENCY AND PERCENT FREQUENCY OF MODES - DYAD 3 78 10. FREQUENCY AND PERCENT FREQUENCY OF MODES - DYAD 4 79 11. FREQUENCY AND PERCENT FREQUENCY OF MODES - DYAD 5 80 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS To Dr. Truman Cpggins f o r p l a n t i n g t h e seeds o f t h i s s tudy; to t h e S t a f f of the C o u n s e l l i n g and Home T r a i n i n g Program f o r Deaf " C h i l d r e n for. a l l o w i n g i t t o ta k e r o o t ; to Dr. Edgar L o w e l l , Dr. Susan C u r t i s s , Robin B o l i n and Sandy Meyers f o r s t i m u l t i n g i t s - g r o w t h ; to my committee, Dr. Da v i d K e n d a l l and Dr. P e r r y L e s l i e f o r g u i d i n g i t s development; to Dr. Mark Greenberg, f o r n u r t u r i n g the p r o j e c t and enc o u r a g i n g me t o grow as w e l l ; to my dear f r i e n d and r e s e a r c h a s s i s t a n t , Lana Ruddick f o r i n v o l v i n g h e r s e l f t o t a l l y i n t h i s study and f o r the l e a r n i n g we shared; to my a d v i s o r , Dr. Bryan C l a r k e f o r h i s d e d i c a t e d s u pport i n s e e i n g t h i s p r o j e c t t o i t s c o m p l e t i o n and f o r a l l t h a t he taught me; to t h e p a r e n t s and c h i l d r e n who so k i n d l y p r o v i d e d t h e d a t a f o r a n a l y s i s ; to a l l my f a m i l y and f r i e n d s who l o v i n g l y s u p p o r t e d me through t h i s e n t i r e e f f o r t ; and to my husband Tom, f o r always b e i n g t h e r e , my s i n c e r e thanks. 1 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION The most important f u n c t i o n of language i s communication. For the ma j o r i t y of c h i l d r e n , the a b i l i t y to acquire language and use i t as a t o o l f o r communication i s a r e l a t i v e l y e f f o r t l e s s though prodigious task. For c h i l d r e n who have a hearing impairment from b i r t h or p r i o r to the c r i t i c a l language l e a r n i n g p e r i o d , estimated to be p r i o r to the age of two (Lenneberg, 1965), the a c q u i s i t i o n of language becomes a Herculean task. How one goes about a c q u i r i n g language when the major channel f o r language l e a r n i n g , i . e . a u d i t i o n , i s impaired, has been the subject of much research (Streng, Kretschmer, Kretschmer, 1978). The f a c t that some i n d i v i d u a l s do acquire a considerable l e v e l of mastery of the E n g l i s h language, d e s p i t e a c o n g e n i t a l profound hearing l o s s , increases the confusion surrounding language development i n the hearing-impaired. The major goal of most edu c a t i o n a l programs f o r hearing-impaired c h i l d r e n and a d u l t s i s the a c q u i s i t i o n of language and communication s k i l l s , r e g a r d l e s s of methodological philosophy. Educators are con s t a n t l y s t r i v i n g to improve language assessment t o o l s and teaching techniques but the " s t a t e of the a r t " at t h i s time i s f a r from s a t i s -f a c t o r y (Moores, 1978). Rodgon, Jankowski and Alenskas (1977) view language as a m u l t i -d i s c i p l i n a r y e n t i t y i n v o l v i n g symbolic and c o g n i t i v e , communicative, and s t r u c t u r a l - l i n g u i s t i c aspects. Although each f a c e t of language i s 2 important, i t i s the i n t e g r a t i o n of the i n d i v i d u a l components which i s e s s e n t i a l f o r language competence. A s i m i l a r view i s taken by Bloom and Lahey (1978) who propose that the i n t e r s e c t i o n of form, content and use i s language competence. Language competence has been defined as the knowledge of language (Chomsky, 1968). Many language t h e o r i s t s equate language competence w i t h l i n g u i s t i c competence. The d i s t i n c t i o n between the two terms, however, i s not unimportant. L i n g u i s t i c competence may be regarded as i n t u i t i v e knowledge about grammar (Hopper and Naremore, 1978), that i s , the r u l e s of form (syntax) and content (semantics). Language competence, on the other hand, i n v o l v e s not only syntax and semantics, but a l s o the no t i o n of when and when not to speak, what to t a l k about and w i t h whom (Hymes, 1968), that i s , the s o c i a l use of language or pragmatics. This a b i l i t y to use syntax and semantics a p p r o p r i a t e l y i n conversation has a l s o been termed communicative competence (Cazden and Hymes, 1972) and i s seen as the framework i n which l i n g u i s t i c competence occurs. There-f o r e , w h i l e language competence and communicative competence may be used interchangeably, l i n g u i s t i c competence i s l i m i t e d to the communicator's knowledge of grammar. Because the term communicative competence captures the essence of language, i t w i l l be used throughout t h i s paper. Communicative performance i s communicative behavior used by an i n d i v i d u a l i n speaking or l i s t e n i n g which i s subject to e v a l u a t i o n by others (Cazden and Hymes, 1972). Communicative performance does not n e c e s s a r i l y r e v e a l the t o t a l scope of a c h i l d ' s communication competency, but i t does, a l l o w a degree of competence to be i n f e r r e d . The most commonly used mode of communicative behavior i s speech. Non-verbal modes are a l s o important however, p a r t i c u l a r l y i n the young 3 language-learning c h i l d . The c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n of c h i l d r e n ' s e a r l y grammars and l i n g u i s t i c behaviors could gain considerably from the study of motor-gestural phenomena that accompany language during the e a r l y phases of a c q u i s i t i o n and are e v e n t u a l l y replaced by i t (Mehrabian and W i l l i a m s , 1971). G e s t u r a l behavior has been found to be important i n the a c q u i s i t i o n of communicative competence (Parker, 1976) and remains important at l e a s t during the preschool years. I t appears that the process of l e a r n i n g to t a l k w i t h others i n v o l v e s the a c q u i s i t i o n of a complex interweaving of non-verbal and v e r b a l behavior (Melson, 1977). The i m p l i c a t i o n of t h i s phenomenon i n r e l a t i o n to hearing-impaired c h i l d r e n , i s that any attempt to evaluate communicative performance should i n v o l v e a l l behavior which i s communicative. R e s t r i c t i n g one's observations to "speech" w i l l p a r t i c u l a r l y l i m i t Information from the hearing-impaired communicator. Most hearing-impaired c h i l d r e n are l i m i t e d i n t h e i r communication to some degree by t h e i r i n a b i l i t y to hear speech c l e a r l y , even w i t h the a m p l i f i c a t i o n of sounds provided by the use of c a r e f u l l y s e l e c t e d hearing aids or F.M. a u d i t o r y t r a i n i n g equipment. V i s u a l cues a f f o r d e d by speech reading are an i n e f f i c i e n t s u b s t i t u t e f o r a u d i t i o n ( L i n g , 1976). Hearing-impaired c h i l d r e n may a l s o have d i f f i c u l t y i n producing phonemes i n connected speech w i t h s u f f i c i e n t i n t e n s i t y , d u r a t i o n and p i t c h to be c l e a r l y i n t e l l i g i b l e to t h e i r l i s t e n e r s . For these reasons, many hearing-impaired c h i l d r e n tend to r e l y more h e a v i l y on non-verbal communicative behaviors during the communication process than hearing c h i l d r e n do. A system f o r observing the modes of communication used by school aged hearing-impaired c h i l d r e n proposed by C o l l i n s (1970), i n c l u d e s eleven modes. I t may be p o s s i b l e to propose a l e s s extensive l i s t of modes f o r observing communication i n preschool hearing-impaired c h i l d r e n , 4 which w i l l cover the continuum from speech through gesture and a c t i o n to s i g n language. There are many problems inherent i n observing the communicative performance of preschool hearing-impaired c h i l d r e n . As w i t h any young c h i l d , speech may be immature and not e a s i l y understood, and t h i s problem i s compounded when a hearing l o s s i s present. I f a s i g n system i s being used by the hearing-impaired c h i l d , the observer must be f a m i l i a r w i t h that system (Pfuderer, 1968). The l a r g e v a r i e t y of s i g n systems c u r r e n t l y used i n North America from Signed E n g l i s h to American Sign Language to "home-invented" signs makes t h i s a d i f f i c u l t task. Another problem r e l a t e d to s i g n language and young hearing-impaired c h i l d r e n i s that immature fine-motor c o n t r o l may r e s u l t i n u n i n t e l l i g i b l e or ambiguous signs . Researchers are often r e l u c t a n t , t h e r e f o r e , to study language development i n very young hearing-impaired c h i l d r e n . The task becomes l e s s formidable i f a co n t e x t u a l approach to languages i s taken whereby context i s viewed as the most important f a c t o r i n i n t e r p r e t i n g communicative behavior (Bates, 1976; Bloom, 1970; Byers and Byers, 1972; Melson and H u l l s , 1977). I t has o f t e n been observed that what young c h i l d r e n say i s u s u a l l y r e l a t e d to what they see and do (Bloom, 1970). Taken to the extreme, A u s t i n (1962) says an utterance (communicative behavior) cannot be analyzed out of the context of i t s use, which i n c l u d e s both s i t u a t i o n a l and l i n g u i s t i c context, i . e . people present, t o p i c , the message given before, the goal of the com-munication, place and time (Hopper and Naremore, 1978). An optimal account of language development must i n c l u d e a d i s c u s s i o n of c o g n i t i o n and i t s r e l a t i o n to language growth. Most i n v e s t i g a t o r s are convinced there i s a c l o s e r e l a t i o n s h i p between c o g n i t i o n and language, but there i s disagreement as to the p r e c i s e nature of the r e l a t i o n s h i p . 5 The most w i d e l y a c c e p t e d t h e o r y i s based on the work of P i a g e t . H i s t h e o r y p o s t u l a t e s t h a t language development i s i n p a r t based on t h e e a r l y c o g n i t i v e development of c h i l d r e n d u r i n g the s e n s o r i - m o t o r p e r i o d between 18 months and 2 y e a r s of age ( P i a g e t , 1 9 6 2 ) . The view t h a t e a r l y language development i s i n t e r t w i n e d w i t h , i f not dependent on, c o g n i t i v e or i n t e l l e c t u a l f u n c t i o n i n g i n c h i l d r e n i s s u p p o r t e d i n th e l i t e r a t u r e (Kretschmer and Kretschmer, 1 9 7 9 ) . P s y c h o l o g i s t s agree t h a t t h e r e a r e forms of thought which a r e non-v e r b a l , but t h a t w i t h o u t language, t h i n k i n g i s l i m i t e d (Lawton, 1 9 6 8 ) . C o g n i t i v e development f o r most a d u l t s has been i n f l u e n c e d by language, b o t h i n communication and p r i v a t e l y , w i t h i n o u r s e l v e s (Lewis, 1 9 6 9 ) . I t appears t h a t language becomes e s s e n t i a l f o r t h i n k i n g to d e v e l o p beyond an e l ementary l e v e l ( W i l k i n s o n , 1 9 7 0 ) . That i s , w h i l e language a c q u i s i t i o n i s based on e a r l y c o g n i t i v e development, l a t e r e l a b o r a t i o n of c o g n i t i v e s t r u c t u r e s i s dependent on a c q u i r e d language a b i l i t i e s . As i n a l l human development, i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s i n the p r o c e s s of language a c q u i s i t i o n must be c o n s i d e r e d (Bloom, 1 9 7 0 ) . I t appears t h a t some c h i l d r e n use c o g n i t i o n more, w h i l e o t h e r s tend to use l i n g u i s t i c i n p u t more i n a c q u i r i n g language, depending on the d i s t i n c -t i o n l e a r n e d , the language a c q u i r e d and t h e i n d i v i d u a l c h i l d ( S c h l e s i n g e r , 1 9 7 7 ) . That h e a r i n g - i m p a i r e d c h i l d r e n demonstrate a c a p a c i t y f o r i n t e l -l e c t u a l f u n c t i o n i n g ( F u r t h , 1 9 6 6 ; L e w i s , 1 9 6 8 ) s u p p o r t s the v iew t h a t i n t e l l e c t u a l development i s p o s s i b l e " w ithout language" ( S i n c l a i r , 1 9 7 5 ) . I t would be expected t h a t h e a r i n g - i m p a i r e d c h i l d r e n s h o u l d d e v e l o p the p r e - v e r b a l c o g n i t i v e s k i l l s of the s e n s o r i - m o t o r p e r i o d . However, the importance of language i n the development of more e l a b o r a t e c o g n i t i v e s t r u c t u r e s , s u g g e s t s t h a t h e a r i n g - i m p a i r e d c h i l d r e n may be l i m i t e d i n 6 these c o g n i t i v e s k i l l s , as w e l l as communicative a b i l i t i e s , due mainly to t h e i r r e s t r i c t e d language. In a d d i t i o n to c o g n i t i v e development, s e v e r a l other f a c t o r s have been found to be r e l a t e d to language a c q u i s i t i o n , though cause and e f f e c t cannot be determined. The i n f l u e n c e of p a r e n t - c h i l d i n t e r a c t i o n i s a major c o n s i d e r a t i o n , o f t e n r e l a t e d to the socio-economic s t a t u s of the parents (Clezy, 1979; Greenstein, 1975; Hess and Shipman, 1965; Kretschmer and Kretschmer, 1979). The s o c i a l development of the c h i l d , as w e l l as m o t i v a t i o n i n a c q u i r i n g and using language i n communication are a l s o important. Much of the t h e o r e t i c a l base i n education of the hearing-impaired i s adapted from normal c h i l d language research. H i s t o r i c a l l y , c h i l d language study and i t s r e l a t i o n to hearing-impairment have focused on one aspect of language to the e x c l u s i o n of the other components. Research over the past decade has been p a r t i c u l a r l y concerned w i t h the development of syntax both i n normal c h i l d r e n (Chomsky, 1965), and c h i l d r e n w i t h hearing-impairments ( B l a c k w e l l , 1978; Quigley, 1976; Streng, 1972). The r e s u l t s of such research have c o n t r i b u t e d much needed i n f o r m a t i o n on t h i s aspect of language development. More r e c e n t l y , semantics has become prominent as a subject f o r research w i t h the hea r i n g -impaired (Scroggs, 1977). The t h i r d major component of language proposed by Bloom and Lahey (1978), i . e . the use of language i n a s o c i a l context or pragmatics, has, however, received very l i t t l e a t t e n t i o n i n research i n v o l v i n g hearing-impaired c h i l d r e n . This i s not s u r p r i s i n g i n l i g h t of the recent research on pragmatics i n normal c h i l d language, which has served to make the study of language even more complex ( O i l e r , 1978). For educators of the hearing-impaired, the challenge now i s to 7 i n t e g r a t e knowledge of form, content and use i n order to be b e t t e r prepared to a s s i s t students i n becoming competent communicators. The u l t i m a t e success of the attempt to i n c l u d e pragmatics or use i n language development programs f o r hearing-impaired c h i l d r e n w i l l depend on the extent to which frameworks can be c l e a r l y d e f i n e d , d e l i m i t e d and brought under i n t e r p r e t i v e c o n t r o l ( O i l e r , 1978). The essence of pragmatics i s that language i s used f u n c t i o n a l l y (Hopper and Naremore, 1978; Moerk, 1977). Various researchers have proposed taxonomies of uses or f u n c t i o n s which attempt to r e f l e c t the i n t e n t i o n s of a communicator. Kretschmer and Kretschmer (.1979) make a d i s t i n c t i o n between pragmatic f u n c t i o n s which are s o c i a l l y o r i e n t e d , and mathetic f u n c t i o n s which are r e l a t e d to l e a r n i n g and do not r e q u i r e a response from a l i s t e n e r . Other researchers, however, f a i l to make t h i s d i s t i n c t i o n w i t h the r e s u l t s that the term pragmatics i s g e n e r a l l y used to r e f e r to a l l f u n c t i o n s . The research of H a l l i d a y (.1973) , Dore (.1974) , and Bates (1976) have been most prominent i n the r o l e of d e s c r i b i n g f u n c t i o n s or use i n normal c h i l d language. A p i l o t e f f o r t w i t h hearing-impaired preschool c h i l d r e n has demonstrated that these c h i l d r e n use the same f u n c t i o n s i n t h e i r communication as do very young hearing c h i l d r e n ( C u r t i s s , P r u t t i n g and L o w e l l , 1979). This research w i l l be discussed i n more d e t a i l i n the f o l l o w i n g chapter. An attempt to a s s i s t teachers i n a p p r a i s i n g c h i l d r e n ' s use of language has been made by Tough (1977) based on an extensive l o n g i t u d i n a l study w i t h preschoolers. Tough proposes a l i s t of 7 f u n c t i o n s of language which are used by preschool c h i l d r e n and necessary f o r s u c c e s s f u l l a t e r school l e a r n i n g . A more d e t a i l e d d i s c u s s i o n of her work w i l l a l s o be provided i n the next chapter. 8 The focus, of t h i s p i l o t study w i l l be to determine the usefulness of adapting Tough's system f o r a p p r a i s i n g the use of language by preschool hearing-impaired c h i l d r e n . The in f o r m a t i o n provided may serve to suggest a means of assessing pragmatics, which when i n t e g r a t e d w i t h assessment of semantics and syntax, would s p e c i f y a c h i l d ' s communicative competence. In a d d i t i o n to d i s c u s s i n g Tough's (1977) model f o r a p p r a i s i n g pre-schoolers' language use, and C u r t i s s et a l . ' s (1977) d e s c r i p t i o n of pragmatics i n hearing-impaired c h i l d r e n , the succeeding chapter w i l l t r a c e the h i s t o r i c a l development of pragmatic study and examine research i n these areas. 9 CHAPTER I I LITERATURE REVIEW The study of the use of language i n i n t e r a c t i o n s w i t h others i s a branch of pragmatics. This chapter w i l l review the h i s t o r i c a l p e r s p e c t i v e of t h i s area of language study, and d i s c u s s the recent research of Dore (1974), C u r t i s s , P r u t t i n g and L o w e l l (1977), and Tough (1977), which provides the t h e o r e t i c a l b a s i s f o r the ensuing work. H i s t o r i c a l P e r s p e c t i v e The word "pragmatics" i s derived from the Greek r o o t , "pragma", meaning deed or behavior. P e i r c e (1932) coined the term "Pragmatism" to r e f e r to the p h i l o s o p h i c a l movement he founded. His d o c t r i n e s included the f o l l o w i n g : The meaning of conceptions i s to be sought i n t h e i r p r a c t i c a l bearings. The f u n c t i o n of thought i s to guide a c t i o n . Truth i s preeminently to be t e s t e d by the p r a c t i c a l consequences of b e l i e f . ( P e i r c e , 1932). A more popular d e f i n i t i o n of pragmatics stemmed from M o r r i s (1946) who described i t as the r e l a t i o n between signs and t h e i r human users. Signs r e f e r to the symbols used f o r communication. Others, however, f e e l that M o r r i s l o s t s i g h t of the important p h i l o s o p h i c a l d i s t i n c t i o n s e s t a b l i s h e d by P e i r c e (Bates, 1976b). Bates proposes that pragmatics be defined as the study of l i n g u i s t i c i n d i c e s which are signs that are i n t e r p r e t a b l e only w i t h i n the context of t h e i r use. C e n t r a l to the pragmatic study of language, then, must be a u n i t of a n a l y s i s of l i n g u i s t i c i n d i c e s . This i s s u e has been approached through the n o t i o n of Speech A c t s , a theory f i r s t introduced by A u s t i n (1962). A u s t i n described Speech Acts as utterances. The i s s u i n g of an utterance he termed a Performative, because i t i s the performing of an a c t i o n . A u s t i n s p e c i f i e d three types of Speech Acts: Locutionary - a l l acts required f o r the making of speech, i . e . the a c t u a l production of the a c t . I l l o c u t i o n a r y - the conventional s o c i a l a c t , i . e . the use or f u n c t i o n of the speech a c t . P e r l o c u t i o n a r y - the e f f e c t of the speech act on the l i s t e n e r . S earle (1969) elaborated on A u s t i n ' s n o t i o n of Speech A c t s , p a r t i c -u l a r l y the i l l o c u t i o n a r y act. For S e a r l e , the Speech Act was the b a s i c u n i t of communication. He f e l t that the a n a l y s i s of i l l o c u t i o n a r y acts must capture both the i n t e n t i o n a l and conventional f u n c t i o n s and the r e l a t i o n s h i p between them. To t h i s end, he determined that four types of c o n d i t i o n s must be f u l f i l l e d f o r an i l l o c u t i o n a r y act to be performed s u c c e s s f u l l y : p r o p o s i t i o n a l , preparatory, s i n c e r i t y and e s s e n t i a l . Thes co n d i t i o n s recognize the p r o p o s i t i o n and the i n t e r n a l s t a t e s of the speaker that operate r e l a t i v e to the p r o p o s i t i o n . Searle (.1969) proposed the f o l l o w i n g hypotheses about i l l o c u t i o n a r y a c t s and these four c o n d i t i o n s : Whenever there i s a p s y c h o l o g i c a l s t a t e s p e c i f i e d i n the s i n c e r i t y c o n d i t i o n , the performance of the act counts as an expression of that p s y c h o l o g i c a l s t a t e . In the performance of any i l l o c u t i o n a r y a c t , the speaker i m p l i e s that the preparatory c o n d i t i o n s are s a t i s f i e d . There need not be an e x p l i c i t i l l o c u t i o n a r y f o r c e -i n d i c a t i n g device to perform the a c t : i f the other c o n d i t i o n s are f u l f i l l e d , i m p l i c i t devices can perform the act. 11 The same utterance may c o n s t i t u t e the performance of s e v e r a l i l l o c u t i o n a r y a c t s . ( S e a r l e , 1969) Pragmatics i n C h i l d Study The Speech Act has a l s o been used as the u n i t f o r a n a l y s i s i n c h i l d language study by s e v e r a l i n v e s t i g a t o r s (Bates, 1976b; Dore, 1973). The d e f i n i t i o n of terms o r i g i n a l l y proposed by M o r r i s (1946), A u s t i n (1962) , and Searle (1969) have been modified to account f o r e a r l y c h i l d language, p a r t i c u l a r l y i n r e l a t i o n to the communicative i n t e n t i o n s expressed by young language l e a r n i n g c h i l d r e n . Bates (1976) r e l a t e d c h i l d language study to Speech Acts and Pragmatics. Bates, Camaioni and V o l t e r r a (1975) examined the onset of i n t e n t i o n a l communication p r i o r to the onset of speech and traced i t s development up to the beginning of f u n c t i o n s expressed through speech. They view every act that i s in v o l v e d i n the c o n s t r u c t i o n of meaning as a pragmatic act i n i t s e l f . Bates (.1976) f u r t h e r proposes that " l o g i c a l l y and o n t o g e n e t i c a l l y , a l l of semantics and s y n t a c t i c s are derived u l t i m a t e l y from pragmatics." Bates, et a l . (.1975) and Bates (1976a, 1976b) describe four prag-matic s t r u c t u r e s or r u l e s of use. U n f o r t u n a t e l y , they have chosen to use Speech Act terminology i n reference to pre-speech behavior, which r e s u l t s i n confusion f o r the reader who i s attempting to conceptualize the model. The reader must bear i n mind Bates' o r i e n t a t i o n to e a r l y pre-speech communicative behaviors. Bates' four pragmatic s t r u c t u r e s are: Performatives - These are developed p r i o r to the onset of speech and are the i n t e n t i o n s i n using communicative behaviors. Bates, et a l . (1975) determined the f o l l o w i n g sequence i n the development of performatives: p e r l o c u t i o n a r y phase - (from b i r t h to 10 months) i n which acts are o f t e n u n i n t e n t i o n a l but serve to have an e f f e c t on t h e i r l i s t e n e r ; f o r example, the c r i e s of a hungry baby. i l l o c u t i o n a r y phase - (from 10 months to 12-15 months) i n which conventional s o c i a l acts take place which c a l l on others to a f f e c t the agent; f o r example, showing-off, showing o b j e c t s , p o i n t i n g - f o r - o t h e r s . l o c u t i o n a r y phase - (from 12-15 months on) i n which performative s t r u c t u r e s are used to c a r r y p r o p o s i t i o n s w i t h r e f e r e n t i a l v a l u e , i . e . word or w o r d - l i k e s i g n a l s w i t h no r e f e r e n t i a l v a l u e , f o r example, " h i " or "bye-bye"; r e s t r i c t e d usage of r e f e r e n t i a l speech, f o r example, "doggie" i n reference to a l l animals; or t r u e r e f e r e n t i a l speech, which d e p i c t s an object or event i n a v a r i e t y of contexts. P r o p o s i t i o n s - This r e f e r s to the i n t e r n a l a c t i v i t y of speakers. O r i g i n a l l y p r o p o s i t i o n s are a c t i o n schemes. Any pragmatic use of language can be turned i n t o a p r o p o s i t i o n a l object. At the e a r l y stages, p r o p o s i t i o n s d e s c r i b e things to be communicated. P r o p o s i t i o n s are marked by the emergence of t r u e words or r e f e r e n t i a l speech. Pre s u p p o s i t i o n s - Presupposing i s a very e a r l y a c t i v i t y which makes assumptions about the context that are necessary to make an utterance v e r i f i a b l e , a ppropriate or both. Bates defines three types of p r e s u p p o s i t i o n s : semantic presuppositions - are c o n d i t i o n s deducible from the meaning of a sentence and which must be t r u e f o r an u t t e r a n c e t o be a t r u e or f a l s e p r o p o s i t i o n . F o r example, "John has a s i s t e r " presupposes "John e x i s t s " . Semantic, p r e s u p p o s i t i o n s a r e n e c e s s a r y t o make an u t t e r a n c e v e r i -f i a b l e . p r a g m a t i c p r e s u p p o s i t i o n s - a r e assumptions about t h e c o n t e x t , which a r e n e c e s s a r y t o make the u t t e r a n c e a p p r o p r i a t e . P r a g m a t i c p r e s u p p o s i t i o n s v a r y a c c o r d i n g t o the c o n t e x t and b e l i e f s of t h e communicators. F o r example, "Do you want t o go bye-bye?" presupposes t h a t the l i s t e n e r i s a s m a l l c h i l d . The prag m a t i c d e f i n i t i o n of p r e s u p p o s i t i o n subsumes t h e semantic d e f i n i t i o n . p s y c h o l o g i c a l p r e s u p p o s i t i o n s - a p r e s u p p o s i t i o n can be p s y c h o l o g i c a l l y p r e s e n t as l o n g as b o t h the speaker and the l i s t e n e r s h a re t h e a c t of p r e s u p p o s i n g , o r as l o n g as t h e speaker t h i n k s t h e a c t i s shared. Young c h i l d r e n may presuppose i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t they a r e u n a b l e t o s i g n a l i n the s u r f a c e form of t h e i r u t t e r a n c e s . There i s some ev i d e n c e t h a t t h e "new" i n f o r m a t i o n i n one-word u t t e r a n c e s u s u a l l y presupposes " o l d " i n f o r m a t i o n i n t h e c o n t e x t i n which i t o c c u r s ( G r e e n f i e l d and Smith, 1976). The element of t h e s i t u a t i o n t h e c h i l d chooses t o encode (say) i s almost i n v a r i a b l y the element undergoing g r e a t e s t change or emphasis. F o r example, w h i l e p u t t i n g o b j e c t s i n t o a bucket a c h i l d w i l l say the names of t h e o b j e c t s r a t h e r than "bucket". The new-old o r d e r a t the two-word l e v e l can be seen as a c o n t i n u a t i o n of t h i s new-only r u l e . P s y c h o l o g i c a l p r e s u p p o s i t i o n subsumes semantic and pragm a t i c p r e s u p p o s i t i o n s . Presupposing i s an i n t e g r a l part of every act of speech. C h i l d r e n seem to f i n d i t easy to assume i n f o r m a t i o n , and i n the course of pragmatic development, they must l e a r n what not to presuppose. This i s r e l a t e d to the d e c l i n e of ego-centrism i n the c h i l d , as he le a r n s to d i s t i n g u i s h between h i s own and others' p o i n t s of view. Bates uses p r e s u p p o s i t i o n i n the same way as performatives, i . e . to d e s c r i b e the speakers.'ilintentoon i n using a sentence. Presupposing, then, i s a c o g n i t i v e a c t i v i t y . C onversational P o s t u l a t e s - These c o n d i t i o n s are a p a r t i c u l a r c l a s s of presuppositions about the nature of human dialogue i n general. They were introduced by G r i c e (1968) and r e f e r .to the p r i n c i p l e of cooperation i n communication, i . e . t r u t h , relevance, e t c . The a b i l i t y to p r e d i c t whether or not a given assumption i s shared by the l i s t e n e r , and to plan one's utterances a c c o r d i n g l y i s one of the highest achievements i n pragmatic development. Research has concluded that c h i l d r e n as young as 2 years of age can recognize a command that i s i m p l i c i t i n s u b t l e requests or statements of need made by mothers. For example, they respond a p p r o p r i a t e l y to a command to "Eat :lunch" even when stat e d i m p l i c i t l y as "Do you want your lunch now?" However, production of these v a r i o u s kinds of d i r e c t i v e s does not appear u n t i l 3*5-4 years of age. In a l l four pragmatic c o n d i t i o n s , Bates (1976b) views context as an i n t e g r a l part of the s t r u c t u r e of language. Meanings are conveyed through, a c r e a t i v e combination of utterances and s o c i a l s e t t i n g s , that i s , l e a r n i n g how to do things i n context through the use of words and s i g n a l s . Bates (1976b) suggests that M o r r i s ' popular d e f i n i t i o n i s l i m i t i n g because human users are a f f e c t e d i n t h e i r use of the signs of language by the context and the f u n c t i o n of the message on the speaker, i n r e l a t i o n to the context. H a l l i d a y (1973, 1975) has a l s o been concerned w i t h a f u n c t i o n a l approach to the study of language. He s t a t e s that language development i s more than the a c q u i s i t i o n of s t r u c t u r e . H a l l i d a y chooses to r e l a t e f u n c t i o n to the development of meaning, which, according to Bloom and Lahey (1978), i s synonomous w i t h content or semantics, r a t h e r than w i t h i n a pragmatic framework. H a l l i d a y takes the view that language f o r the c h i l d i s a f l e x i b l e , almost l i m i t l e s s t o o l f o r the r e a l i z a t i o n of h i s i n t e n t i o n s . He s t a t e s two reasons f o r studying the f u n c t i o n s of language; to e s t a b l i s h general p r i n c i p l e s r e l a t i n g to the uses.of language, and to e s t a b l i s h the r e l a t i o n between f u n c t i o n s of language and language i t s e l f . From the f u n c t i o n a l point of view, as soon as there are meaningful expressions, there i s language. The c h i l d has a l i n g u i s t i c system before he has any words or s t r u c t u r e s at a l l . The question becomes to discover "what has the c h i l d learned to do by means of language?" ( H a l l i d a y , 1975). H a l l i d a y (1975) proposes a t e n t a t i v e framework f o r the f u n c t i o n a l account of e a r l y language development, based on observations of young c h i l d r e n and t h e o r e t i c a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n s about l i n g u i s t i c f u n c t i o n i n g , i n c l u d i n g e s s e n t i a l l i n g u i s t i c t h e o r i e s and e x t r a - l i n g u i s t i c t h e o r i e s regarding c u l t u r a l t r a n s m i s s i o n and the s o c i a l i z a t i o n process (notably the work of B e r n s t e i n , 1971). The three phases of h i s framework are: Phase 1 - The I n i t i a l System - In phase 1 t h e c h i l d l e a r n s language as a system of meanings i n f u n c t i o n a l c o n t e x t s . There i s no form, o n l y c o n t e n t and e x p r e s s i o n through i n t o n a t i o n and a r t i -c u l a t i o n . The b e g i n n i n g o f t h e use of f u n c t i o n s o f language o c c u r s i n t h i s v e r y e a r l y phase. Each u t t e r a n c e s e r v e s one f u n c t i o n . Phase 2 - T r a n s i t i o n a l System - V o c a l i z a t i o n , s t r u c t u r e and d i a l o g u e a r e p r e s e n t i n the b e g i n n i n g of phase 2. By t h e end of t h i s phase the c h i l d can use two f u n c t i o n s a t a time and has mastered the l i n g u i s t i c system of the a d u l t language. Language can now s e r v e t o e f f e c t i v e l y t r a n s m i t c u l t u r a l knowledge t o th e c h i l d . F u n c t i o n s a r e combined i n u t t e r a n c e s and a r e e i t h e r p r a g m a t i c or m a t h e t i c . Phase 3 - The A d u l t System - In t h i s phase, f u n c t i o n s a r e no l o n g e r e q u i v a l e n t t o use but r a t h e r a r e ways of meaning. Content, form, and e x p r e s s i o n a r e a l l p r e s e n t . Each u t t e r a n c e i s m u l t i -f u n c t i o n a l and used i n a s p e c i f i c s o c i a l c o n t e x t . In Phase 1 the c h i l d i s c a p a b l e of seven f u n c t i o n s of language. These f u n c t i o n s a r e : I n s t r u m e n t a l - t h e " I want" f u n c t i o n . T h i s i s t h e f u n c t i o n , language s e r v e s of s a t i s f y i n g t h e c h i l d ' s m a t e r i a l needs; of e n a b l i n g him t o o b t a i n the goods and s e r v i c e s he wants. The c h i l d has become aware t h a t language i s used as a means of g e t t i n g t h i n g s done. The c h i l d ' s i n t e n t i o n i s s a t i s f i e d by the p r o v i s i o n of the o b j e c t o r s e r v i c e d e s i r e d . R e g u l a t o r y - t h e "do as I t e l l you" f u n c t i o n . T h i s i s t h e use of language t o r e g u l a t e , c o n t r o l o r m a n i p u l a t e t h e b e h a v i o r of o t h e r s . I t i s c l o s e l y r e l a t e d t o t h e i n s t r u m e n t a l f u n c t i o n but i s d i r e c t e d towards a p a r t i c u l a r i n d i v i d u a l i n a demand f o r company. I t i n v o l v e s the language of r u l e s and i n s t r u c -t i o n s . I n t e r a c t i o n a l - t h e "me and you" f u n c t i o n . T h i s i s t h e use of language i n i n t e r a c t i o n s between the s e l f and o t h e r s , i n c l u d i n g g r e e t i n g s and r e s p o n s e s t o c a l l s . P e r s o n a l - t h e "here I am/come" f u n c t i o n . T h i s i s the use of langua; t o e x p r e s s the c h i l d ' s own u n i q u e n e s s . Language f i r s t a l l o w s t h e c h i l d t o become aware of h i m s e l f , and i s then used t o mold t h a t s e l f ; t h a t i s , f o r t h e e x p r e s s i o n of f e e l i n g s , of p a r t i -c i p a t i o n and w i t h d r a w a l , i n t e r e s t , p l e a s u r e , e t c . H e u r i s t i c - t h e " t e l l me why" f u n c t i o n . T h i s i s t h e use of language to i n v e s t i g a t e r e a l i t y and l e a r n about t h i n g s . I t a l l o w s t h e c h i l d h i m s e l f t o e x p l o r e h i s environment and c a t e g o r i z e o b j e c t s of t h e p h y s i c a l w o r l d . I m a g i n a t i v e - the " l e t ' s p r e t e n d " f u n c t i o n . T h i s i s t h e use of language t o c r e a t e one's own environment. I t l a t e r i n c l u d e s poems, r i d d l e s , e t c . R e p r e s e n t a t i o n a l or I n f o r m a t i v e - the " I ' v e got something t o t e l l you" f u n c t i o n . T h i s i s t h e use of language to communicate about something. T h i s f u n c t i o n emerges l a t e r than the o t h e r s and r e q u i r e s t h a t t h e c h i l d has grasped the p r i n c i p l e s of d i a l o g u e and communication. The f i r s t f o u r f u n c t i o n s d e v e l o p p r i o r t o t h e o t h e r s i n Phase 1 and a l l of t h e o t h e r s precede the i n f o r m a t i v e f u n c t i o n . H a l l i d a y does not i n c l u d e p r a c t i s e forms of language such as i m i t a t i o n , c h a n t i n g o r r e p e t i t i o n , because he says they a r e models of language a c q u i s i t i o n r a t h e r than instances of language i n use. This i s i n co n t r a s t to Rees, (1975) who f e e l s that i m i t a t i o n may i n i t s e l f be a communication f u n c t i o n which teaches a c h i l d to " e s t a b l i s h or maintain communication." In the T r a n s i t i o n a l Phase 2, H a l l i d a y proposes that the c h i l d begins to combine f u n c t i o n s and there are two major cate g o r i e s of f u n c t i o n s : Pragmatic f u n c t i o n s - which a r i s e from the instrumental and regu-l a t o r y f u n c t i o n s i n Phase 1. These f u n c t i o n s are s i g n a l l e d by r i s i n g i n t o n a t i o n . Mathetic f u n c t i o n s - which a r i s e from a combination of the personal and h e u r i s t i c f u n c t i o n s i n phase 1. Mathetic f u n c t i o n s become most important f o r l e a r n i n g p o t e n t i a l i n school,, and are the.major impetus f o r the i d e a t i o n a l f u n c t i o n of the t h i r d phase. Mathetic f u n c t i o n s are s i g n a l l e d by f a l l i n g i n t o n a t i o n . In Phase 3 a l l c a t e g o r i e s and terminologies combine to form three d i s t i n c t f u n c t i o n s : I d e a t i o n a l f u n c t i o n s - ( r e p r e s e n t a t i v e , r e f e r e n t i a l and c o g n i t i v e ) The i d e a t i o n a l f u n c t i o n becomes c r u c i a l to the use of language as . e a r l y a l l utterances come to have an i d e a t i o n a l component, ( i . e . language i s used f o r l e a r n i n g ) . I n t e r p e r s o n a l f u n c t i o n s - (exp r e s s i v e - c o n a t i v e , s o c i a l , and evocative) Textual f u n c t i o n s - which p r o v i d e . c o n d i t i o n s whereby other f u n c t i o n s can be e f f e c t i v e l y served. H a l l i d a y ' s f u n c t i o n a l account of language development has been widely quoted i n the l i t e r a t u r e , and has made an important c o n t r i b u t i o n to the f i e l d of pragmatics. Dore (1974) has a l s o c o n t r i b u t e d g r e a t l y to the study of language f u n c t i o n s i n the p r e v e r h a l c h i l d . L i k e Bates, he has r e l a t e d c h i l d language study to Speech Act theory. U n l i k e Bates however, Dore has chosen to describe a c h i l d ' s communication at the one-word stage i n terms of P r i m i t i v e Speech Acts. Dore's theory of P r i m i t i v e Speech. Acts assumes that the c h i l d possesses systematic knowledge about the prag-matics of h i s language before he has acquired s e n t e n t i a l s t r u c t u r e s , and a l s o that the c h i l d can l i n g u i s t i c a l l y represent a s i n g l e concept and communicate the p r i m i t i v e f o r c e of h i s utterances (Dore, 1974). A P r i m i t i v e Speech Act (PSA) i s ; an utterance c o n s i s t i n g f o r m a l l y of a s i n g l e word or a s i n g l e prosodic p a t t e r n which conveys the c h i l d ' s i n t e n t i o n . S i n g l e words: may be e i t h e r a rudimentary r e f e r r i n g expression ( I . e . names), or s p e c i f i c expression words (e.g. h i , bye-bye). A s i n g l e prosodic p a t t e r n counts as a PSA I f i t contains a c o n s i s t e n t prosodic f e a t u r e produced without segmental phonemes of a word and communicates the c h i l d ' s i n t e n t i o n . Dore (1974) enumerates four types of b e h a v i o r a l evidence to charac-t e r i z e a PSA: the c h i l d ' s utterance; n o n - l i n g u i s t i c behavior such as gestures and f a c i a l expressions; the a d u l t ' s v e r b a l and non-verbal response; and the r e l e v a n t , s a l i e n t aspects of the context of the utterances. He suggests that a l l the l i n g u i s t i c utterances of the c h i l d at the one-word stage can be c l a s s i f i e d i n t o e i g h t , l a t e r r e v i s e d to nine (Dore, 1975), d i s t i n c t P r i m i t i v e Speech Acts. These are: c a l l i n g , p r a c t i s i n g , l a b e l l i n g , r e p e a t i n g , p r o t e s t i n g , g r e e t i n g , answering, requesting a c t i o n and requesting an answer. P r i m i t i v e Speech. Acts as formulated by Dore, do not possess a l l of the f e a t u r e s of f u l l Speech Acts. For example, PSA's do not c o n t a i n a predicating expression and do not develop i n t o Speech Acts u n t i l the c h i l d has acquired most of the grammatical s t r u c t u r e s of h i s language. 20 Dore (1974) has s c h e m a t i c a l l y r e p r e s e n t e d t h i s development at t h e one-word and two-word s t a g e s and beyond. In t h i s Speech A c t model, l i n g u i s t i c i n t e n t i o n i s a c o g n i t i v e -p r a g m a t i c s t r u c t u r e , d i s t i n c t from grammatical s t r u c t u r e s which e x p r e s s the i n t e n t i o n . The speaker's i n t e n t i o n s ( t o d e s c r i b e , a c q u i r e i n f o r m a -t i o n and so on) a r e t h e f u n c t i o n s of h i s u t t e r a n c e s which a r e e x p r e s s e d through the s p e a k e r ' s use of grammar. The i n t e n t i o n t o communicate pre c e d e s the p r o d u c t i o n of speech, hence t h e need f o r t h e concept of t h e P r i m i t i v e Speech A c t . A l t h o u g h t h e t e r m i n o l o g y and t h e models f o r examining t h e i n t e n t i o n s of t h e communication of young c h i l d r e n a r e d i f f e r e n t , B a t e s , H a l l i d a y and Dore agree t h a t t h e young c h i l d i s c a p a b l e of communicating h i s i n t e n t i o n s b e f o r e he has a c q u i r e d t h e v e r b a l a b i l i t y t o do so. Obser-v a t i o n of l i n g u i s t i c and n o n - l i n g u i s t i c components p r o v i d e s c l u e s t o t h e c h i l d ' s i n t e n t i o n s , arid .context p l a y s a major r o l e i n d e t e r m i n i n g t h e p r a g m a t i c f u n c t i o n s which t h e c h i l d i s c h o o s i n g t o e x p r e s s . A comparison of t h e f u n c t i o n s proposed by Dore, H a l l i d a y and o t h e r s i s g i v e n i n T a b l e I . The d i s c u s s i o n w i l l now t u r n t o more r e c e n t r e s e a r c h i n p r a g m a t i c s and c h i l d language s t u d y . Recent R e s e a r c h The a r e a of p r a g m a t i c s i s c u r r e n t l y the major f o c u s i n language st u d y . U n f o r t u n a t e l y , i t seems t o be a Pandora's box t h a t , when opened i n an attempt t o s o l v e c e r t a i n semantic and g e n e r a l i t y problems, -has i n t r o d u c e d many new problems of d e f i n i t i o n and t h e o r e t i c a l c l a r i t y ( O i l e r , 1978). The essence of p r a g m a t i c s i s t h a t language i s used f u n c t i o n a l l y 21 TABLE I COMPARISON OF FUNCTIONS OF LANGUAGE FROM VARIOUS SOURCES (parents) Greenberg (1976) Bartsch (1979) Bloom and Lahey (1979) Hopper and Naremore ;(1978) Moerk (1977) request a t t e n -t i o n or ob j e c t , d i r e c t behavior request d i r e c t / request c o n t r o l / persuade d i r e c t i v e d i s c u s s non-present events d i s c u s s object d i s c u s s behavior o p i n i o n statement comment report inform r e f e r e n t i a l r epeating approving beh. disapproving beh. wish, promise warn, judge question imagining question imagining expressing f e e l i n g s express f e e l i n g s expressive r i t u a l s r i t u a l i z i n g TABLE I — C o n t i n u e d Coggins (1978) Tough (1977) Dore et a l . (1978) C u r t i s s et a l . (1977) Lewis (1969) request show object .comment give object show-off p r o t e s t greet answer d i r e c t r eport s e l f - m a i n t . imagine question reason p r e d i c t p r o j e c t r e q u e s t i v e r e g u l a t i v e s a s s e r t i v e performative expressive responsive command/ demand request con-f i r m a t i o n summons i m i t a t i o n l a b e l l i n g d e s c r i p t i o n r e p e t i t i o n request f o r approval p r o t e s t i n g question r i t u a l response to command response to question response to summons acknowledgment manipulative d e c l a r a t i v e r e f e r e n t i a l o r e t i c c o g n i t i v e emotive 23 .TABLE I — C o n t i n u e d Bloom E r v i n - T r i p p H a l l i d a y Dore Hymes (1970) (1973) (1973) (1974) (1974) d i r e c t request r e g u l a t o r y requesting d i r e c t i v e i n f o r m a t i o n action/answer request i n t e r a c t i o n a l c a l l i n g contact s o c i a l metaling p r a c t i s i n g metaling c o n t e x t u a l p o e t i c comment o f f e r inform- i n f o r m a t i v e l a b e l l i n g r e f e r e n t i a l r e p o r t a t i o n repeating metacomm. avoidance personal p r o t e s t i n g instrumental imaginative question h e u r i s t i c expressive expressive mono. r o u t i n e s g r e e t i n g answering (Hopper and Naremore, 1978). One recent d e f i n i t i o n i n the l i t e r a t u r e s u c c i n c t l y captures t h i s r o l e of pragmatics, and at the same time accounts f o r the i n t e r a c t i o n component s t r e s s e d by Bates and the meaning component suggested by H a l l i d a y . "Pragmatics i s a branch of the theory of meaning that describes the use that i s made of expressions and e s p e c i a l l y t h e i r use i n i n t e r a c t i o n s " (Bartsch, 1979). Use, according to Bloom and Lahey (1978), r e f e r s to the contexts i n which language can be used and the f u n c t i o n s f o r which i t can be used. Context i s the key to determining language f u n c t i o n (Cazden and Hymes, 1972).and has been conceived as the stage set f o r an act of communication. L i n g u i s t i c pragmatics i s concerned w i t h the d e s c r i p t i o n of t h i s stage (Markova, 1978). Context determines the v e r b a l and non-verbal m o d a l i t i e s which are appropriate behaviors f o r r e a l i z i n g the communicators' i n t e n t i o n s i n face-t o - f a c e communication (Byers and Byers, 1972). The f u n c t i o n of language as communication i s i n t i m a t e l y bound up w i t h mental a c t i v i t y ( C l a r k and C l a r k , 1977). Cognition determines the s e l e c t i o n of behaviors i n the use of language. Kretschmer and Kretschmer (1978) and Leonard (1972) are two of the few c h i l d language t h e o r i s t s to maintain H a l l i d a y ' s d i s t i n c t i o n between pragmatic, .or s o c i a l l y o r i e n t e d , f u n c t i o n s and mathetic, or l e a r n i n g , f u n c t i o n s . Kretschmer and Kretschmer argue that the a c q u i s i t i o n of a v a r i e t y of uses i s the i n c e n t i v e f o r the development of language forms. This becomes the crux of the matter f o r hearing-impaired c h i l d r e n . Do hearing-impaired c h i l d r e n acquire a v a r i e t y of uses of language? Nelson (1978) f e e l s that as long as the c h i l d i s s a t i s f i e d with, communi-c a t i n g p r a g m a t i c a l l y , there i s l i t t l e need to l e a r n a conventional language system. Since pragmatic f u n c t i o n s develop n a t u r a l l y i n a l l c h i l d r e n p r i o r to speech, hearing-impaired c h i l d r e n should not be handi-capped i n t h e i r a b i l i t y to acquire these f u n c t i o n s . The mathetic f u n c t i o n s a r i s e out of these prespeech f u n c t i o n s . This suggests that i f h e a r i n g -impaired c h i l d r e n are s a t i s f i e d w i t h communicating p r a g m a t i c a l l y , then t h i s may r e s u l t i n the delayed use of mathetic f u n c t i o n s and the l i m i t e d or deviant language systems c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of many hearing-impaired i n d i v i d u a l s . The next s e c t i o n of t h i s chapter w i l l explore the r e l e v a n t research which a s s i s t e d i n for m u l a t i n g the research questions of t h i s study. A Model f o r A p p r a i s a l of Preschool  C h i l d r e n ' s Use of Language Tough (1977) has developed a guide f o r a p p r a i s i n g preschool c h i l -dren's use of language which can serve as a u s e f u l t o o l f o r teachers of young c h i l d r e n . Tough based her model on s e v e r a l t h e o r i e s of language f u n c t i o n ( H a l l i d a y , 1973; Inhelder and P i a g e t , 1964; Vygotsky, 1962; L u r i a , 1961; Lewis, 1951, 1957, 1968; B e r n s t e i n , 1971), as w e l l as observation of young c h i l d r e n ' s use of language. In her Language and Environment P r o j e c t , Tough recorded the language of s i x t y - f o u r 3-3% year o l d c h i l d r e n engaged i n conversation w i t h a chosen f r i e n d . One-half of the c h i l d r e n i n the p r o j e c t were considered "disadvantaged" i n school l e a r n i n g because of the home environment provided them by t h e i r parents, who were u n s k i l l e d or s e m i - s k i l l e d workers. The "advantaged" c h i l d r e n were from homes where one or both of the parents were i n pr o f e s s i o n s reached through higher l e a r n i n g . To examine the e f f e c t s of nursery education on language development, h a l f of the "disadvantaged" and h a l f of the "advantaged" groups were e n r o l l e d i n nursery groups w h i l e the other h a l f of each group had no nursery experience. Other f a c t o r s , i n c l u d i n g age, sex, IQ, f a m i l y s i z e , c h i l d ' s p e r s o n a l i t y and mother's, . f i r s t language were c o n t r o l l e d . The c h i l d ' s t a l k and h i s responses to t a l k were observed and tape recorded. The hour-long language sample obtained f o r each c h i l d was analyzed i n s e v e r a l ways, to determine what i f any d i f f e r e n c e s e x i s t e d between the groups i n t h e i r use of language. A s t r u c t u r a l a n a l y s i s revealed that the advantaged group tended to use longer utterances and more complex forms of s t r u c t u r e s . There were s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between the groups i n mean score of a l l noun phrases, reference ( i . e . use of pronouns), and verb complexity. I n t e r -p r e t a t i o n of the r e s u l t s confirmed the l i n k between s o c i a l c l a s s and the c h i l d ' s development of language, although the r e l a t i o n s h i p cannot be termed causal. Tough f e l t , however, that the problem was not that the c h i l d r e n i n the disadvantaged groups were not able to use complex language, because many demonstrated that they could. Other explanations were pursued to e x p l a i n the d i f f e r e n c e s shown to e x i s t between the groups. Tough then turned to an examination of the uses of language made by the c h i l d r e n i n the study, as a way of co n s i d e r i n g d i f f e r e n c e s i n meaning. Meaning was seen to r e s i d e w i t h i n the c h i l d i n a s s o c i a t i o n w i t h a s i t u -a t i o n and to be r e f l e c t e d In the c h i l d ' s response to the s i t u a t i o n through h i s general behavior and use of language (Tough, 1977). In order to analyze the c h i l d r e n ' s use of language i n t h i s way Tough proposed a model f o r the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of uses of language. She f i r s t d i s t i n g u i s h e d between the f o l l o w i n g four f u n c t i o n s of language, which she defined as the means by which a purpose i s achieved: D i r e c t i v e Function - which i s concerned w i t h d i r e c t i n g operations and a c t i o n s of the s e l f and others I n t e r p r e t i v e Function - which i s concerned w i t h communicating the meaning of events and s i t u a t i o n s that the c h i l d witnesses or has witnessed i n the past • P r o j e c t i v e Function - which depends on drawing upon the imagination and using elements of known experience to p r o j e c t and explore s i t u a t i o n s R e l a t i o n a l Function - i n which language i s used to convey the p o s i -t i o n the i n d i v i d u a l assumes towards others. W i t h i n each f u n c t i o n are uses of language which serve to r e a l i z e the f u n c t i o n . Tough o r i g i n a l l y proposed nine uses of language but l a t e r modified these to i n c l u d e the seven uses which f o l l o w (Tough, 1976). S e l f - m a i n t a i n i n g - the use of language to make others aware of the speaker as a person and to gain a t t e n t i o n and r e c o g n i t i o n ; a means of making needs e x p l i c i t through language. D i r e c t i n g - the use of language t o d i r e c t the s e l f (through a running commentary w h i l e performing a c t i o n s ) , or d i r e c t i n g the a c t i o n s of ot h e r s , or f o r d i r e c t i n g the s e l f i n conjunction w i t h others. This use of language can be r e a d i l y i d e n t i f i e d i n the t a l k of 3 year o l d s . Reporting - the use of language t o i d e n t i f y o bjects and events i n present or past s i t u a t i o n s . Much of 3 year old's t a l k seems to serve t h i s use. Reasoning - the use of language to make a reasoned i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of experiences. This use seems to develop from r e p o r t i n g and i s not used very much by 3 year o l d s . P r e d i c t i n g - the use of language to p r o j e c t beyond the present experience and a n t i c i p a t e events i n the f u t u r e . Three year o l d s do demonstrate c a p a c i t y t o use language f o r p r e d i c t i n g , but do so r a r e l y . P r o j e c t i n g - ( o r i g i n a l l y c a l l e d the empathetic use of language) t h e use of language concerned w i t h i m a g i n i n g and e x p r e s s i n g f e e l i n g s and r e a c t i o n s of o t h e r p e o p l e t o t h e i r e x p e r i e n c e s . Three y e a r o l d s a r e c a p a b l e of t h i s use, a l t h o u g h i t does not appear o f t e n . Imagining - t h e use of language t o b u i l d a scene or i n c i d e n t t hrough i m a g i n a t i o n . Three y e a r o l d s f r e q u e n t l y use language i n t h i s way. A number of s t r a t e g i e s were found t o s e r v e t h e s e uses of language. The r e s u l t s of Tough's a n a l y s i s of the use of language by the groups c h i l d r e n i n the Language and Environment P r o j e c t a r e summarized below. - T h e d i s a d v a n t a g e d groups used language 2% times more o f t e n than the advantaged groups t o s e c u r e a t t e n t i o n and m a i n t a i n t h e i r own s t a t u s . - T h e advantaged groups used language 5 times more o f t e n t h a n t h e d i s a d v a n t a g e d groups f o r d i r e c t i n g or c o n t r o l l i n g o t h e r s w h i l e the d i s a d v a n t a g e d groups used language more o f t e n f o r s e l f -d i r e c t i n g . - T h e advantaged groups used language almost 8 times more o f t e n t o r e f e r t o p a s t e x p e r i e n c e s and more than t w i c e as o f t e n t o contem-p l a t e the f u t u r e . - The advantaged groups used language more than 9 times as o f t e n f o r r e a s o n i n g , more than t w i c e as o f t e n t o p r o j e c t , and 5 times as much t o imagine. - The d i s a d v a n t a g e d groups exceeded t h e advantaged groups i n t o t a l number of q u e s t i o n s asked. 29 - Very few p r e d i c t i n g , reasoning or p r o j e c t i n g questions were asked, but those that were were asked by the advantaged c h i l d r e n . - The most f r e q u e n t l y used type of question f o r a l l the groups was the r e p o r t i n g question. Thus, the disadvantaged c h i l d r e n used language more f o r monitoring an on-going s i t u a t i o n i n order to maintain t h e i r s t a tus i n that s i t u a t i o n , whereas, the advantaged c h i l d r e n used language more f o r reasoning, pro-j e c t i n g , p r e d i c t i n g and imagining. " I t would seem from t h i s that there Is j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r s t a t i n g that these 3 year o l d c h i l d r e n , coming from d i f f e r e n t home environments, had e s t a b l i s h e d d i f f e r e n t p r i o r i t i e s f o r expressing meaning and d i f f e r e n t o r i e n t a t i o n s towards the use of language'.' (Tough, 1977). These same c h i l d r e n were i n v o l v e d i n two follow-up s t u d i e s at 5 and 7 years of age, which i n v e s t i g a t e d more c l o s e l y the ways the c h i l d r e n used language f o r p a r t i c u l a r purposes. Clear d i f f e r e n c e s between the groups emerged i n the kinds of s t r a t e g i e s used. The c h i l d r e n i n the advantaged groups tended to elaborate a wider range of meaning on the tasks given. I t seemed the c h i l d r e n i n the disadvantaged groups were capable of using a l l of the f u n c t i o n s , but were l a c k i n g i n m o t i v a t i o n , awareness and experience i n t h i n k i n g i n d i f f e r e n t ways. As r e f l e c t e d i n t h e i r lower IQ scores and reading t e s t . s c o r e s , the disadvantaged groups were d i s -advantaged i n l a t e r school l e a r n i n g . Tough's framework appears to be a u s e f u l t o o l f o r d i s c e r n i n g d i f -f e r e n t uses made of language by young c h i l d r e n . I t i d e n t i f i e s the uses a c h i l d may be l a c k i n g or not disposed to u s i n g , which may put him at a disadvantage i n l a t e r school l e a r n i n g . When a c h i l d does not demonstrate performance of c e r t a i n e s s e n t i a l uses of language, the teacher should 30 f o s t e r such language growth i n the c h i l d through c u r i o s i t y - a r o u s i n g , c h a l l e n g i n g a c t i v i t i e s . The c h i l d may thus be motivated to adopt ways of t h i n k i n g and uses of language which w i l l a s s i s t him i n h i s l e a r n i n g and communication w i t h others. The disadvantaged c h i l d r e n d i d not tend to use those f u n c t i o n s which H a l l i d a y would term mathetic. Given the delayed performance of hearing-impaired c h i l d r e n i n l a t e r academic achievements, do young hearing-impaired c h i l d r e n a l s o show t h i s tendency to not use mathetic f u n c t i o n s of language? Could Tough's guide be used to determine the language f u n c t i o n i n g of hearing-impaired preschool c h i l d r e n ? These s p e c i f i c research questions helped to shape the design of t h i s study. Pragmatics and Hearing-Impaired C h i l d r e n Pragmatics as a primary component of language programs f o r hea r i n g -impaired c h i l d r e n i s not a new development. As e a r l y as the 1600's, many educators have encouraged the p r a c t i c a l uses of language i n d i r e c t experiences i n sentences and discourse (see Table I I , adapted from Truax and Edwards, Language Workshop, Vancouver, 1980). As more i n s i g h t i n t o the development of pragmatics i n "normal" c h i l d r e n i s acquired, the p r a c t i c a l a p p l i c a t i o n of pragmatics i n education of the hearing-impaired can become more e f f e c t i v e . The t e n t a t i v e i m p l i -c a t i o n s have been to encourage communication and use of language w i t h i n meaningful context at a l e v e l appropriate to the c h i l d . Dore (1974), H a l l i d a y (1975) and Tough (1977) have shed some l i g h t on the s p e c i f i c f u n c t i o n s used by young hearing c h i l d r e n . The research by C u r t i s s , P r u t t i n g and L o w e l l (1977) stands alone as an attempt to discover the f u n c t i o n s of language used by hearing-impaired c h i l d r e n and i s based on Dore's a n a l y s i s of P r i m i t i v e Speech Acts. 31 TABLE I I HISTORICAL SURVEY OF PRAGMATICS IN EDUCATION OF THE HEARING-IMPAIRED When Who/Where Pr imary Component Ba s i c Unit Method/Ins t r u c t i o n a l D e s c r i p t i o n 1600's George Delgarno Pragmatic, Discourse ...believed the deaf had England Semantic the p o t e n t i a l to l e a r n language "normally" 1700*s Jacob P e r e i r e Pragmatic, Discourse ...encouraged c h i l d r e n France Semantic to produce connected language that grew out of a c t i o n work, 1700-*s- Joseph Watson Semantic, Sentences . . . p r a c t i c a l use of con-1800's England Pragmatic nected language i n meaningful s i t u a t i o n s 1800's G u i l i o Tarra Pragmatic, Discourse . . . c h i l d r e n exposed to I t a l y Semantic and helped to use o r a l communication i n pr a c -t i c a l e x p e r i e n t i a l ways 1800's F r i e d r i c h Pragmatic, Discourse ... c h i l d r e n were to Monitz H i l l Semantics l e a r n language as Germany. normally hearing c h i l -dren do by p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n o r a l conversations 1800's- David Greenberg Pragmatic, Discourse ...language p r a c t i s e d i n 1900's U.S.A. Semantic r e a l i s t i c n a t u r a l s e t t i n context h e l d important 1800's- A.G. B e l l Pragmatic Discourse ...toys and play s i t u a -1900's U.S.A. t i o n s to help c h i l d r e n l e a r n language 1900's Mil d r e d Groht Pragmatic, Discourse . . . c h i l d r e n can l e a r n U.S .A. Semantic language n a t u r a l l y i f i t i s acquired by repe-t i o n i n meaningful s i t u a t i o n s C u r t i s s et a l . examined the v e r b a l and non-verbal communication of twelve, 2-5 year o l d hearing-impaired c h i l d r e n i n an attempt to determine the semantic and pragmatic content of t h e i r communication. The subjects were a l l summer students at the John Tracy C l i n i c , an o r a l program which emphasizes the development of speech-reading and r e s i d u a l hearing. Hearing losses ranged from m i l d to profound. The c h i l d r e n had no known a d d i t i o n a l handicaps. The c h i l d r e n ' s communicative behavior i n three d i f f e r e n t s e t t i n g s during the school day was video-taped and l a t e r t r a n s c r i b e d and coded, i n order to o b t a i n the data f o r a n a l y s i s . Communication " a c t s " i n v o l v i n g an u t t e r a n c e , gesture, body movement, f a c i a l expression or v o c a l i z a t i o n were described according to 16 pragmatic f u n c t i o n s : 1. Demand - a request f o r an a c t i o n or an object (e.g. I want glue.) 2. Command - an imperative (e.g. Look at me.). 3. Q u e s t i o n - a r e q u e s t f o r i n f o r m a t i o n or e l a b o r a t i o n (e.g. Who? Huh?) 4. L a b e l l i n g - i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of a person, object or a c t i o n (e.g. That's a c h a i r . ) 5. Response to a question - an act d i r e c t l y f o l l o w i n g a question posed to a c h i l d (e.g. head shake, change of t o p i c , an answer) 6. Response to a summons - an act d i r e c t l y f o l l o w i n g a summons f o r the c h i l d ' s a t t e n t i o n (e.g. head t u r n , eye contact) 7. Response to a command - an act d i r e c t l y f o l l o w i n g an imperative or request issued to the c h i l d (e.g. c h i l d f o l l o w s d i r e c t i o n s , c h i l d changes t o p i c ) 8. I m i t a t i o n (general) - an i m i t a t i o n of an act or an utterance performed by someone e l s e 9. I m i t a t i o n ( r e p e t i t i o n ) - an i m i t a t i o n of a c h i l d ' s own act or utterance 10. D e s c r i p t i o n - an act d e s c r i b i n g an event, a person or an object (e.g. He's t a l l . ) 11. Summons - a request or demand f o r a t t e n t i o n (e.g. a wave, tap, c a l l i n g ) 12. P r o t e s t i n g - an act expressing r e s i s t a n c e (e.g. No, head shake) 13. R i t u a l - a g r e e t i n g or other s o c i a l r i t u a l 14. Request f o r approval - an act requesting approval from another person (e.g. I s i t O.K. f o r me to do t h i s ? ) 15. Request f o r co n f i r m a t i o n or acknowledgement - an act requesting another person to confirm or acknowledge the c h i l d ' s behavior (e.g. Do you understand?) 16. Acknowledgement - an act evidencing comprehension of a s i t u a t i o n , event or message. These f u n c t i o n s were e i t h e r taken d i r e c t l y or modified from Dore (1974), or added. As such, they are "lower l e v e l " f u n c t i o n s and except f o r questions, are a l l pragmatic. Therefore, i t i s not p o s s i b l e from the r e s u l t s of t h i s study to determine i f hearing-impaired c h i l d r e n show evidence that they are capable of "higher l e v e l " f u n c t i o n s . However, the study done by C u r t i s s et a l . d i d r e v e a l some i n t e r e s t i n g f i n d i n g s about the pragmatic f u n c t i o n s used by hearing-impaired preschool c h i l d r e n : - The number of communicative acts per minute which a c h i l d pro-duced increased w i t h age. - Hearing-impaired subjects i n the study progressed more according to the norm f o r pragmatic f u n c t i o n s than f o r semantic f u n c t i o n s . 34 - A l l of the c h i l d r e n used between 8 and 16 f u n c t i o n s , and most used 10 or more f u n c t i o n s . - P r o t e s t i n g was used approximately the same amount across age. - I m i t a t i o n decreased w i t h age. - Two year olds produced more requests f o r c o n f i r m a t i o n or acknowledgment. - D e s c r i p t i o n s and l a b e l l i n g tended to increase w i t h age. - Responses to questions increased w i t h age, but few questions were posed to younger c h i l d r e n . - Requests f o r approval were used i n f r e q u e n t l y , but increased w i t h age. - R i t u a l s were used r a r e l y and t h i s appears to r e f l e c t l i m i t e d s o c i a l i n t e g r a t i o n . C u r t i s s et a l . made s e v e r a l conclusions on the b a s i s of t h e i r study: I n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s a f f e c t the study of trends i n a c q u i s i t i o n of communication. Degree of hearing-impairment appears to be one major f a c t o r . C h i l d r e n who are s e v e r e l y or profoundly deaf tend to begin using v e r b a l communication l a t e r than those whose hearing impairments are l e s s severe. Hearing l o s s i n general r e t a r d s the development of o r a l communication (up to 3 years f o r severe or profoundly impaired). I t appears that e a r l y enrollment i n an i n t e r v e n t i o n program r e s u l t s i n more adequate communication i n hearing-impaired c h i l d r e n . Mean Length of Utterance (M.L.U.) i s an inadequate measure of l i n g u i s t i c development i n hearing-impaired c h i l d r e n . The o lder c h i l d r e n had M.L.U.'s approximately equal to the younger c h i l d r e n , but the older c h i l d r e n were more f l u e n t and used more semantic and pragmatic f u n c t i o n s . Non-verbal communication i n hearing-impaired c h i l d r e n can be adequately assessed by determining the semantic and pragmatic content of these communicative behaviors. V e r b a l communication can a l s o be assessed i n t h i s way and i s a more adequate index of language performance than M.L.U. Perhaps the communicative performance of hearing-impaired preschool c h i l d r e n could be more adequately assessed by a combination of the models proposed by Tough (1977) and C u r t i s s et a l . (1977) and t h i s t o o l could be used to assess the communicative f u n c t i o n s of young hearing-impaired c h i l d r e n who are using a formal s i g n system i n t h e i r communication at home. Various f a c t o r s might i n f l u e n c e the development of language func-t i o n s i n these c h i l d r e n . The l a s t s e c t i o n of t h i s chapter w i l l explore some re l e v a n t research i n r e l a t e d areas of language development. Related Research The main premise concerning language development i s that formal language emerges from p r e - l i n g u i s t i c s o c i a l - c o g n i t i v e - p e r c e p t u a l i n t e r -a c t i o n w i t h a d u l t s and peers (Moerk, 1975). Information regarding the most c r u c i a l v a r i a b l e s i n t h i s i n t e r a c t i o n i s i n c o n c l u s i v e at t h i s time (Clark and C l a r k , 1977). Some attempts have been made, however, to i s o l a t e the most c r i t i c a l f a c t o r s . P a r e n t - c h i l d i n t e r a c t i o n appears to be one of the most i n f l u e n t i a l aspects of c h i l d language a c q u i s i t i o n , the assessment of which may u l t i m a t e l y guide the i n t e r v e n t i o n s t r a t e g i e s of e a r l y i n t e r v e n t i o n programs (Lowell and L o w e l l , 1979). The most s i g n i f i c a n t f i g u r e i n a young c h i l d ' s l i f e i s g e n e r a l l y the mother.(though other a d u l t s are o f t e n c a l l e d upon to provide the caretaking r o l e ) . This " s i g n i f i c a n t other" provides i n t e r a c t i o n p r a c t i c e from the c h i l d ' s e a r l i e s t days, i n a pro-cess which i n c l u d e s modelling, i m i t a t i o n and r e p e t i t i o n . The mother-child dyad i s a s e l f - r e g u l a t i n g and r e l a t i v e l y c l o s e d system, i n which the amount, type and timing of the observed teaching/ l e a r n i n g processes are s u f f i c i e n t to e x p l a i n f i r s t language l e a r n i n g (Moerk, 1975). The mother's input to the c h i l d i s termed "Motherese" and i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d by: hi g h p i t c h w i t h exaggerated i n t o n a t i o n ; c l e a r e n u nciation; slower r a t e of speaking w i t h d i s t i n c t pauses between the utterances; s i m p l i f i e d speech sounds; repeated s y l l a b l e s ; s h o r t , simple sentences and l i m i t e d vocabulary (Kretschmer and Kretschmer, 1979). Motherese appears t o be a n a t u r a l i n c l i n a t i o n of those who speak to young c h i l d r e n . The e f f e c t of Motherese on c h i l d language a c q u i s i t i o n i s questionable however (Nelson, 1978). We can only surmise that s i n c e language l e a r n i n g i s a r e l a t i v e l y e f f o r t l e s s process f o r most c h i l d r e n , the s p e c i a l input by mothers t o t h e i r language l e a r n i n g i n f a n t s provides an environment s u i t a b l e f o r language development. Several s t u d i e s have been done i n an attempt to determine i f the communication environment provided by mothers of hearing-impaired c h i l -dren i s s i m i l a r to that provided by mothers of hearing c h i l d r e n . Using Bales' I n t e r a c t i o n Process A n a l y s i s Categories, Kenady and P r o c t o r (1968) found s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s i n the language used by mothers of deaf and mothers of hearing c h i l d r e n . They found that the mothers of hearing c h i l d r e n asked f o r more informa t i o n and opinions and t a l k e d l e s s than the mothers of deaf c h i l d r e n . The mothers of deaf c h i l d r e n d i d not give p r a i s e or show agreement as much as mothers of normally hearing c h i l d r e n and used more antagonism and suggestions. Goss (1970) found s i m i l a r d i f f e r e n c e s between the mothers of deaf and mothers of hearing c h i l d r e n . In h i s study, the mothers of deaf c h i l d r e n used more suggestions and negative s o c i a l - e m o t i o n a l language, w h i l e mothers of hearing c h i l d r e n used more questions and opinions and p o s i t i v e s o c i a l - e m o t i o n a l language. Greenstein (1975) examined the d i f f e r e n c e s between the language used by mothers of deaf c h i l d r e n w i t h b e t t e r language s k i l l s , and mothers of deaf c h i l d r e n w i t h poorer language a b i l i t i e s . The mothers of the more competent language users were l e s s c o e r c i v e and more s e n s i t i v e and accepting. The mother':s a b i l i t y to motivate the c h i l d without coercion provided one of the best p r e d i c t o r s of the c h i l d ' s language competence. The use of questions, r e p e t i t i o n s , d i r e c t i o n s , the c h i l d ' s name, and p r a i s e were unr e l a t e d to the c h i l d ' s a c q u i s i t i o n of language. I t appears that the major i n f l u e n c e s on language a b i l i t i e s of the c h i l d are the ease, warmth and closeness of the mother-infant communication. However, i t was suggested that the warmth, and s e n s i t i v i t y of the mother are p o s s i b l y f a c i l i t a t e d and r e i n f o r c e d by the c h i l d ' s a t t e n t i v e n e s s and responsiveness to the mother. That i s , cause and e f f e c t cannot be determined. Kretschmer and Kretschmer (.1979) suggest that both the v e r b a l and non-verbal behaviors of mothers i n f l u e n c e the r a t e of c h i l d r e n ' s language development. I f t h i s i s t r u e , than the d i f f e r e n c e s shown to e x i s t between mothers of deaf and mothers of hearing c h i l d r e n may be r e s p o n s i b l e f o r the hearing-impaired c h i l d ' s delay i n language performance. H i s t o r i c a l l y , hearing-impaired c h i l d r e n have of t e n been discouraged from u t i l i z i n g non-verbal behaviors w i t h the assumption that v e r b a l behavior would be i n h i b i t e d . However, research by Moores (1971) and Moores, Weiss and Goodwin (1973) i n the area of non-verbal communication by hearing-impaired c h i l d r e n has demonstrated a p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p between non-verbal and v e r b a l modes of language performance. Kretschmer and Kretschmer (1979) suggest that hearing-impaired c h i l d r e n should be encouraged to use n a t u r a l gestures i n communication, because such behavior i s a normal p r e - r e q u i s i t e to the development of spoken language. The r o l e of f o r m a l i z e d s i g n language i n t h i s regard has not been thoroughly explored. The importance of the c h i l d ' s c o g n i t i v e a b i l i t i e s f o r the development of language cannot be overlooked. P i a g e t i a n theory p o s t u l a t e s that language development i s i n part based on the e a r l y c o g n i t i v e a b i l i t i e s of c h i l d r e n (Best, 1975). The sensori-motor period of development, from 18 months to 2 years of age, i s the b a s i s f o r the c o g n i t i v e a b i l i t i e s upon which language i s b u i l t . Best (1975) has found that hearing-impaired c h i l -dren progress normally through t h i s sensori-motor period and so approach the task of language a c q u i s i t i o n during the p r e - o p e r a t i o n a l stage w i t h the same p r e - r e q u i s i t e s as the normally hearing c h i l d . F u rth (.1966) proposes that thought i s p o s s i b l e without language, and bases t h i s hypothesis on h i s work w i t h hearing-impaired c h i l d r e n . Other research has concluded that w h i l e hearing-impaired c h i l d r e n are capable of non-verbal c o g n i t i v e t a s k s , t h e i r performance on these tasks shows r e t a r d a t i o n i n comparison to hearing i n d i v i d u a l s (Oleron, 1 9 5 7 ; C h u l l i a t and Oleron, 1955; Vincent, 1957; B o r e l l i , 1951; Heider and Heider, 1941). This c o n f l i c t i n g evidence makes i t d i f f i c u l t to a s c e r t a i n to what extent hearing-impaired c h i l d r e n are impaired i n t h e i r a b i l i t y to t h i n k . F u r t h (1973) has a s c r i b e d the d e f i c i t of hearing-impaired c h i l d r e n on c e r -t a i n c o g n i t i v e tasks to impoverished language experiences, r a t h e r than to l i m i t e d language a b i l i t i e s . At t h e e a r l y s t a g e s of t h e p r e - o p e r a t i o n a l p e r i o d (2-4 y e a r s ) i t would appear t h a t h e a r i n g - i m p a i r e d c h i l d r e n s h o u l d be c a p a b l e of u s i n g t h e f u n c t i o n s of language proposed by Tough, g i v e n they p o s s e s s "normal" i n t e l l i g e n c e and a b i l i t y t o t h i n k . I t i s h y p o t h e s i z e d t h a t w h i l e h e a r i n g -i m p a i r e d c h i l d r e n a r e c a p a b l e of u s i n g h i g h e r l e v e l f u n c t i o n s as w e l l as the lower l e v e l f u n c t i o n s found by C u r t i s s e t a l . , they w i l l not demon-s t r a t e t h i s a b i l i t y due to l a c k of awareness, m o t i v a t i o n and e x p e r i e n c e i n u s i n g t h e s e f u n c t i o n s as was suggested by F u r t h . The e n s u i n g c h a p t e r s w i l l d e s c r i b e t h i s s t u d y i n g r e a t e r d e t a i l . 40 CHAPTER I I I THE STUDY D e f i n i t i o n of Terms Throughout t h i s study, various terms w i l l be used as defined below: b i l a t e r a l hearing l o s s - hearing l o s s i n both ears communicative a c t - the i s s u i n g of communicative behaviors to convey a complete thought communicative behavior - any v e r b a l or non-verbal behavior that i s expres-s i v e l y communicated to oneself or to another person i n the i n t e r a c t i o n process, i n c l u d i n g speech, v o c a l i z a t i o n , gestures, a c t i o n s , or signs communicator - mother or hearing-impaired c h i l d who demonstrates commun-i c a t i v e behavior during the i n t e r a c t i o n process degree of hearing l o s s - discussed i n terms of average hearing threshholds expressed i n d e c i b e l s (dB) and equal to the a r i t h m e t i c mean of the pure tone averages obtained at .5, 1, and 2 kHz f o r the b e t t e r ear using the American N a t i o n a l Standards I n s t i t u t e (ANSI) c r i t e r i a . The term profound r e f e r s to a hearing l o s s greater than 90 dB (ANSI) f u n c t i o n s - the i n t e n t i o n s of the communicator i n using communicative a c t s , as determined by a t r a i n e d coder he ar ing-imp a i rment - a generic term encompassing a l l degrees of hearing l o s s , i n c l u d i n g the con d i t i o n s known as hard-of-hearing and deaf mode - the form of the communicative behavior used by the communicator, i n c l u d i n g v e r b a l and non-verbal behaviors 41 p r e - l i n g u a l l y hearing impaired - hearing-impairment e x i s t i n g at b i r t h or acquired p r i o r to the age of two preschool c h i l d r e n - c h i l d r e n between the ages of 0 to 5 years s e n s o r i - n e u r a l h e a r i n g l o s s - hearing-impairment due to abnormality of the cochlea, the auditory nerve, or both. The P o p u l a t i o n The 5 su b j e c t s f o r t h i s study were s e l e c t e d from a B r i t i s h Columbian pop u l a t i o n which met the f o l l o w i n g c r i t e r i a : - 3.7-4.7 years of age at the time of the study - p r e l i n g u a l , profound, b i l a t e r a l , s e n s o r i - n e u r a l hearing impairment - no known a d d i t i o n a l handicapping c o n d i t i o n s , as determined by the assessment team at the Vancouver Children's H o s p i t a l D i a g n o s t i c Center - parents and s i b l i n g s who have no diagnosed hearing-impairment - a system of s i g n language being used i n the home - at l e a s t one parent who has completed a formal course i n i n t r o d u c t o r y s i g n language - involvement i n a l a r g e r e v a l u a t i o n p r o j e c t of preschool s e r v i c e s i n B.C. P a r e n t a l i n t e r v i e w s and a u d i o l o g i c a l and p s y c h o l o g i c a l data revealed the f o l l o w i n g demographic i n f o r m a t i o n about the f i v e subjects: TABLE I I I DEMOGRAPHIC DATA age at age aids mothers fathers subj ect age e t i o l o g y diagnosis 1st obtained age age s i b l i n g s 1 4.6 r u b e l l a 6 months 8.5 months 32 34 1 female -younger 2 4.7 h e r e d i t a r y 13 months 16 months 34 37 2 females -older 3 3.9 p o s s i b l y 11 months 12 months 35 45 1 male -h e r e d i t a r y o l d e r 4 4.8 unknown 22 months 28 months 28 28 1 male -(adopted) younger (adopted) 5 4.6 premature 7 months 18 months 31 28 2 males -canomysin younger at b i r t h f a m i l y highest l e v e l of education subject income mother f a t h e r 1 <15,000 grade 12 grade 11 2 10,000 12 11 3 29,000 11 12 4 14,000 12 12 5 24,000 12 B.A. The Instrument Functions The main focus of t h i s study was to develop an instrument which would be u s e f u l i n determining communicative func t i o n s used by h e a r i n g -impaired preschool c h i l d r e n . The process of the e v o l u t i o n of and the instrument which f i n a l l y emerged are discussed h e r e i n . Tough's (1977) model, which was described i n Chapter I I of t h i s t h e s i s , was i n i t i a l l y s e l e c t e d as the instrument f o r t h i s study. I t was considered p o t e n t i a l l y s u i t a b l e f o r t h i s research f o r s e v e r a l reasons: I t has been found to be u s e f u l f o r determining d i f f e r e n c e s i n the use of language f u n c t i o n s by preschool hearing c h i l d r e n . I t was developed on the b a s i s of sound t h e o r e t i c a l models. I t would be e a s i l y a p p l i e d by the classroom teacher, due to i t s r e l a t i v e ease of use; only seven f u n c t i o n s are i n v o l v e d and c l a s s -room observations are suggested as the source of the data. I t encompasses pragmatic as w e l l as "higher l e v e l " mathetic f u n c t i o n s . I t has been suggested as an appropriate t o o l f o r use by educators of the hearing-impaired (Tate, 1979). In a p i l o t e f f o r t u t i l i z i n g Tough's system as the research instrument, i t became apparent that i t was inadequate to assess the functions used by preschool hearing-impaired c h i l d r e n . About 41% of the communicative acts used by the p i l o t subjects and 47% of the communicative acts of the s u b j e c t s ' mothers could not be coded w i t h her system. Other models were ther e f o r e explored which could supplement Tough's seven f u n c t i o n s . F i v e a d d i t i o n a l categories suggested by C u r t i s s et a l . (1977), namely i m i t a t i n g , r e p e a t i n g , acknowledging, r i t u a l , and compliance, were s e l e c t e d f o r i n c l u s i o n i n t h i s study. These categories were con-s i d e r e d appropriate f o r the f o l l o w i n g reasons: They had been shown to be u s e f u l i n examining the pragmatic f u n c t i o n s used by preschool hearing-impaired c h i l d r e n . They are based on a strong t h e o r e t i c a l model (Dore, 1974). They were fu n c t i o n s found to be missing from Tough's system that were c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of many of the communicative acts of young hearing-impaired c h i l d r e n . Although the o r i g i n a l C u r t i s s system i s r e l a t i v e l y cumbersome w i t h i t s 16 c a t e g o r i e s , i t would seem that the system proposed here, which combines Tough and C u r t i s s , and c o l l a p s e s some of C u r t i s s ' categories would be e a s i e r f o r classroom teachers to use (personal communication, B o l i n , 1980; C u r t i s s , 1980). Thus, the new instrument emerged w i t h 13 f u n c t i o n s and d e t a i l e d o p e r a t i o n a l d e f i n i t i o n s were formulated to increase i n t e r - c o d e r r e l i -a b i l i t y . The f i n a l f u n c t i o n a l categories and t h e i r b e h a v i o r a l d e f i n i t i o n s are described below: 1. I m i t a t i n g - (from C u r t i s s et a l . ) - an act i m i t a t i n g a communicative behavior performed by someone e l s e e.g. mother says " c h a i r " c h i l d : i m i t a t e s " c h a i r " - expansion of another's communicative act, e.g. c h i l d says " s l e e p " mother i m i t a t e s "the boy i s s l e e p i n g " - r e d u c t i o n of another's communicative act e.g. mother says "that's a l a d d e r " c h i l d i m i t a t e s "ladder" For a communicative act to f u n c t i o n as an i m i t a t i o n , i t does not have to be immediate but must occur w i t h i n f i v e communicative behaviors e.g. mother says "there are two beds" mother p o i n t s to the beds c h i l d p o i n t s t o the d o l l s c h i l d i m i t a t e s "two beds" R i t u a l s are excluded from t h i s f u n c t i o n e.g. mother says " h i " c h i l d says " h i " Repeating - (from C u r t i s s et a l . ) - an act i m i t a t i n g one's own communicative behavior. An act:.is a r e p e t i t i o n i f the o r i g i n a l i n t e n t i o n i s r e t a i n e d , even though the mode of communicative behavior may be changed. e.g. c h i l d says " t r u c k " c h i l d repeats " t r u c k " e.g. c h i l d says "phone" c h i l d repeats by p o i n t i n g to phone - expansion of one's own act e.g. mother says " t a b l e " mother repeats "that's a t a b l e " - r e d u c t i o n of one's own act e.g. mother says "what a long nose" mother repeats "long nose" R i t u a l - (from C u r t i s s et a l . ) - a spontaneous g r e e t i n g or other s o c i a l r i t u a l e.g. please, thank-you, bye-bye, s o r r y , oops - i f a communicator has been d i r e c t e d to use the behavior, i t i s 46 not a r i t u a l e.g. mother says "say bye-bye" c h i l d c o m p l i e s "bye-bye" Acknowledging - (from C u r t i s s et a l . ) - an a c t e v i d e n c i n g comprehension of a s i t u a t i o n o r communicative a c t i f the a c t i s d u a l - f u n c t i o n , the o t h e r f u n c t i o n t akes precedence e.g. y e s , no, wrong, r i g h t , oh, mhm, nod Complying - (adapted from C u r t i s s e t a l . - a type of acknowledging) - an a c t which i s a r e s p o n s e i n accordance w i t h the i n t e n t of a d i r e c t i o n e.g. mother d i r e c t s "put the d o l l i n the house" c h i l d c o m p l i e s w i t h a p p r o p r i a t e a c t i o n e.g. mother d i r e c t s "say l o n g nose" c h i l d c o m p l i e s " l o n g nose" (spoken) M a i n t a i n i n g - (from C u r t i s s et a l . and Tough) - an a c t r e f e r r i n g to p h y s i c a l o r p s y c h o l o g i c a l needs and wants e.g. c h i l d says " I want a d r i n k " e.g. c h i l d seeks a p p r o v a l by l o o k i n g a t mother b e f o r e p e r f o r m i n g and a c t i o n - an a c t r e i n f o r c i n g , a p p r o v i n g o r d i s a p p r o v i n g a n o t h e r ' s b e h a v i o r e.g. good, bad, you're s i l l y , t h a t ' s rude, good g i r l , f a n t a s t i c , b e a u t i f u l , good i d e a , oh a l r i g h t , no ( c r i t i c i z i n g ) - an a c t p r o t e c t i n g the s e l f o r s e l f i n t e r e s t s e.g. mother d i r e c t s c h i l d t o p i c k up phone c h i l d m a i n t a i n s by s a y i n g "no", " w a i t " or " l a t e r " I g n o r i n g - ( a d d i t i o n ) - a s p e c i a l t y p e of m a i n t a i n i n g b e h a v i o r i n r e s p o n s e to a d i r e c t i o n 47 whereby the communicator p r o t e c t s h i s s e l f i n t e r e s t s by not r e s p o n d i n g t o the i n t e n t i o n of the d i r e c t i o n ; i n s t e a d t h e communicator responds by g i v i n g a r e p o r t or d i r e c t i o n . The communicator must have s u f f i c i e n t n o t i c e and be aware t h a t a d i r e c t i o n has been g i v e n b e f o r e i t can be determined t h a t he has chosen t o i g n o r e the d i r e c t i o n . C a u t i o n i s a d v i s e d i n t h a t a communicator may appear t o have i g n o r e d t h e o r i g i n a l d i r e c t i o n , but h i s response i s a c t u a l l y due t o the f a c t t h a t the d i r e c t i o n has been mi s u n d e r s t o o d , e.g. mother d i r e c t s "you phone mommy" c h i l d i g n o r e s c h i l d d i r e c t s mother by p o i n t i n g t o a book e.g. mother d i r e c t s "put the T.V. i n the house" c h i l d p o i n t s to r e a l T.V. i n the l i v i n g room In t h i s i n s t a n c e the c h i l d d i d not i g n o r e , he m i s u n d e r s t o o d t h e d i r e c t i o n , and h i s "non-response" would n o t be coded. 8. D i r e c t i n g - (from C u r t i s s et a l . and Tough) - an a c t d i r e c t i n g t h e b e h a v i o r ( a c t i o n or a t t e n t i o n ) of t h e s e l f o r o t h e r s i n c l u d i n g t h e d i r e c t i o n "no"meaning "don't do t h a t " - d i r e c t i o n s may be g i v e n e x p l i c i t l y e.g. mother d i r e c t s " g i v e me the bed" - d i r e c t i o n s may be g i v e n i m p l i c i t l y e.g. mother d i r e c t s c h i l d t o rub o f f the b l a c k b o a r d by s a y i n g "here i s the b r u s h " e.g. c h i l d says " g i r l " as he s e a r c h e s f o r d o l l 9. R e p o r t i n g - (from C u r t i s s e t a l . and Tough) - an a c t r e p o r t i n g on p r e s e n t o r p a s t events 48 - i n c l u d e s l a b e l l i n g e.g. c h i l d r e p o r t s "bed" r e f e r r i n g t o bed - r e f e r r i n g t o d e t a i l e.g. c h i l d r e p o r t s " y e l l o w " r e f e r r i n g t o bed - making comparisons e.g. c h i l d r e p o r t s "same" r e f e r r i n g t o two beds - r e f e r r i n g t o i n c i d e n t s e.g. mother r e p o r t s "we went t o gramma's" - r e f e r r i n g t o sequences of events e.g. mother r e p o r t s " f i r s t we p l a n t e d the seed and then i t grew" 1 0 . Imagining - (from Tough) - an a c t d e v e l o p i n g an i m a g i n a r y s i t u a t i o n based on r e a l l i f e or f a n t a s y e.g. c h i l d says " b i r d s l e e p " r e f e r r i n g t o a toy b i r d e.g. c h i l d says " t r e e " r e f e r r i n g t o i m a g i n a r y Christmas t r e e - d e v e l o p i n g an o r i g i n a l s t o r y e.g. mother says "we went t o the moon" 1 1 . Reasoning - (from Tough): - an a c t e x p l a i n i n g a p r o c e s s e.g. mother says "we put the l e t t e r h e r e , then a mailman t a k e s i t away" - an a c t r e c o g n i z i n g cause and e f f e c t r e l a t i o n s h i p s e.g. mother s a y s " i f you do t h a t i t might b r e a k " - an a c t r e c o g n i z i n g problems and t h e i r s o l u t i o n s e.g. mother asks c h i l d "how does i t open" c h i l d examines t h e case, f l i p s t h e h a n d l e over and opens i t , i . e . the c h i l d reasoned how to open i t 49 - j u s t i f y i n g judgments e.g. c h i l d reasons " b i g " when mother t e l l s him to put an o v e r s i z e toy i n t o a s m a l l house, and demonstrates t h a t the toy w i l l not f i t - drawing conclusions e.g. mother reasons " I t h i n k the p l a n t s need more water. I t ' s so hot i n here." 12. P r o j e c t i n g - (from Tough) - an act which p r o j e c t s i n t o the f e e l i n g s or r e a c t i o n s of the s e l f or others i n experiences f a m i l i a r to the communicator, or i n s i t u a t i o n s never before experienced. e.g. mother p r o j e c t s "now the boy i s happy" "the dog w i l l be sad" "I'd be a f r a i d of a l i o n " e.g. c h i l d p r o j e c t s "mommy mad" 13. P r e d i c t i n g - (from Tough) - an act a n t i c i p a t i n g or f o r e c a s t i n g events or problems and t h e i r s o l u t i o n e.g. c h i l d p r e d i c t s "play there l a t e r " - an act a n t i c i p a t i n g d e t a i l s and sequence of events e.g. mother p r e d i c t s "maybe i t w i l l f i t t h e r e " - p r e d i c t i n g the consequences of a c t i o n s and behaviors e.g. mother p r e d i c t s " i f you do that you w i l l have to go to your room" 14. Uncodable - ( a d d i t i o n ) - an act which cannot be coded according to one of the other func t i o n s because i t i s u n i n t e l l i g i b l e , i n t e r r u p t e d , or serves a f u n c t i o n not considered by t h i s instrument. Question forms are considered s e p a r a t e l y i n terms of s t r u c t u r e or i n t o n a t i o n and are coded according t o the 13 categories j u s t discussed on the b a s i s of the type of response they a n t i c i p a t e . Each question form i s , t h e r e f o r e , coded f i r s t as a question and then a l s o coded as one of the 13 f u n c t i o n s . The method of coding question forms, adapted from suggestions made by both C u r t i s s et a l . and Tough r e t a i n s v a l u a b l e i n f o r m a t i o n about a speaker's i n t e n t . Following are examples of the various question f u n c t i o n s : 1. I m i t a t i n g - i m i t a t i o n of another's communicative a c t , but w i t h q u e s t i o n i n g i n t o n a t i o n or s t r u c t u r e e.g. c h i l d says " t a b l e " while, h o l d i n g a c h a i r mother i m i t a t e s " t a b l e ? " - i m i t a t i o n of a question e.g. mother says " i s that a lad d e r ? " c h i l d i m i t a t e s "ladder?" 2. Repeating - r e p e t i t i o n of one's own communicative act w i t h questioning i n t o n a t i o n e.g. mother says "that's a t a b l e " mother repeat "that's a t a b l e ? " - r e p e t i t i o n of a question e.g. c h i l d says. "what?" c h i l d repeats "what?" 3. R i t u a l - a communicative act that i s a common r i t u a l i n the form of a question e.g. how are you? e.g. what do you say? 51 4. Acknowledging - a yes-no question which a n t i c i p a t e s a "yes" response e.g. mother asks "do you want some candy?" e.g. mother asks " i s that a bed?" w h i l e p o i n t i n g to a bed 5. M a i n t a i n i n g - an act which seeks approval e.g. c h i l d begins to put a c h a i r beside the t a b l e , stops and looks at mother f o r approval before proceeding w i t h the a c t i o n - an act which c r i t i c i z e s e.g. mother asks "are you being s i l l y ? " - an act which shows approval or d i s a p p r o v a l e.g. mother says "do you want a spanking? e.g. mother says "how come you're so smart?" 6. D i r e c t i n g - an act which seeks to d i r e c t the s e l f or others, e i t h e r e x p l i c i t l y or i m p l i c i t l y e.g. mother asks "do you want to phone mom?" e.g. mother asks "can you make a 'B'?" - a "where" question which a n t i c i p a t e s a b e h a v i o r a l response of showing or p o i n t i n g e.g. c h i l d searches f o r truck and asks "where?" e.g. mother asks c h i l d "where i s your nose?" 7. Reporting - acts which seek a report e.g."who?'"Iwhat?" lhow many?'"'what c o l o r ? " - where questions that seek, a report e.g. "Where i s daddy today?" - yes/no q u e s t i o n s which seek a "no" response e.g. mother p o i n t s t o c h a i r and asks " i s t h a t a t a b l e ? " 8. I m a g i n i n g - a c t s which seek t o develop an i m a g i n a r y s i t u a t i o n e.g. mother asks "Is c o o k i e monster g o i n g s h o p p i n g ? " - q u e s t i o n s asked on b e h a l f of i m a g i n a r y c h a r a c t e r s e.g. c h i l d p l a y a c t s one d o l l a s k i n g a n o t h e r " e a t ? " 9. Reasoning - a c t s which seek r e a s o n i n g responses e.g. "how?", "why?", "what would happen i f . . .?", "what goes t o g e t h e r ? " , "what e l s e can you t h i n k o f ? " 10. P r o j e c t i n g - a c t s which seek r e s p o n s e s t h a t p r o j e c t i n t o f e e l i n g s e.g. "how does he f e e l ? " "how would he f e e l i f . . . ? " 11. P r e d i c t i n g - a c t s which seek responses about the f u t u r e e.g. "what w i l l happen n e x t ? " " w i l l something happen?" "when Modes B e s i d e s the f u n c t i o n , t h e i n s t r u m e n t d e v e l o p e d f o r t h i s s t u d y was d e s i g n e d t o r e c o r d t h e mode i n which t h e communicative b e h a v i o r o c c u r e d . F i v e modes were observed to be common i n t h e communicative b e h a v i o r of young h e a r i n g - i m p a i r e d c h i l d r e n and t h e i r mothers: 1. Speech - comprehensible u t t e r a n c e s r e c o g n i z a b l e as spoken language by a n a i v e l i s t e n e r , i . e . i n t e l l i g i b l e words, phrases or s e n t e n c e s . 2 . V o c a l i z a t i o n - sound p r o d u c t i o n of a phoneme a l o n e o r i n s y l l a b l e s but not i n t h e form o f , o r r e c o g n i z a b l e as s p e e c h . 53 Examples: aaaaaaa; mmhmm; l a u g h i n g ; c r y i n g . 3. G e s t u r e - a movement of the body or body p a r t s t h a t s y m b o l i z e s o r emphasizes an i d e a o r f e e l i n g and conveys t h i s meaning t o another p e r s o n . The g e s t u r e may supplement, r e p l a c e , or c o n t r a -d i c t v e r b a l b e h a v i o r s . Examples: s h r u g g i n g the s h o u l d e r s ; waving; p o i n t i n g ; frowning; s m i l e ; pantomime; mouthing the words w i t h o u t u s i n g v o i c e . 4. S i g n - a g e s t u r e made by one o r b o t h hands t h a t i s a s y m b o l i c r e p r e s e n t a t i o n i n : a. a c o n v e n t i o n a l s i g n language system f o r the h e a r i n g - i m p a i r e d , f o r example, S i g n i n g E x a c t E n g l i s h ( S . E . E . ) , Ameslan ( A . S . L . ) , o r S i g n e d E n g l i s h . The g e s t u r e must be r e c o g n i z e d t o be a s i g n by a p e r s o n f a m i l i a r w i t h s i g n systems. b . a system devised and used by the c h i l d and/or h i s family and recognized to be such a sign by.Lthe mother. c. t h e manual a l p h a b e t , i . e . , f i n g e r s p e l l i n g . 5. A c t i o n - one or a s e r i e s o f p u r p o s e f u l p h y s i c a l a c t s of t h e body or body p a r t s which a c t upon another p e r s o n or o b j e c t so t h a t p h y s i c a l c o n t a c t i s made. An a c t i o n i s determined t o be com-m u n i c a t i v e i n the c o n t e x t o f the communicative b e h a v i o r which precedes o r f o l l o w s i t . For example, p u t t i n g a d o l l i n t o t h e d o l l house i s communicative when i t f o l l o w s a d i r e c t i v e , such as "put t h e d o l l i n t h e house"; o r when i t pr e c e d e s a d i r e c t i v e , f o r example, t h e c h i l d p u t s one d o l l i n t h e house and then d i r e c t s the mother t o "do the same". The modes may be used i n d e p e n d e n t l y , at t h e same time o r i n a sequence. When two o r more modes communicate e x a c t l y t h e same message and a r e used a t e x a c t l y the same time, they a r e s a i d t o be si m u l t a n e o u s and a r e denoted by round b r a c k e t s . F o r example, the mother says and s i g n s the'boy i s s l e e p i n g . When two or..more modes a r e used a t t h e same time the boy i s s l e e p i n g but do not convey p r e c i s e l y the same messages, they a r e termed o v e r l a p p i n g modes and a r e denoted by square b r a c k e t s . F o r example the boy i s s l e e p i n g boy s l e e p would i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e mother s a i d " t h e boy i s sleeping',', but s i g n e d "boy s l e e p " as she s a i d i t . When two or more modes a r e used one a f t e r t h e o t h e r to convey one communicative a c t , they a r e c a l l e d s e q u e n t i a l and a r e denoted by l a r g e s l a s h e s . F o r example, i f t h e c h i l d s i g n e d r e d , then p o i n t e d t o the phone, i t would be shown as / r e d i / p o i n t s t o phone/ In o r d e r to s i m p l i f y the c o d i n g of t h e modes and t h e f u n c t i o n s , a system of a b b r e v i a t i o n s was used (see F i g u r e 1 ) . Codes Speech — S p V o c a l i z a t i o n -•—V Ge s t u r e G S i g n - S i A c t i o n A Simultaneous ( ) O v e r l a p p i n g [ 0 S e q u e n t i a l / / I m i t a t i n g 1 R e p e a t i n g r r R i t u a l u Acknowledging a Complying c M a i n t a i n i n g m I g n o r i n g g D i r e c t i n g d R e p o r t i n g r Imagining i Reasoning e P r o j e c t i n g j P r e d i c t i n g p Q u e s t i o n 0 Uncodable - due to t h e communicator-U - due to t h e c o d i n g system-UU FIGURE 1: Coding Symbols 55 The instrument thus described was used to examine the communication modes and f u n c t i o n s of the s u b j e c t s i n t h i s study. Procedure This study forms p a r t of a l a r g e r e v a l u a t i o n p r o j e c t , which i s c u r r e n t l y i n v e s t i g a t i n g e a r l y i n t e r v e n t i o n s e r v i c e s to preschool h e a r i n g -impaired c h i l d r e n and t h e i r f a m i l i e s i n B r i t i s h Columbia. The author has been i n v o l v e d i n the e v a l u a t i o n p r o j e c t as the o n - s i t e research a s s i s t a n t , and i s d i r e c t l y i n v o l v e d i n a l l aspects of data c o l l e c t i o n . Permission to use video-tape recordings of mother-child i n t e r a c t i o n and i n f o r m a t i o n r e : f a m i l y background gathered f o r the l a r g e r study, was obtained f o r the present research from the p r o j e c t evaluator i n S e a t t l e , Washington and from the f a m i l i e s i n v o l v e d . The video-tapes consisted of 15 minutes of i n t e r a c t i o n between mother and c h i l d , i n which the mothers had been i n s t r u c t e d to play w i t h t h e i r c h i l d r e n as they normally would during the course of a day. The play m a t e r i a l s were provided by the evaluator and so were h e l d constant across s u b j e c t s (see Appendix A). P a r e n t a l i n t e r v i e w s provided the family background i n f o r m a t i o n . A l l data were c o l l e c t e d i n the s u b j e c t s ' homes. The mothers and c h i l d r e n had the opportunity of being exposed to the i n t e r v i e w e r and the equipment p r i o r to the a c t u a l v i d e o - t a p i n g s e s s i o n s , and so i n t e r a c t e d n a t u r a l l y and tended t o ignore the set-up and the research a s s i s t a n t during the data c o l l e c t i o n . Black and white video-tapes were obtained u s i n g a Sony Beta-Max Portapac video-tape recorder. A time d i s p l a y i n minutes and seconds was superimposed on the upper l e f t hand corner of each tape by t e c h -n i c i a n s at the U n i v e r s i t y of S e a t t l e . The tapes were t r a n s f e r r e d to 3/4 i n c h v i d e o c a s s e t t e s , to accommodate playback equipment at the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia. Code numbers were then assigned to each c h i l d and mother. The procedure f o r examining the pragmatic and higher l e v e l mathetic functions used by the preschool hearing-impaired c h i l d r e n i n t h i s study i n v o l v e d two steps: 1. f o r m u l a t i n g the coding system described i n the previous s e c t i o n 2. t r a n s c r i b i n g and coding the video-tape recordings of the f i v e mother-child dyads. Two tapes were used as a p i l o t f o r Tough's coding system. The tapes were viewed and t r a n s c r i b e d by the present i n v e s t i g a t o r . The task of simultaneously c o n t r o l l i n g the play-back machine, viewing the tapes and t r a n s c r i b i n g the communicative behaviors proved to be extremely i n e f f i -c i e n t f o r one person to do alone. An attempt was made to increase the speed of the procedure by using an audio-cassette tape recorder to record v e r b a l l y what was seen and heard on the video-tape. The cassette was l a t e r played back and the i n f o r m a t i o n t r a n s c r i b e d and coded. This was s a t i s f a c t o r y i n the p i l o t e f f o r t to determine the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of Tough's system. However, i t would not s u f f i c e f o r a d e t a i l e d t r a n s -c r i p t i o n as i t was s t i l l time consuming and i n f o r m a t i o n was l o s t by not viewing the video-tape at the exact time of the coding. I t was decided that a second person was needed to a s s i s t i n coding the data. This s t r a t e g y a l s o would permit examination of i n t e r - c o d e r r e l i a b i l i t y . P r i o r to r e c r u i t i n g a research a s s i s t a n t , the categories of prag-matic f u n c t i o n s suggested by C u r t i s s et a l . were incorp o r a t e d i n t o Tough's system and the new coding system devised, as p r e v i o u s l y discussed. Following a 5 hour t r a i n i n g p e r i o d i n the use of the new instrument, t r a n s c r i p t i o n and coding of the i n t e r a c t i o n s were done by the researcher and a s s i s t a n t t o g e t h e r . Conventions f o r t r a n s c r i p t i o n were adapted from Bloom and Lahey (1978) f o r use i n t h i s s t u d y (see Coder's T r a i n i n g Manual Appendix B ) . One coder was r e s p o n s i b l e f o r o p e r a t i n g the v i d e o p l a y - b a c k e q u i p -ment and v e r b a l i z i n g the communicative b e h a v i o r observed, w h i l e the o t h e r coder was f r e e t o w r i t e t h e t r a n s c r i p t i o n s on p r e p a r e d c o d i n g s h e e t s . The mode and f u n c t i o n were then coded i n d e p e n d e n t l y by b o t h c o d e r s . Agreements and disagreements were t a b u l a t e d and d i f f e r e n c e s were r e s o l v e d by d i s c u s s i o n and mutual consent. There were no d i s a g r e e -ments t h a t c o u l d not be s e t t l e d by t h i s p r o c e d u r e . The t o t a l time r e q u i r e d t o t r a n s c r i b e and code each tape was a l s o n o t e d . The o p e r a t i o n a l d e f i n i t i o n s of the f u n c t i o n s were r e v i s e d and expanded as the need a r o s e f o r t h e f i r s t t h r e e dyads. A f t e r t h e t h i r d t r a n s c r i p t i o n was completed, the f i r s t t h r e e tapes were recoded t o ensure t h a t a l l communicative a c t s were coded u s i n g t h e same c r i t e r i a . The f i n a l two t a p e s were t r a n s c r i b e d , coded and checked w i t h no f u r t h e r r e v i s i o n s of the c o d i n g system. The c o d i n g manual was then r e w r i t t e n f o r use o u t s i d e o f t h i s s t u d y . F i n a l l y , l e t t e r s of a p p r e c i a t i o n were se n t t o a l l the f a m i l i e s who so k i n d l y agreed t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n t h i s r e s e a r c h . The r e s u l t s of t h e st u d y a r e d i s c u s s e d i n t h e next c h a p t e r o f t h i s t h e s i s . 58 CHAPTER IV RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Frequency and percent frequency scores of language f u n c t i o n s and modes of communication used by mother-child dyads i n t h i s study provided the data f o r a n a l y s i s . Most s t a t i s t i c a l procedures were i n a p p r o p r i a t e f o r examining the data due t o the s m a l l sample s i z e and because normality of the sample could not be assumed. Future p r a c t i c a l a p p l i c a t i o n by classroom teachers was al s o considered i n s e l e c t i n g the procedures f o r data a n a l y s i s . The r e s u l t s h e r e i n reported provide a concrete b a s i s f o r the ensuing d i s c u s s i o n , but any g e n e r a l i z a t i o n s are h i g h l y t e n t a t i v e . The r e s u l t s may be i n t e r p r e t e d i n various ways depending on the p h i l o s o p h i c a l o r i e n -t a t i o n of the reader. This author acknowledges the f a c t that i n d i v i d u a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n based on f a m i l i a r i t y w i t h the subjects provides the most u s e f u l i n f o r m a t i o n about the language f u n c t i o n i n g of a hearing-impaired c h i l d . Readers are i n v i t e d to draw t h e i r own conclusions from the data, and use the inf o r m a t i o n i n a way most s u i t a b l e to t h e i r needs. Observed aspects of the mother-child i n t e r a c t i o n may be the consequences or ante-cedents of the c h i l d ' s language a c q u i s i t i o n (Greenstein, 1975). Thus although c o r r e l a t i o n s are discussed, cause and e f f e c t cannot be deter-mined . 59 S u i t a b i l i t y of the Coding System A t o t a l of 1500 communicative acts were examined during the f i v e 15 minute videotapes. Mothers,generally used more communicative acts than t h e i r c h i l d r e n , although one mother used s l i g h t l y fewer acts than her c h i l d . The more communicative acts a mother used, the more her c h i l d tended to use, except i n the case of the one mother using fewer acts than her c h i l d . Some acts were uncodable as to mode or f u n c t i o n , but the m a j o r i t y of these were due to the communicator r a t h e r than the coding system. The only acts which were uncodable because the system d i d not accommodate f o r them, were 7 non-responses by c h i l d r e n when d i r e c t i o n s went unnoticed. No mother's acts were uncodable due to the system. Inter-coder agreements f o r both mode and f u n c t i o n were very h i g h , and as mentioned p r e v i o u s l y , a l l disagreements were subsequently mutually r e s o l v e d . These r e s u l t s are summarized i n Table IV. TABLE IV FREQUENCY OF COMMUNICATIVE ACTS AND UNCODABLE ACTS, AND PERCENT FREQUENCY OF INTER-CODER AGREEMENTS ACROSS MOTHER-CHILD DYADS C h i l d Mother T o t a l acts/dyads % agreements T o t a l Uncodable Acts due to system T o t a l Uncodable Acts due to system T o t a l Uncodable due to system Mode Function 1. 122 2 2. 170 1 3. 100 2 4. 107 2 5. 146 0 180 0 205 0 163 0 105 0 202. 0 302 2 375 1 263 2 212 2 348 0 99.34 91.39 99.97 92.80 100.00 91.64 100.00 93.87 99.71 89.94 645 7 855 0 1500 7 99.73 91.80 The data suggest that the coding instrument designed f o r t h i s study i s appropriate f o r examining the fu n c t i o n s and modes used by h e a r i n g -impaired preschool c h i l d r e n and t h e i r mothers. Functions The communicator's i n t e n t i o n i n usi n g a communicative act was c l a s -s i f i e d u s i n g the coding instrument. Each act was assigned one communicative f u n c t i o n . At times, m u l t i - f u n c t i o n a l acts were used. In order to s i m p l i f y coding, these acts were separated where p o s s i b l e i n t o s i n g l e f u n c t i o n u n i t s , or coded according t o the dominant f u n c t i o n as described i n Chapter I I I . Frequency and percent frequency of each f u n c t i o n used were computed for each mother and c h i l d . (See Table V and Figures 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.) Children's Use of Functions As hypothesized, a l l c h i l d r e n used the lower pragmatic f u n c t i o n s of i m i t a t i n g , r e p e a t i n g , r i t u a l , acknowledging, complying, m a i n t a i n i n g , d i r e c t i n g , r e p o r t i n g , and imagining, and 4 of the 5 c h i l d r e n used i g n o r i n g , whereas the higher l e v e l mathetic func t i o n s were used much l e s s f r e q u e n t l y or not at a l l . Only one c h i l d used reasoning, one used p r o j e c t i n g and two used p r e d i c t i n g , and these f u n c t i o n s were l e s s than 2% of the t o t a l acts used by each of these c h i l d r e n . Mothers' Use of Functions Again, as hypothesized, almost a l l of the lower l e v e l pragmatic fu n c t i o n s were used by the mothers, w h i l e the higher l e v e l mathetic functions were used much l e s s often and only by one or two mothers. Two mothers used p r o j e c t i n g , one used reasoning and none used p r e d i c t i n g . No mothers used i g n o r i n g i n response to any of t h e i r c h i l d r e n ' s d i r e c t i o n s . Since almost a l l of the c h i l d r e n demonstrated i g n o r i n g TABLE V FREQUENCY AND PERCENT FREQUENCY OF FUNCTIONS - 15 MINUTE SAMPLES N=122 N=180 N=170 N=205 N=100 N=163 N=107 N=105 N=146 N=202 Subj . Mother Subj . Mother Subj . Mother Subj . Mother Subj . Mother 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 I m i t a t i n g (3) (21) (21) (30) (4) (16) (3) (19) (15) (16) 2.46% 11.67% 12.35% 14.63% 4.0% 9.82% 2.80% 18.10% 10.27% 7.92% Repeating (5) (14) (18) (31) (2) (23) (14) (19) (9) (30) 4.10% 7.78% 10.59% 15.12% 2.0% 14.11% 13.08% 18.10% 6.16% 14.85% R i t u a l (1) (8) (4) (13) (1) (1) (1) (0) (3) (0) .82% 4.44% 2.35% 6.34% 1.0% .61% .93% 0.0% 2.05% 0.0% Acknowledging (7) (15) (.25) (45) (25) (28) (15) (15) (13) (20) 5.74% 8.33% 14.71% 21.95% 25% 17.18% 14.02% 14.29% 8.90% 9.90% Complying (12) (11) (14) (0) (18) C6) (10) (2) (33) (14) 9.84% 6.11% 8.24% 0.0% 18% 3.68% 9.35% 1.90% 22.60% 6.93% Ma i n t a i n i n g (19) (3) (4) (4) (7) (8) (2) (2) (6) (10) 15.57% 1.67% 2.35% 1.95% 7.0% 4.91% 1.87% 1.90% 4.11% 4.95% Ignoring (7) (0) (0) (0) (2) (0) (3) (0) (7) (0) 5.74% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.0% 0.0% 2.80% 0.0% 4.79% 0.0% D i r e c t i n g (27) (59) (28) (23) (12) (51) (14) (21) (23) (62) 22.13% 32.78% 16.47% 11.22% 12% 31.29% 13.08% 20% 15.75% 30.69% Reporting (36) (31) (37) (42) (17) (24) (25) (18) (30) (44) 29.51% 17.22% 21.76% 20.49% 17% 14.72% 23.36% 17.14% 20.55% 21.78% Imagining (2) (2) (5) (5) (8) (2) (10) (3) (2) (2) 1.64% 1.11% 2.94% 2.44% 8.0% 1.23% 9.35% 2.86% 1.37% .99% TABLE V—Continued N=122 Subj . 1 N=180 Mother 1 N=170 Subj . 2 N=205 Mother 2 N=100 Subj . 3 N=163 Mother 3 N=107 Subj . 4 N=105 Mother 4 N=146 Subj . 5 N=202 Mother 5 Reasoning (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (3) 1.76% (7) 3.41% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% Proj e c t i n g (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (3) 1.46% (1) 1.0% (1) .61% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% P r e d i c t i n g (0) 0.0% CO) 0.0% (1) .59% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% CO) 0.0% (2) 1.87% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% Uncodable (3) 2.46% (16) 8.89% (10) 5.88% (2) .98% (3) 3.0% (.3) 1.84% (8) 7.48% (6) 5.71% (4) 2.74% (4) 1.98% Questions (2) 1.64% (33) 18.33% (14) 8.24% (54) 26.34% (4) 4.0% (38) 23.31% (2) 1.87% (36) 34.29% (6) 4.11% (52) 25.7 % CJ) c CI O. « — cn c cn CO "O CJ> — cn CO cn cn c . c (A 0> c c cn c c c c — — X I C — — — c — •- — — — — (0 o — J to — — — c c u o a> ra o — — u — o a — TJ 3 c a c o 01 o cn cn . O J£ E — c a a to o a> o a> — o o to cn — t>" E u i _ ». c 3 10 o E — T3 »• — - a a 3 cr F u n d i o n F i g u r e 2 =Percent Frequency of F u n c t i o n s - Dyad 1 P e r c e n t F r e q u e n c y c CO n o o 3 .Q c (0 3 o •< -n c 3 O o 3 U) I O •< CD a. IS) i m i t a t i n g r e p e a t i n g r i t u a l a c k n o w l e d g i n g c o m p I y i n g m a i n t a i n i n g i g n o r i n g d i r e c t i n g •n c 3 *» r e p o r t i n g o = i m a g i n i n g r e a s o n i n g p r o ] e c t i n g p r e d i c t i n g u n c o d e a b l e q u e s t i o n s 40 :nf \ d "=107 mo t h e r " = 105 n 66 c a Ul c O) •o o 5 o c J£ u a c £ o Ol c o c Ul c a> c o a a> at c E a « o a c •a a <o t> X) o o c 3 F u n c t i o n F i g u r e 5 : P e r c e n t Frequency of F u n c t i o n s - Dyad 4 chi I d n=l4fc> 4 0 3 5 3 0 2 5 2 0 1 5 1 0 n 4 0 3 5 3 0 25 2 0 1 5 1 0 mot he r n=202 cn c — 0) Cf) c Cn 13 Ol c c <U c c - - _ i >> to to 10 to o — — — 3 c a c — a — E E 0 — o o to a u E cn .cn o> cn a o> co c c tn c c c c ._ ._ X) c c — — — — — — to o — — — c c u u a> , _ *- o A.  0 ._ T3 o o CO (0 —. T> O tn c *- a to to o 01 U 0) cn — 01 E C 3 U — a a 3 cr F u n d i o n F i g u r e 6 ^ P e r c e n t F r e q u e n c y o f F u n c t i o n s - D y a d 5 b e h a v i o r , i t seems u n l i k e l y t h a t t h e mothers never use i g n o r i n g arid the r e s u l t s a r e an a r t i f a c t of t h e v i d e o - t a p i n g s i t u a t i o n , i . e . mothers were aware t h a t t h e y were b e i n g o b s e r v e d and tended t o m a i n t a i n a p o s i t i v e communicative environment. Two mothers d i d not use r i t u a l s , b u t t h e s e two m o t h e r - c h i l d dyads d i d n o t use the p l a y t e l e p h o n e s i n t h e i r i n t e r a c t i o n s , t h e r e b y l i m i t i n g o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r r i t u a l a c t s . One mother d i d not show any compliance on t h e b a s i s of the f i n a l t a b u l a t i o n s . However,, h e r ..child always used d i r e c t i o n s f o r a t t e n t i o n and compliance to t h i s type of d i r e c t i o n was n o t coded. Though a l l t h e mothers used i m a g i n i n g , they used i t l e s s o f t e n than t h e i r c h i l d r e n . T h i s may be a r e s u l t of the i n h i b i t e d c r e a t i v i t y o f many a d u l t s . The use of t h i s f u n c t i o n by mothers may need t o be s p e c i f i c a l l y encouraged. M o t h e r s 1 communicative a c t s were uncodable l e s s o f t e n than t h e i r c h i l d r e n ' s , and were most o f t e n uncodable because the communication was i n t e r r u p t e d . A l l of the mothers used r e p e a t i n g more than t h e i r c h i l d r e n d i d . R e p e t i t i o n i s a g e n e r a l component of Motherese d i r e c t e d t o language l e a r n i n g c h i l d r e n , and would appear t o be a p p r o p r i a t e f o r use by mothers of p r e s c h o o l h e a r i n g - i m p a i r e d c h i l d r e n . Four o f t h e f i v e mothers used i m i t a t i o n s more than t h e i r c h i l d r e n . Mothers of h e a r i n g - i m p a i r e d c h i l -d r e n are encouraged to p r o v i d e a p p r o p r i a t e speech and language m o d e l s / f o r t h e i r c h i l d r e n and t o expand on t h e i r c h i l d r e n ' s u t t e r a n c e s , hence i t would seem t h e f r e q u e n c y of mothers' i m i t a t i o n s c o u l d be the r e s u l t o f e a r l y i n t e r v e n t i o n and p a r e n t c o u n s e l l i n g . Whereas p a r e n t i m i t a t i o n s have been found to s u b s t a n t i a l l y i n c r e a s e t h e p r o b a b i l i t y of i m i t a t i o n by c h i l d r e n ( F o l g e r and Chapman, 1978), t h e s e d a t a do not s u p p o r t t h a t f i n d i n g . Dyads' Use o f F u n c t i o n s A l l of the c h i l d r e n used compliance more o f t e n than t h e i r mothers, which i s perhaps r e l a t e d t o t h e f a c t t h a t a l l o f the mothers ex c e p t one were more d i r e c t i n g than t h e i r c h i l d r e n . The most d i r e c t i n g c h i l d had the most d i r e c t i n g mother who was a l s o the most compliant mother, s u g g e s t i n g t h a t a r e l a t i o n s h i p e x i s t s between c h i l d and mother i n t h e use of t h i s f u n c t i o n i n communication, and t h a t a complying mother may r e i n f o r c e d i r e c t i n g i n h e r c h i l d . The c h i l d w i t h t h e l e a s t d i r e c t i n g mother at no time used i g n o r i n g i n r e s p o n s e t o h i s mother, w h i l e the c h i l d who i g n o r e d the most had th e most d i r e c t i n g mother. I t appears mothers s h o u l d be encouraged t o d i r e c t l e s s o f t e n and to r e l a t e t h e i r communication to t h e i r c h i l d r e n ' s i n t e r e s t s and d e s i r e s i n o r d e r to p r o v i d e a p o s i t i v e communicative environment i n which the c h i l d i s m o t i v a t e d t o a t t e n d t o h i s mother or o t h e r commun-i c a t i o n p a r t n e r . Only one m o t h e r - c h i l d dyad used r e a s o n i n g , and o n l y one m o t h e r - c h i l d dyad used p r o j e c t i n g . One o t h e r mother used p r o j e c t i n g but h e r c h i l d d i d n o t . Though no mothers used p r e d i c t i n g , two c h i l d r e n d i d . I t i s s u s p e c t e d t h a t i n o r d e r f o r a c h i l d t o use t h e s e h i g h e r l e v e l f u n c t i o n s , , mothers s h o u l d p r o v i d e the model. However t h i s i s not t h o r o u g h l y sub-s t a n t i a t e d by the d a t a . T a b l e V I shows the r e s u l t s of Spearman's Rank C o r r e l a t i o n C o e f f i c i e n t s between the m o t h e r - c h i l d p a i r s f o r use o f f u n c t i o n s , which r e v e a l t h a t a h i g h p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n e x i s t s between c h i l d r e n ' s and mother's use of language f u n c t i o n s . 70 TABLE VI CORRELATIONS BETWEEN MOTHERS AND CHILDREN FOR USE OF FUNCTION Child-Mother Dyad Spearman's y (rho) 1 0.6477 2 0.7235 3 0.7783 4 0.7816 5 0.8241 Questions Speech acts were coded as questions i f they were d i r e c t questions determined by s t r u c t u r e or i n t o n a t i o n , which a n t i c i p a t e d c e r t a i n responses, or when they were i n d i r e c t speech acts which d i d not a n t i c i p a t e the responses suggested by the surface form. While i n d i r e c t question forms are f r e q u e n t l y used by a d u l t s , young c h i l d r e n do not begin to comprehend these c o n v e r s a t i o n a l p o s t u l a t e s u n t i l about 3 years of age and i t i s not u n t i l seven or eigh t years that they are able to manipulate surface form and content to achieve communication goals ( M i l l e r , 1978). A d u l t s ' questions which seek responses d i r e c t l y i n t h e i r surface forms are u s u a l l y " a r t i f i c i a l " i n the p a r e n t - c h i l d or t e a c h e r - c h i l d communication s i t u a t i o n i n that the parent or teacher i s seeking a response that i s known. On the other hand, the young c h i l d w i l l use a question form t o seek unknown i n f o r m a t i o n . While i t has been suggested that the use of questions by mothers i s u n r e l a t e d to a c h i l d ' s a c q u i s i t i o n of language (Greenstein, 1975), i t s r e l a t i o n t o a c h i l d ' s use of questions has not been explored. I t i s known that mothers of hearing c h i l d r e n are more l i k e l y t o use questions than are mothers of hearing-impaired c h i l d r e n (Goss, 1970). An a n a l y s i s of the use of questions may provide v a l u a b l e 71 c l u e s about the language f u n c t i o n s of h e a r i n g - i m p a i r e d p r e s c h o o l c h i l d r e n and t h e i r mothers. The f r e q u e n c y of mothers 1'and c h i l d r e n ' s use o f q u e s t i o n types a r e summarized i n T a b l e V I I . C h i l d r e n ' s Use o f Q u e s t i o n s A l l o f the c h i l d r e n used much fewer q u e s t i o n forms than t h e i r mothers. Four o f the f i v e c h i l d r e n used q u e s t i o n s f o r d i r e c t i n g , but a l l of t h e s e q u e s t i o n s were "where" q u e s t i o n s and a n t i c i p a t e d t h a t t h e mothers would respond by f i n d i n g t h e s e a r c h e d f o r o b j e c t , so t h a t w h i l e i t appears t h a t the c h i l d r e n were u s i n g i m p l i c i t q u e s t i o n s as d i r e c t i o n s , they l i k e l y do not r e c o g n i z e them as such, but use the q u e s t i o n form because t h e y l a c k the language o f the e x p l i c i t d i r e c t i o n . Only t h r e e of the f i v e c h i l d r e n used q u e s t i o n s t h a t a n t i c i p a t e d r e p o r t i n g r e s p o n s e s . T h i s i s somewhat s u r p r i s i n g i n l i g h t of t h e f a c t t h a t the' t o y s p r o v i d e d were u n f a m i l i a r t o the c h i l d r e n and many items were l i k e l y to be new t o them, f o r example the soda f o u n t a i n , news s t a n d and b i r d ' s n e s t . T h i s may suggest t h a t the c h i l d r e n a r e not used t o a s k i n g q u e s t i o n s of t h e i r mothers t o a c q u i r e new information.. Two t e n t a t i v e reasons are s u g g e s t e d : Young h e a r i n g - i m p a i r e d c h i l d r e n a r e not accustomed t o a s k i n g q u e s t i o n s of t h e i r mothers i n o r d e r t o a c q u i r e new i n f o r m a t i o n . T h i s would seem t o be i n c o n t r a s t t o young h e a r i n g c h i l d r e n who c o n s t a n t l y seek i n f o r m a t i o n from a d u l t s i n t h e i r environment. The h e a r i n g - i m p a i r e d c h i l d r e n have n o t found t h e i r mothers t o be good s o u r c e s f o r r e p o r t i n g i n f o r m a t i o n . T h i s would seem l i k e l y i n view of th e f a c t t h a t a l t h o u g h a l l of the f a m i l i e s were a t t e m p t i n g to use s i g n language i n a d d i t i o n t o speech, they TABLE VII FREQUENCY OF USE OF QUESTION TYPES c h i l d mother c h i l d mother c h i l d mother c h i l d mother c h i l d mother T o t a l 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 i m i t a t i n g 5 3 9 1 7 4 7 36 repe a t i n g 4 5 8 5 7 6 35 r i t u a l 1 2 3 acknowledging 1 2 4 3 10 complying 0 mai n t a i n i n g 1 1 2 i g n o r i n g 0 d i r e c t i n g 1 2 1 4 11 2 3 5 8 37 r e p o r t i n g 1 21 3 26 12 15 1 27 106 imagining 3 1 1 8 reasoning 4 3 4 p r o j e c t i n g 0 p r e d i c t i n g 0 uncodable 0 T o t a l 2 33 14 54 4 38 2 36 6 52 241 g e n e r a l l y reported t h e i r knowledge of signs to be " f a i r " . When mothers l a c k the necessary s i g n vocabulary, and the c h i l d r e n are unable to process auditory input alone, the communication process tends to breakdown. These young hearing-impaired c h i l d r e n appear to have l i m i t e d t h e i r use of the f u n c t i o n of r e p o r t i n g questions, i n adapting to the communication i n t e r a c t i o n w i t h which they are f a m i l i a r . No c h i l d r e n used questions f o r acknowledging or f o r the higher l e v e l mathetic f u n c t i o n s of reasoning, p r o j e c t i n g or p r e d i c t i n g , and only one c h i l d used question forms f o r imagining. Mothers' Use of Questions Mothers used question forms of t e n i n t h e i r communication, w i t h the frequency ranging from 18.33%-34.29% of t h e i r t o t a l communicative a c t s . A l l mothers used questions f o r r e p o r t i n g , d i r e c t i n g , repeating and i m i t a t i n g and four of the f i v e used question, forms i n acknowledging. I t appears that mothers use i n d i r e c t speech acts w i t h t h e i r young h e a r i n impaired c h i l d r e n as they would n a t u r a l l y do i f t h e i r c h i l d r e n were hearing, although perhaps w i t h l e s s frequency. Reporting questions were used most f r e q u e n t l y by a l l of the mothers p o s s i b l y as a means of encouraging expressive language and checking comprehension. Asking a c h i l d to give a report i s an oft e n used t e c h -nique f o r demonstrating or "showing-off" a c h i l d ' s language s k i l l s and the high frequency of r e p o r t i n g questions may have been due to the mothers' d e s i r e to demonstrate the c h i l d r e n ' s comprehension f o r the researcher. Such q u e s t i o n i n g , however, i s encouraged and used by many parents and teachers i n l i e u of r e a l two way communication w i t h a c h i l d who has l i m i t e d language s k i l l s , and i t i s l i k e l y that the r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e that use of t h i s f u n c t i o n i n i n t e r a c t i o n s between young h e a r i n g -impaired c h i l d r e n and t h e i r mothers i s more common t h n would be normally expected i n normally hearing mother-child dyads. I m i t a t i o n s and r e p e t i t i o n s i n question forms were used f a i r l y f r e -quently, to r e i n f o r c e language or to check comprehension, p a r t i c u l a r l y when a c h i l d gave an i n c o r r e c t r e p o r t . Of the lower l e v e l pragmatic f u n c t i o n s , only r i t u a l and maintaining questions were used very i n f r e q u e n t l y . None of the higher l e v e l mathetic f u n c t i o n s were used i n question forms, except by one mother who asked s e v e r a l reasoning questions. I t appears mothers do not a n t i c i p a t e higher l e v e l responses from t h e i r c h i l -dren and do not provide o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r encouraging such uses of language. Dyads'Use of Questions The mother who used the most question forms and the greatest v a r i e t y of question f u n c t i o n s had the c h i l d who used the most question forms and the gr e a t e s t v a r i e t y of question f u n c t i o n s . The c h i l d w i t h the l e a s t number of questions and only two d i f f e r e n t question f u n c t i o n s had the mother who used the l e a s t number of question forms and f u n c t i o n s . Only one mother used any higher l e v e l mathetic f u n c t i o n s (reasoning) and i t was her c h i l d alone who used reasoning responses. Cause and e f f e c t are not i m p l i e d but the r e l a t i o n s h i p , e x i s t i n g i n t h i s sample, warrants f u r t h e r e x p l o r a t i o n . Modes Table V I I I and Figures 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11, give the frequency and percent frequency of mode use f o r the mother and c h i l d dyads. The use of modes appears to be a more h i g h l y i n d i v i d u a l matter than the use of TABLE V I I I FREQUENCY AND PERCENT FREQUENCY OF MODES C h i l d 1 Mother 1 C h i l d 2 Mother 2 C h i l d 3 Mother 3 C h i l d 4 Mother 4 C h i l d 5 Mother 5 Speech CO) 0.0% (6) 3.33% (44) 25.88% (64) 31.22% (0) 0.0% (41) 25.15% (0) 0.0% (2) 1.91% (0) 0.0% (58) 28.71% V o c a l i z a t i o n (3) 2.46% CD .56% (6) 3.53% (7) 3.42% (1) 1.0% (1) .61% (1) .94% (0) 0.0% (9) 6.16% (0) 0.0% Gesture (17) 13.93% (10) 5.56% (5) 2.94% (5) 2.44% (21) 21.0% (1) .61% (19) 17.76% (7) 6.67% (10) 6.85% (5) 2.48% Sign (8) 6.56% (2) 1.11% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (8) 8.0% (0) 0.0% (16) 14.95% (9) 8.57% (23) 15.75% (0) 0.0% A c t i o n (16) 13.11% (31) 17.22% (10) 5.88% CO) 0.0% (17) 17.0% (8) 4.91% (13) 12.15% (5) 4.76% (28) 19.18% (23) 11.39% Simultaneous (3) 2.46% (38) 21.11% (21) 12.35% (43) 20.98% CD 1.0% (16) 9.82% (0) 0.0% (33) 31.43% (10) 6.85% (24) 11.88% Overlapping (38) 31.15% (36) 20.0% (52) 30.59% (.71) 34.64% (14) 14.0% (88) 53.99% (6) 5.61% (30) 28.57% (35) 23.97% (69) 34.16% Sequential (27) 22.13% (40) 22.22% (22) 12.94% (13) 6.34% (33) 33.0% (5) 3.07% (41) 38.32% (13) 12.38% (19) 13.01% (19) 9.41% Uncodable (10) 8.20% (15) 8.33% (10) 5.88% (2) .98% (5) 5.0% (3).; 1.84% (11) 10.28% (6) 5.71% (12) 8.22% (4) 1.98% c h i l d "=IZZ F i g u r e 7 P e r c e n t F r e q u e n c y of Modes- Dyad 1 c h i l d n = 170 mot he r "= 105 o CP CO a in to o o o> 3 cn <D at c CO M o d e 09 3 O €> C to 3 E CD c a a a CB 3 cr a> t» O O c 3 F i g u r e 8 P e r c e n t F r e q u e n c y of M o d e s - Dyad 2 c h i l d n ~ 100 F i g u r e 9 P e r c e n t F r e q u e n c y of Modes- Dyad 3 c h i l d n s 101 5 0 4 5 4 0 3 5 3 0 2 5 20 c CO o 3 O) — o c — 4> — 01 — <o — a c a — XI N 01 a a (0 — c — 10 c 01 u — 3 o — _ 01 •a « 10 c — 3 *— 3 o u (fl cn E 01 cr u o. o 01 —• • u .- > 0) c m > O) in (0 {A o in 3 M o d e F i g u r e l O ^ P e r c e n t F r e q u e n c y of Modes- Dyad 4 c h i l d mot he r n= 202 1 I c tn o 3 CO . — O c — to e — ro — to c a  Si N «i to a • to c — c *- m c IS u — o — — tn •o to ro c — 3 3 o a o tn cn — E 0) cr o Q. o 0) — o — > tv c tn > D> tn a tn o tn 3 M o d e F i g u r e 11 ; P e r c e n t F r e q u e n c y of Modes- Dyad 5 f u n c t i o n s , as few p a t t e r n s emerged between dyads or a c r o s s c h i l d r e n o r mothers. However t h e s m a l l sample s i z e c a u t i o n s a g a i n s t g e n e r a l i z a t i o n s from t h e r e s u l t s , which seem t o r e f l e c t the p e r s o n a l communicative s t y l e s of t h e s u b j e c t s i n t h i s s t u d y . C h i l d r e n ' s Use o f Modes A l l of the c h i l d r e n used e i t h e r o v e r l a p p i n g or s e q u e n t i a l modes most f r e q u e n t l y i n t h e i r communication. S i n c e t h e c h i l d r e n were i n v o l v e d i n n o n - t h r e a t e n i n g , n a t u r a l communicative i n t e r a c t i o n w i t h t h e i r mothers, i t appears they found u s i n g a c o m b i n a t i o n of modes more c o m f o r t a b l e and e f f e c t i v e than t h e use of any s i n g l e mode a l o n e . Simultaneous mode use was much l e s s f r e q u e n t . By i t s d e f i n i t i o n , s i m u l t a n e o u s use of modes g e n e r a l l y n e c e s s i t a t e s i n t e l l i g i b l e s peech. Given t h a t f o u r o f t h e f i v e c h i l d r e n demonstrated l i m i t e d u se o f speech, and i n no case used speech a l o n e , i t i s not s u r p r i s i n g t h a t s i m u l t a n e o u s modes were not used v e r y f r e q u e n t l y . The same f o u r c h i l d r e n who d i d n o t use speech a l o n e , seldom used v o c a l i z a t i o n a l o n e , but used g e s t u r e s , s i g n s o r a c t i o n s a l o n e q u i t e f r e q u e n t l y . These s u b j e c t s seem o r i e n t e d t o n o n - v o c a l modes of communi-c a t i v e b e h a v i o r . Only one c h i l d used speech a l o n e i n h i s communication and used i t f a i r l y o f t e n . T h i s same c h i l d d i d n o t use s i g n s a l o n e and used g e s t u r e s and a c t i o n s a l o n e v e r y i n f r e q u e n t l y . The two coders c o n s i d e r e d h i s speech t o be i n t e l l i g i b l e w i t h good rhythm and i n t o n a t i on. T h i s c h i l d appears o r i e n t e d t o a v o c a l mode of communicative b e h a v i o r . Not s u r p r i s i n g l y , t h i s same c h i l d used s i m u l t a n e o u s modes more o f t e n than d i d t h e o t h e r c h i l d r e n . 82 Mothers' Use of Modes A l l mothers used a combination of modes more f r e q u e n t l y than any s i n g l e mode alone. The most f r e q u e n t l y used combinations of modes were simultaneous by one mother, s e q u e n t i a l modes by another and overlapping by the other three. This i l l u s t r a t e s the f a c t that most of the mothers d i d not use exact E n g l i s h syntax i n t h e i r s i g n i n g , but d i d attempt to combine speech and si g n i n communicating w i t h i t h e i r young hearing-impaired c h i l d r e n . Three mothers used speech alone as t h e i r second most frequent mode of communication but d i d not use signs alone. These r e s u l t s must be i n t e r p r e t e d i n r e l a t i o n to the d i f f e r i n g m o t i v a t i o n a l f a c t o r s which i n f l u e n c e d each mother's use of modes. Mother 2 used speech alone very n a t u r a l l y and spontaneously to great advantage. Her c h i l d responded f r e q u e n t l y and a p p r o p r i a t e l y to speech alone and the f a m i l y placed strong emphasis on maximizing t h i s c h i l d ' s o r a l - a u r a l s k i l l s during normal com-municative i n t e r a c t i o n . This mother's use of speech and non-use of s i g n alone appears to r e f l e c t her c h i l d ' s a b i l i t i e s and her d e s i r e to continue the normal flow of communication between h e r s e l f and her c h i l d . Mother 5 emphasized a u r a l - o r a l s k i l l s i n a d e l i b e r a t e way so as to encourage development of these s k i l l s i n her c h i l d . This mother's use of speech and non-use of s i g n alone appears to r e f l e c t her d e s i r e to use t h e i r i n t e r a c t i o n together as an opportunity to teach her c h i l d these communication s k i l l s . Mother 3 d i d not place p a r t i c u l a r emphasis on o r a l - a u r a l s k i l l development, nor d i d her c h i l d demonstrate good comprehension of spoken language. However, t h i s mother chose to use speech alone o f t e n w i t h her c h i l d and not to use s i g n alone. Her speech was often more complex i n length and s t r u c t u r e than her signs and the r e s u l t s seem to r e f l e c t a l i m i t e d s i g n language vocabulary which d i d not, however, i n t e r r u p t the mother's normal tendency to communicate o r a l l y . On the other hand, mothers 1 and 4 used both speech alone and s i g n alone i n f r e q u e n t l y and appeared to p r e f e r combined modes of communication. This may r e f l e c t that these mothers have found speech alone to be a non-productive means of communication f o r i n t e r a c t i o n w i t h t h e i r c h i l d r e n , yet are cognizant of using speech w i t h t h e i r hearing-impaired c h i l d r e n and so use both together to enhance the communication process. Mother 4 was the most co n s i s t e n t at u s i n g speech and s i g n simultaneously, r e f l e c t i n g her d e s i r e to provide o r a l and non-oral modes of communication f o r her c h i l d . Dyads' Use of Modes Only one h i g h l y p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p i s seen to e x i s t between mother-child dyads as r e f l e c t e d i n Table IX. TABLE IX CORRELATIONS BETWEEN MOTHERS AND CHILDREN FOR USE OF MODES Child-Mother Dyad Spearman's y (rho) 1 .5439 2 .8193 3 - .1891 4 .1590 5 .1513 In dyad 2 the c h i l d ' s high frequency of i n t e l l i g i b l e speech and a b i l i t y to respond a u d i t o r a l l y l i k e l y c o n t r i b u t e d to the h i g h c o r r e l a t i o n . How-ever, both mother and c h i l d gave the impression of being h i g h l y attuned 84 t o each o t h e r ' s communicative s t y l e and used c e r t a i n modes a c c o r d i n g l y i n t h e i r communicative i n t e r a c t i o n . Three s e p a r a t e s t u d i e s ( C r a n d a l l , 1978; R a f f i n , D a v i s and Gilman, 1978; B o r n s t e i n , S a u l n i e r and H a m i l t o n , 1980) have determined t h a t t h e b e s t p r e d i c t o r of a c h i l d ' s use o f s y n t a c t i c a l s t r u c t u r e s i n s i g n language, i s t h e mother's use o f t h e s e s t r u c t u r e s . T h i s i s s u p p o r t e d by the r e s u l t s of t h i s s t u d y i n t h a t no mothers used s u f f i x e s or v e r b t e n s e markers i n t h e i r s i g n i n g and n e i t h e r d i d t h e i r c h i l d r e n . Perhaps a l a r g e r sample would demonstrate a s i m i l a r r e l a t i o n s h i p between a c h i l d ' s and mother's use of modes. These d a t a , however, suggest t h a t c h i l d r e n appear to have a c e r t a i n p r o p e n s i t y to use v o c a l or n o n - v o c a l modes a l o n e or i n com-b i n a t i o n , r e g a r d l e s s of t h e i r mothers' use of t h e s e modes. F u r t h e r r e s e a r c h i s needed to support or d i s p r o v e t h e s e a l t e r n a t e h y p o t h e s e s . S u i t a b i l i t y o f U s i n g a S i x - M i n u t e Sample The t a s k of t r a n s c r i b i n g and c o d i n g the f i f t e e n minute samples f o r each m o t h e r - c h i l d dyad r e q u i r e d an average of one hour per minute of v i d e o t a p e i n t e r a c t i o n . The amount of time d e c r e a s e d as t h e coders became more f a m i l i a r w i t h and adept a t u s i n g the c o d i n g i n s t r u m e n t . However, such a time-consuming p r o c e s s would p r o v e i n e x p e d i e n t f o r a t e a c h e r s t r i v i n g t o meet t h e needs of 5 or more p r e s c h o o l h e a r i n g - i m p a i r e d c h i l d r e n . The p o s s i b i l i t y of u s i n g a s h o r t e r time span was t e s t e d by c a l c u l a t i n g the f r e q u e n c y and p e r c e n t f r e q u e n c y o f f u n c t i o n s used by each c h i l d and mother o v e r a 6-minute sample. Three 2-minute segments were s e l e c t e d from t h e b e g i n n i n g , m i d d l e and end of each 15-minute v i d e o t a p e . T h i s a n a l y s i s y i e l d e d a t o t a l of 596 communicative a c t s w i t h an average of 50 a c t s per c h i l d and 69 ac t s per mother. The frequencies f o r each f u n c t i o n are given i n Table X. Spearman's rank c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s between the 6- and 15-minute samples f o r each c h i l d and mother were computed, using the MIDAS program (see Table X I ) . These r e s u l t s show a very high p o s i t i v e c o r r e -l a t i o n between the time samples i n d i c a t i n g that a 6-minute sample w i l l a f f o r d r e l i a b l e i n f o r m a t i o n about the f u n c t i o n s of language used by hearing-impaired preschool c h i l d r e n , and would be s u i t a b l e f o r use by teachers who do not have the time f o r a more lengthy a n a l y s i s . TABLE X /FREQUENCY AND PERCENT FREQUENCY OF FUNCTIONS - 6 MINUTE SAMPLES Subj e c t 1 Mother 1 S u b j e c t 2 Mother 2 Subj e c t 3 Mother 3 S u b j e c t 4 Mother 4 S u b j e c t 5 Mother 5 I m i t a t i n g (3) 6.12% (6) 7.79% (ID 18.03% (8) 11.43% (2) 5.41% (2) 3.85% (3) 7.89% (7) 15.22% (7) 10.61% (12) 12.0% R e p e a t i n g (2) 4.08% (5) 6.49% (5), 8.20% (ID 15.71% (D 2.70% (9) 17.31% (5) 13.16% (9) 19.57% (5) 7.58% (15) 15% R i t u a l (1) 2.04% (3) 3.90% CO) 0.0% (5) 7.14% (0) 0.0% (D 1.92% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (D 1.52% (0) 0.0% Acknowledging (4) 8.16% (8) 10.39% C10) 12.99% (14) 20.0% (9) 24.32% (9) 17.31% (6) 15.79% (8) 17.39% (8) 12.12% (10) 10.0% Complying (4) 8.16% (4) 5.19% (5) 8.20% (0) 0.0% (ID 29.73% (0) 0.0% (5) 13.16% (D 2.17% (10) 15.15% (9) 9.0% M a i n t a i n i n g (10) 20.41% CD 1.30% (2) 3.28% (2) 2.86% (3) 8.11% (3) 5.77% (0) 0.0% (2) 4.35% (3) 4.55% (4) 4.0% I g n o r i n g (5) 10.20% (0) 0.0% CO) 0.0% (0) 0.0% CO) 0.0% (0) 0.0% CD 2.63% (0) 0.0% (2) 3.03% (0) 0.0% D i r e c t i n g (9) 18.37% (30) 38.96% (9) 14.75% (.9) 12.86% CD 2.70% (19) 36.54% (6) 15.79% (10) 21.74% (9) 13.64% (23) 23.0% R e p o r t i n g (11) 22.45% (ID 14.29% (ID 18.03% (14) 20.0% (5) 13.51% (7) 13.46% (7) 18.42% (9) 19.57% (19) 28.79% (26) 26.0% Imagining CO) 0.0% CD 1.30% (2) 3.28% (2) 2.86% (4) 10.81% CD 1.92% (2) 5.26% (0) 0.0% CD 1.52% CO) 0.0% CO O N TABLE X—Continued Subj ect 1 Mother 1 Subj ect 2 Mother 2 Subject 3 Mother 3 Subject 4 Mother 4 Subject 5 Mother 5 Reasoning (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (2) 3.28% (3) 4.29% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% P r o j e c t i n g (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (1) 1.43% (1) 2.70% (1) 1.92% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% P r e d i c t i n g (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (1) 2.63% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% Uncodable (0) 0.0% (8) 10.39% (4) 6.56% (1) 1.43% (0) 0.0% CO) 0.0% (2) 5.26% (0) 0.0% (1) 1.52% (1) 1.0% Questions (0) 0.0% (9) 11.69% (9). 14.75% (21) 30.0% (1) 2.70% (7.) 13.46% (1) 2.63% (16) 34.78% (1) 1.52% (30) 30.0% N, 49 77 61 70 37 52 38 46 66 100 TABLE XI CORRELATIONS BETWEEN 6 AND 15-MINUTE SAMPLES FOR USE OF FUNCTIONS Subj ect Spearman's y (rho) Absolute Std. C o e f f i c i e n t Mean D i f f . dev. C h i l d 1 .9350 2.3729 2.1622 2 .9463 1.5493 1.6131 3 .8816 2.7807 3.4748 4 .9170 2.0314 1.8431 5 .9141 1.9200 2.6865 Mother 1 .9786 1.4186 1.8214 2 .9892 .8143 .9076 3 .9712 1.8214 1.9646 4 .9662 1.6364 1.7179 5 .9556 1.5164 2.2964 89 CHAPTER V SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS This research was concerned w i t h the design and p i l o t t e s t i n g of a system appropriate f o r examining the funct i o n s of communicative acts used by preschool hearing-impaired c h i l d r e n and t h e i r mothers. Modes of communication were a l s o considered. Five mother-child dyads i n v o l v e d i n communicative i n t e r a c t i o n i n a f r e e - p l a y s i t u a t i o n provided the video-tape data. The c h i l d r e n ranged from 3.7-4.7 years of age, were p r e l i n g -u a l l y profoundly hearing-impaired, and used a system of s i g n language as a component of t h e i r communication. A l l mothers were hearing and had completed at l e a s t one formal course i n a s i g n language system. Design of the coding instrument was based on r e l e v a n t research from the areas of c h i l d language and communication of the hearing-impaired. A system emerged which combined the pragmatic fun c t i o n s used by preschool hearing-impaired c h i l d r e n ( C u r t i s s , P r u t t i n g and L o w e l l , 1977) w i t h the higher l e v e l mathetic f u n c t i o n s used by preschool hearing c h i l d r e n and considered necessary f o r l a t e r school l e a r n i n g (Tough, 1977) . The f i n a l coding system i n c l u d e d the f o l l o w i n g 13 f u n c t i o n s : i m i t a t i n g , r e p e a t i n g , r i t u a l , acknowledging, complying, m a i n t a i n i n g , i g n o r i n g , d i r e c t i n g , r e p o r t i n g , imagining, reasoning, p r o j e c t i n g and p r e d i c t i n g . The few utterances which f a i l e d to f i t the system, were u n i n t e l l i g i b l e or i n t e r -rupted, were coded as "uncodable" . Questions were considered separately based on s y n t a c t i c form or r i s i n g i n t o n a t i o n , and were coded according to the f u n c t i o n a l response a n t i c i p a t e d . The 15-minute videotapes were t r a n s c r i b e d and independently coded by the primary i n v e s t i g a t o r and a research a s s i s t a n t , both of whom were experienced teachers of the hearing-impaired f a m i l i a r w i t h the communi-c a t i o n of young hearing-impaired c h i l d r e n . Frequency and percent frequency of funct i o n s and modes used by each c h i l d and mother during the 15 minute segments were obtained. The f r e -quency of f u n c t i o n s used over 6-minute samples from the o r i g i n a l tapes were a l s o t a b u l a t e d . Spearman rank c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s were computed between mothers' and c h i l d r e n ' s use of f u n c t i o n s and modes and between each c h i l d ' s and mother's use of f u n c t i o n s f o r the 15 and 6 minute v i d e o -tapes, u s i n g the MIDAS computor program. The r e s u l t s suggest that the coding system devised f o r t h i s study i s s u i t a b l e f o r examining the communicative f u n c t i o n s of language used by hearing-impaired preschool c h i l d r e n and t h e i r mothers. Furt h e r , i t appears that there i s a p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n between c h i l d r e n ' s and mothers' use of these f u n c t i o n s , whereas no d i s t i n c t c o r r e l a t i o n e x i s t s f o r use of modes. As hypothesized, c h i l d r e n and mothers g e n e r a l l y used lower l e v e l pragmatic f u n c t i o n s , whereas higher l e v e l mathetic functions were used r a r e l y i f at a l l . C o r r e l a t i o n s between subjects f o r use of fun c t i o n s during the 15 and 6 minute tapes y i e l d e d high p o s i t i v e c o r -r e l a t i o n s , suggesting that the s h o r t e r samples would provide s u f f i c i e n t data f o r a n a l y s i s . The i m p l i c a t i o n s of these r e s u l t s are a f f e c t e d by s e v e r a l l i m i t a t i o n s inherent i n t h i s study and i n c h i l d language research i n general. The s m a l l sample s i z e cautions against o v e r g e n e r a l i z a t i o n of the r e s u l t s regarding use of fu n c t i o n s and modes by hearing-impaired pre-school c h i l d r e n and t h e i r mothers. Although r e s u l t s demonstrate c e r t a i n p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n s , no cause and e f f e c t statements can be made. F u n c t i o n a l language development may be r e l a t e d t o f a c t o r s not e x p l o r e d i n t h i s s t u d y . The i n s t r u m e n t i t s e l f may be i n s u f f i c i e n t o r too e x t e n s i v e f o r optimum e x a m i n a t i o n o f the use of f u n c t i o n s . F u r t h e r r e s e a r c h w i l l be n e c e s s a r y to determine which p r a g m a t i c and m a t h e t i c f u n c t i o n s a r e most r e l e v a n t i n t h i s type of language a n a l y s i s . The t r a n s c r i p t i o n and c o d i n g p r o c e d u r e s u g g e s t e d f o r d a t a c o l l e c t i o n may not be f e a s i b l e i f v i d e o -tape equipment or s u f f i c i e n t time a r e u n a v a i l a b l e . L e a r n i n g t o use the i n s t r u m e n t i s an ongoing p r o c e s s b e s t r e a l i z e d when c o d i n g i s a team e f f o r t . Such an approach accommodates d i s c u s s i o n s u r r o u n d i n g c r e a t i o n o r c l a r i f i c a t i o n of the b e h a v i o r a l d e f i n i t i o n s o f f u n c t i o n s , and r e s o l u t i o n of disagreements o r m i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g s . T h i s o p t i m a l l e a r n i n g c o n d i t i o n may not be p o s s i b l e i n c e r t a i n e d u c a t i o n a l s e t t i n g s . Consequently, i n d i v i d u a l s i n t e r e s t e d i n u t i l i z i n g the system may a t f i r s t f e e l confused or i n a d e q u a t e l y p r e p a r e d . C o n s i d e r a t i o n f o r t h e p r a c t i c a l a p p l i c a t i o n of t h i s i n s t r u m e n t by t e a c h e r s , prompted attempts t o m a i n t a i n a s i m p l e d e s i g n . Perhaps v a l u a b l e i n f o r m a t i o n about the f u n c t i o n s of language used by h e a r i n g -i m p a i r e d c h i l d r e n and t h e i r mothers i s l o s t as a r e s u l t . I t i s o n l y through f u t u r e use of t h e system t h a t such a l i m i t a t i o n can be c o n f i r m e d or d i s p r o v e d . S p e c i f i c s t r a t e g i e s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h each f u n c t i o n and used by the c h i l d r e n and mothers were n o t a n a l y z e d i n depth. I n t r a - f u n c t i o n d i f -f e r e n c e s may e x i s t which c o u l d p r o v i d e g r e a t e r i n s i g h t and u n d e r s t a n d i n g i n t o the use of f u n c t i o n . These d i f f e r e n c e s would be o f co n c e r n t o p a r e n t s and t e a c h e r s . D e s p i t e t h e s e l i m i t a t i o n s , t h e r e are s e v e r a l i m p l i c a t i o n s from t h i s p i l o t s t u d y i n p r a g m a t i c - m a t h e t i c f u n c t i o n i n g of p r e s c h o o l h e a r i n g - i m p a i r e d c h i l d r e n and t h e i r mothers. The system has been so d e s i g n e d t h a t i t i s easy t o a p p l y a f t e r an i n i t i a l o r i e n t a t i o n (5 hours i n t h i s s t u d y ) . S i n c e t r a n s c r i p t i o n and c o d i n g are a time-consuming p r o c e s s r e q u i r i n g one hour per minute of v i d e o t a p e d i n t e r a c t i o n , 6-minute time samples i n s t e a d of t h e f u l l 15-minute ones would be a p p r o p r i a t e f o r t e a c h e r s w i s h i n g to u t i l i z e t h i s i n s t r u m e n t but n o t h a v i n g t h e time r e q u i r e d f o r a more d e t a i l e d a n a l y s i s . The format proposed f o r t r a n s c r i p t i o n and' c o d i n g a l l o w s t h e t e a c h e r to use t h e s e same d a t a f o r o t h e r types of a n a l y s i s , making i t an even more u s e f u l p r o c e d u r e . For example, phonology, s y n t a x , s e m a n t i c s , c o m p l e x i t y , and l e n g t h of u t t e r a n c e s , as w e l l as o t h e r p r a g m a t i c a s p e c t s of language such as t u r n t a k i n g , c o n v e r s a t i o n a l p o s t u l a t e s , and so on, can be a s s e s s e d . V i d e o t a p i n g as a means of o b t a i n i n g the d a t a e n a b l e s the t e a c h e r to do the a n a l y s i s a t any con-v e n i e n t time or p l a c e and a tape can be r e t a i n e d as a permanent r e c o r d of a c h i l d ' s p r o g r e s s , o r can be e r a s e d and made a v a i l a b l e f o r f u r t h e r d a t a c o l l e c t i o n . Because i t appears t h e r e i s a c o r r e l a t i o n between c h i l d r e n ' s and mothers' use of language f u n c t i o n s , a f i r s t s t e p i n d e v e l o p i n g t h e f u n c t i o n s i n c h i l d r e n would be to make t e a c h e r s and p a r e n t s aware of the v a r i o u s f u n c t i o n s so t h a t they may c o n s c i o u s l y p r o v i d e the models needed. The system proposed i n t h i s r e s e a r c h i s a v a l u a b l e g u i d e f o r t h o s e i n t e r e s t e d i n e x p l o r i n g t h i s f a c e t o f communication or i n a l o n g i t u d i n a l s t u d y of language development. C h i l d r e n who do not demonstrate e f f e c t i v e use o f p r a g m a t i c f u n c t i o n s would appear to be f u n c t i o n i n g at a v e r y low l e v e l and t h e language s t r a t e g i e s they r e q u i r e would need to be programmed a c c o r d i n g l y . These c h i l d r e n w i l l r e q u i r e c o n c e n t r a t e d e f f o r t s t o encourage, s t i m u l a t e and r e i n f o r c e such communicative i n t e n t i n t h e i r spontaneous i n t e r a c t i o n s . The u s e f u l n e s s of m a t h e t i c f u n c t i o n s a p p l i e s t o i n t e r a c t i o n i n everyday l i f e and s h o u l d not be t h e e x c l u s i v e domain of s c h o o l r e l a t e d l e a r n i n g . As l o n g as c h i l d r e n a r e s a t i s f i e d w i t h communicating a t lower l e v e l p r a g m a t i c f u n c t i o n s , they w i l l not see the need f o r h i g h e r l e v e l m a t h e t i c f u n c t i o n s which s e r v e t o p r o v i d e f o o d f o r c u r i o s i t y and r e l a t i o n s w i t h o t h e r s beyond the immediate b o u n d a r i e s of space and time, i n t o p a s t and f u t u r e events and even f a n t a s y . For t h e s e r e a s o n s , h i g h e r l e v e l m a t h e t i c f u n c t i o n s are c r u c i a l t o o l s of communication, which must be s t i m u l a t e d and encouraged. Because h i g h e r l e v e l m a t h e t i c f u n c t i o n s were v e r y r a r e l y used by t h e c h i l d r e n and mothers i n t h i s s t u d y , awareness of t h e s e h i g h e r l e v e l f u n c t i o n s need t o be p a r t i c u l a r l y e x p l a i n e d and encouraged i n p a r e n t s and t e a c h e r s so t h a t h e a r i n g - i m p a i r e d c h i l d r e n have o p p o r t u n i t i e s to l e a r n and use t h e s e f u n c t i o n s . F u t u r e r e s e a r c h i n t h i s v e r y i n t e r e s t i n g and c h a l l e n g i n g a r e a of language i n h e a r i n g - i m p a i r e d c h i l d r e n s h o u l d t a k e s e v e r a l d i r e c t i o n s . The development o f the most p r a c t i c a l and r e l e v a n t c o d i n g system must be s t u d i e d . I n t e r a c t i o n s i n v o l v i n g b o t h o l d e r and younger c h i l d r e n and w i t h v a r i o u s communication p a r t n e r s , such as s i b l i n g s , p e e r s , f a t h e r s and t e a c h e r s , may w e l l prove w o r t h w h i l e areas of i n v e s t i g a t i o n . I n d i v i d u a l s t r a t e g i e s employed i n the use of v a r i o u s f u n c t i o n s and t h e use o f modes and i t s r e l a t i o n t o o t h e r f a c t o r s a l s o warrant f u r t h e r c o n s i d e r a t i o n . F i n a l l y , a l e s s time-consuming but r e l i a b l e method f o r s c r e e n i n g the use of t h e s e f u n c t i o n s would b r i n g such an a n a l y s i s i n t o g r e a t e r usage. The l a r g e r t h e body o f knowledge t h a t i s g e n e r a t e d by such p r a c t i c a l a p p l i c a t i o n , the more u n d e r s t a n d i n g w i l l r e s u l t . H e a r i n g - i m p a i r e d c h i l d r e n can o n l y p r o f i t from such determined e f f o r t s t o improve t h e i r language l e a r n i n g and communicative competence. 95 BIBLIOGRAPHY A n t i n u c c i , F., P a r i s i , D. " E a r l y semantic development i n c h i l d language." In E. Lenneberg and E. Lenneberg (eds.), Foundations of Language  Development: A M u l t i - D i s c i p l i n a r y Approach ( V o l . 1 ) . P a r i s : UNESCO Press, 1975. A u s t i n , J . How to do Things w i t h Words. Oxford: Oxford U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1962. Bart s c h , Renate. "Semantical and pragmatical correctness as b a s i c notions of the theory of meaning." J o u r n a l of Pragmatics, 1979, _3, 1-43. Bates, E. "Pragmatics and s o c i o l i n g u i s t i c s i n c h i l d language." In D. Morehead and A. Morehead (eds.), D i r e c t i o n s i n Normal and D e f i c i e n t  C h i l d Language. Baltimore: U n i v e r s i t y Park Press, 1976(a). Bates, E l i z a b e t h . Language and Context: The A c q u i s i t i o n of Pragmatics. New York: Academic P r e s s , 1976 (b). Bates, E., Camaioni, L., V o l t e r r a , V. "The a c q u i s i t i o n of performatives p r i o r to speech." M e r r i l l Palmer Q u a r t e r l y , 1975, ZL, 205-226. B e r n s t e i n , B. (ed;.) C l a s s , Codes and C o n t r o l (Vo l . 1 ) . London: Routledge and Kegan P a u l , 1971. Best, B., Roberts, G. C o g n i t i v e Development i n Young Deaf C h i l d r e n . Research Report, No.92. Bureau of Education f o r the Handicapped, 1975. B l a c k w e l l , P., Engen, E., Fischgrund, J . , Zarcadoolas, C. Sentences and Other Systems. Washington: The Alexander Graham B e l l A s s o c i a t i o n , 1978. Bloom, L. Language Development: Form and Function i n Emerging Grammars. Massachusetts: The Massachusetts I n s t i t u t e of Technology, 1970. Bloom, L., Hood, L., Lightbown, P. " I m i t a t i o n i n language development: i f , when and why." In L. Bloom (ed.), Readings i n Language  Development. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1978. Bloom, L., Lahey, M. Language Development and Language D i s o r d e r s . New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1978. Bloom, L., Rocissano, L., Hood, L. " A d u l t - c h i l d d i s c o u r s e : develop-mental i n t e r a c t i o n between inform a t i o n processing and l i n g u i s t i c knowledge." C o g n i t i v e Psychology, 1976, 8, 521-552. 96 B o r e l l i , M. "The performance of deaf and hearing c h i l d r e n on s e r i a l o r d ering t a s k s . " Enfance, 1951, 4_. B o r n s t e i n , H., S a u l n i e r , K., Hamilton, L. "Signed E n g l i s h : a f i r s t e v a l u a t i o n . " American Annals of the Deaf, 1980, 125 ( 4 ) , 467-481. Bowerman, M. "Words and sentences: u n i f o r m i t y , i n d i v i d u a l v a r i a t i o n and s h i f t s over time." In F. M i n i f i e and L. L l o y d (eds.), Communicative  and C o g n i t i v e A b i l i t i e s - E a r l y B e h a v i o r a l Assessment. Baltimore: U n i v e r s i t y Park Press, 1978. B r i t t o n , J . Language and Learning. London: Penguin, 1970. Bruner, J.S. "The r o l e of dialogue i n language a c q u i s i t i o n . " In A. S i n c l a i r , R. J a r v e l l a , and W. L e v e l t (eds.), The C h i l d ' s Con- ce p t i o n of Language. New York: S p r i n g e r - V e r l a g , 1978. Byers, P., Byers, H. "Nonverbal communication and the education of c h i l d r e n . " In C. Cazden, V. John and D. Hymes (eds.), Functions  of Language i n the Classroom. New York: Teachers College Press, 1972. Cazden, C. "The question of i n t e n t . " In L. Rosenblum and M. Lewis (eds.), I n t e r a c t i o n , Conversation and the development of Language. New York: Wiley, 1976. Cazden, C , John, V., and Hymes, D. (eds.). Functions of Language i n the  Classroom. New York: Teachers College Press, 1972. Chomsky, N. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge: M.I.T. Press, 1965. Chomsky, N. Language and Mind. New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, 1968. C h u l l i a t , R.,01eron, P. "The r o l e of language i n t r a n s p o s i t i o n t a s k s . " Enfance, 1955, 8_. C l a r k , H., C l a r k , E. Psychology and Language - an I n t r o d u c t i o n to  P s y c h o l i n g u i s t i c s . New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, Inc., 1977. C l a r k , R. "What's the use of i m i t a t i o n ? " J o u r n a l of C h i l d Language, 1977, 4, 341-358. Clezy, G. M o d i f i c a t i o n of the Mother-Child Interchange i n Language,  Speech and Hearing. Baltimore: U n i v e r s i t y Park Press, 1979. Coggins, T., Branson, C. A System f o r Coding Communicative Functions i n  P r e v e r b a l C h i l d r e n . Paper presented at the Language Awareness Conference of the American Organization of Educators of the Hearing Impaired, Washington, October, 1978. 97 C r a i g , W., C o l l i n s , J . " A n a l y s i s of communication i n t e r a c t i o n i n c l a s s e s f o r deaf c h i l d r e n . " American Annals of the Deaf, 1970, 115, 79-85. C r a n d a l l , K. " I n f l e c t i o n a l morphemes i n the manual e n g l i s h of young hearing-impaired c h i l d r e n and t h e i r mothers." J o u r n a l of Speech  and Hearing Research, 1978, 21, 372-86. Creber, J.W.P. Lost f o r Words - Language and Education F a i l u r e . England: Penguin Education, 1972. Cromer, R.F. "The c o g n i t i v e hypothesis of language a c q u i s i t i o n and i t s i m p l i c a t i o n f o r c h i l d language d e f i c i e n c y . " In D. Morehead and A. Morehead (eds.), Normal and D e f i c i e n t C h i l d Language. Baltimore: U n i v e r s i t y Park Press, 1976. C u r t i s s , S., P r u t t i n g , C , L o w e l l , E. "Pragmatic and semantic development i n young c h i l d r e n w i t h impaired hearing." J o u r n a l of Speech and  Hearing Research, 1979, 22, 534-552. C u r t i s s , S., P r u t t i n g , C. L o w e l l , E. A Search f o r Performatives i n Young  Deaf C h i l d r e n , F i n a l Report. Los Angeles: John Tracy C l i n i c , A p r i l , 1977. de V i l l i e r s , J . , de V i l l i e r s , P. Language A c q u i s i t i o n . Massachusetts: Harvard U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1978. de V i l l i e r s , J . , de V i l l i e r s , P. "Semantics and syntax i n the f i r s t two years: the output of form and f u n c t i o n and the form and f u n c t i o n of the in p u t . " .In F. M i n i f i e and L. Llo y d (eds.), Communicative  and C o g n i t i v e A b i l i t i e s - E a r l y B e h a v i o r a l Assessment. Baltimore: U n i v e r s i t y Park Press, 1978. Dore, J . "A pragmatic d e s c r i p t i o n of e a r l y language development." J o u r n a l  of P s y c h o l i n g u i s t i c Research, 1974, _3, 343-350. Dore, J . "Conditions f o r the a c q u i s i t i o n of speech a c t s . " In I . Markova (ed.), The S o c i a l Context of Language. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1978. Dore, J . "Holophrases, speech acts and language u n i v e r s a l s . " J o u r n a l of  C h i l d Language, 1975, 2, 21-40. Dore, J . The Development of Speech Acts. Unpublished d o c t o r a l d i s s e r -t a t i o n , C i t y U n i v e r s i t y of New York, 1973. Dore, J . , Gearhart, M., Newman, D. "The s t r u c t u r e of nursery school conversation." In K. Nelson (ed.), C h i l d r e n ' s Language (V o l . 1 ) . New York: Gardner Press, 1978. Doughty, P., Pearce, J . , Thornton, G. Language i n Use. London: Edward Arnold, 1971. 98 E r v i n - T r i p p , S. Language A c q u i s i t i o n and Communicative Choice. Stanford: U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1973. E r v i n - T r i p p , S. "Language development." I n M.L. Hoffman and L.W. Hoffman (eds.), Review of C h i l d Development Research (V o l . 2 ) . H a r t f o r d : R u s s e l l Sage Foundations, 1964. Feldman, H., Goldin-Meadow, S., Gleitman, L. "Beyond Herodotus: the c r e a t i o n of language by l i n g u i s t i c a l l y deprived deaf c h i l d r e n . " In A. Lock (ed.), A c t i o n , Gesture and Symbol. London: Academic Press, 1978. Fol g e r , J . , Chapman, R. "A pragmatic a n a l y s i s of spontaneous i m i t a t i o n s . " J o u r n a l of C h i l d Language, 1978, j>, 25-38. Freedle, R., Lewis, M. " P r e l i n g u i s t i c conversations." In L. Rosenblum and M. Lewis (eds.), I n t e r a c t i o n , Conversation and the Develop- ment of Language. New York: Wiley, 1976. Fur t h , H. Deafness and Learning, A P s y c h o l o g i c a l Approach. Belmont: Wadsworth, 1973. Furth , H. Deafness and Learning: A Social-Developmental Psychology. Belmont: Wadsworth, 1972. Fur t h , H.G. Thinking Without Language: P s y c h o l o g i c a l I m p l i c a t i o n s of  Deafness. New York: The Free Press, 1966. Glass, G.V., Stanley, J.C. S t a t i s t i c a l Methods i n Education and Psychology. Englewood C l i f f s : P r e n t i c e - H a l l , Inc., 1970. Goss, R. "Language used by mothers of deaf c h i l d r e n and mothers of hearing c h i l d r e n . " American Annals of the Deaf, 1970, 115, 93-96. Greenberg, M.T. Attachment Behavior, Communicative Competence and  P a r e n t a l A t t i t u d e s i n Preschool Deaf C h i l d r e n . Unpublished d o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y of V i r g i n i a , 1978. G r e e n f i e l d , P., Smith, J . The St r u c t u r e of Communication i n E a r l y Language  Development. New York: Academic P r e s s , 1976. Greenstein, J . Methods of F o s t e r i n g Language Development i n Deaf I n f a n t s , F i n a l r e p o r t . New York: Lexington School f o r the Deaf, June, 1975. G r i c e , H.P. The Logic of Conversation. Berkeley: U n i v e r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a , 1968. (Mimeographed). H a l l i d a y , M.A.K. E x p l o r a t i o n s i n the Functions of Language. London: Edward Arnold L t d . , 1973. H a l l i d a y , M.A.K. Learning How to Mean. London: Edward Arnold L t d . , 1975. 99 H e i d e r , F.W., H e i d e r , G.M. " S t u d i e s i n p s y c h o l o g y of t h e d e a f . " Psycho- l o g i c a l Monograph, 1941, 53 (Whole No. 242). Hess, R.D., Shipman, V.C. " E a r l y e x p e r i e n c e and t h e s o c i a l i z a t i o n of t h e c o g n i t i v e modes i n c h i l d r e n . " C h i l d Development, 1965, _3 ( 4 ) , 881-883. Hopper, R., Naremore, R. C h i l d r e n ' s Speech: A P r a c t i c a l I n t r o d u c t i o n t o  Communication Development. New York: Harper and Row, 1978. Hymes, D. F o u n d a t i o n s i n S o c i o l i n g u i s t i c s : An E t h n o g r a p h i c Approach. P h i l a d e l p h i a : U n i v e r s i t y of P e n n s y l v a n i a P r e s s , 1974. I n h e l d e r , B., P i a g e t , J . The E a r l y Growth o f L o g i c i n the C h i l d . London: R o u t l e d g e and Kegan P a u l , 1964. Jones, A., M u l f o r d , J . C h i l d r e n U s i n g Language. O x f o r d : O x f o r d U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1972. Kenady, K.E., P r o c t o r , C.L. A Comparison of t h e Language Used by Mothers  of Deaf C h i l d r e n and Mothers of H e a r i n g C h i l d r e n . U n p u b l i s h e d M a s t e r ' s T h e s i s , U n i v e r s i t y of Southern C a l i f o r n i a , 1968. Kretschmer, R., Kretschmer, L. Language Development and I n t e r v e n t i o n w i t h  the H e a r i n g - I m p a i r e d . B a l t i m o r e : U n i v e r s i t y P a r k P r e s s , 1978. Kretschmer, R., Kretschmer, L. "The a c q u i s i t i o n of l i n g u i s t i c and commun-i c a t i v e competence: p a r e n t - c h i l d i n t e r a c t i o n s . " I n A. Murphy ( e d . ) , The V o l t a Review, 1979, 81, 306-321. Lawton, D. S o c i a l C l a s s , Language and E d u c a t i o n . London: R o u t l e d g e and Kegan P a u l , 1968. Lenneberg, E. The B i o l o g i c a l B a s i s of Language. M a s s a c h u s e t t s : H a r v a r d U n i v e r s i t y , 1965. (Mimeographed). Leonard, L. Meaning i n C h i l d Language. New York: Grune and S t r a t t o n , 1976. Lewis, M.M. How C h i l d r e n L e a r n t o Speak. London: Harrap, 1968. Lewis, M.M. I n f a n t Speech. London: R o u t l e d g e and Kegan P a u l , 1951. Lewis, M.M. Language and P e r s o n a l i t y i n Deaf C h i l d r e n . E n g l a n d : N a t i o n a l F o u n d a t i o n f o r E d u c a t i o n a l Research, 1968. Lewis, M.M. Language and the C h i l d . E ngland: N a t i o n a l F o u n d a t i o n f o r E d u c a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h , 1969. Limber, J . " U n r a v e l l i n g competence, performance and p r a g m a t i c s i n t h e speech of young c h i l d r e n . " J o u r n a l of C h i l d Language, 1976, _3, 309-318. 100 L i n g , D. Speech and t h e H e a r i n g - I m p a i r e d C h i l d : Theory and P r a c t i s e . Washington: The A l e x a n d e r Graham B e l l A s s o c i a t i o n f o r t h e Deaf, I n c . , 1976. Lock, A. "The emergence of l a n g u a g e . " I n A. Lock ( e d . ) , A c t i o n , G e sture  and Symbol: The Emergence of Language. London: Academic P r e s s , 1978. L o w e l l , E., L o w e l l , M. " I n t e r a c t i o n of assessment and i n t e r v e n t i o n -h e a r i n g impairment." In F. M i n i f i e and L. L l o y d ( e d s . ) , Communicative and C o g n i t i v e A b i l i t i e s - E a r l y B e h a v i o r a l  Assessment. B a l t i m o r e : U n i v e r s i t y Park P r e s s , 1978. L u r i a , A.R. The Role of Speech i n the R e g u l a t i o n of B e h a v i o r . Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1961. Markova, I . (ed.) The S o c i a l Context of Language. New York: John W i l e y and Sons, 1978. McNamara, J . " C o g n i t i v e b a s i s of language l e a r n i n g i n . i n f a n t s . " P s y c h o l o g i c a l Review, 1972, 79., 1-13. Mehrabian, A., W i l l i a m s , M. " P i a g e t i a n measures of c o g n i t i v e development f o r c h i l d r e n up t o age 2." J o u r n a l o f P s y c h o l i n g u i s t i c Research, 1971, 1, 113-124. Melson, G., H u l l s , M.J. The I n t e r p l a y of V e r b a l and Non-Verbal Communi- c a t i o n i n Young C h i l d r e n . Paper p r e s e n t e d at t h e Annual N a t i o n a l Conference on Language A r t s i n the Elementary S c h o o l , Phoenix, A p r i l , 1977. M i l l e r , L i n d a . "Pragmatics and e a r l y c h i l d h o o d language d i s o r d e r s : communicative i n t e r a c t i o n s i n a h a l f - h o u r sample." J o u r n a l o f  Speech and H e a r i n g D i s o r d e r s , 1978, 43, 419-436. M i l l e r , S., S h e l t o n , J . , F l a v e l l , J . "A t e s t of L u r i a ' s hypotheses c o n c e r n i n g t h e development of v e r b a l s e l f - r e g u l a t i o n . " C h i l d  Development, 1970, 4JD, 651-665. Moerk, E. P r a g m a t i c and Semantic A s p e c t s o f E a r l y Language Development. B a l t i m o r e : U n i v e r s i t y Park P r e s s , 1977. Moerk, E. P r o c e s s e s of Language T e a c h i n g and Language L e a r n i n g i n the  I n t e r a c t i o n s o f M o t h e r - C h i l d Dyads. Paper p r e s e n t e d at t h e B i e n n i a l M e e t i n g of t h e S o c i e t y f o r Research i n C h i l d D e v e l o p -ment, A p r i l , 1975. Moores, D. E d u c a t i n g t h e Deaf - P s y c h o l o g y , P r i n c i p l e s , and P r a c t i c e s . B o s ton: Houghton M i f f l i n , 1978. Moores, D. Recent Research i n Manual Communication, O c c a s i o n a l Paper No.7. U n i v e r s i t y of M i n n e s o t a Research, Development and D e m o n s t r a t i o n Center i n E d u c a t i o n of Handicapped C h i l d r e n , 1971. Moores, D., Weiss, K., Goodwin, M. "Receptive a b i l i t i e s of deaf c h i l d r e n across f i v e modes of communication." E x c e p t i o n a l C h i l d r e n , 1973, 3_9, 22-28. M o r r i s , Charles.. Signs, Language and Behavior. Englewood C l i f f s : P r e n t i c e - H a l l , 1946. Nelson, K. " E a r l y speech i n i t s communicative context." In F. M i n i f i e and L. Lloyd (eds.), Communicative and Cognitive A b i l i t i e s :  E a r l y B e h a v i o r a l Assessment. Baltimore: U n i v e r s i t y Park Press, 1978. Oleron, P. Recherches sur l e Developpement Mental des Sourd-Muets. P a r i s Centre N a t i o n a l de l a Recherche S c i e n t i f i q u e , 1957. O i l e r , D.K. "Discussion summary: the r o l e of pragmatics i n c h i l d langua r e s e a r c h . " In F. M i n i f i e and L. Lloyd (eds.), Communicative and  Cognitive A b i l i t i e s : E a r l y B e h a v i o r a l Assessment. Baltimore: U n i v e r s i t y Park Press, 1978. Parker, E l l e n . Function of Ge s t u r a l Behavior i n I n t e r a c t i o n Between Mothers and t h e i r Language Learning C h i l d r e n . Paper presented at the Boston U n i v e r s i t y Conference on Language, Boston, 1976. P e i r c e , C.S. C o l l e c t e d Papers of Charles Sanders P e i r c e . V o l . V. Pragmatism and Pragmaticism. (C. Hartshore and P. Weiss [e d s . ] ) . Cambridge: Harvard U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1934. Pfuderer, C. "Language a c q u i s i t i o n i n the deaf: some suggestions f o r i n c l u s i o n i n the f i e l d manual." In Rainey, M., Pfuderer, C., Mehan, S., Sher, A., Fallman, J . , S e i t e l , S., Hubbell, L., Studies of I n t e r a c t i o n , Language Behavior Research Laboratory Working Paper, No. 16. Berkeley: C a l i f o r n i a U n i v e r s i t y , 1968. Pia g e t , Jean. The Moral Judgement of the C h i l d . New York: C o l l i e r Books, 1962. Quigley, S., R u s s e l l , K. Power, D. L i n g u i s t i c s and Deaf C h i l d r e n :  Transformational Syntax and I t s A p p l i c a t i o n . Washington: A.G. B e l l A s s o c i a t i o n , 1976. R a f f i n , M., Davis, J . , Gilman, L. "Comprehension of i n f l e c t i o n a l morphemes by deaf c h i l d r e n exposed to a v i s u a l e n g l i s h s i g n system." J o u r n a l of Speech and Hearing Research, 1978, 21, 387-400. Ralmeyi C , Farran, D., Campbell, F., F i n k e l s t e i n , N. "Observations of mother-infant i n t e r a c t i o n s : i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r development." In F. M i n i f i e and L. Lloyd (eds.), Communicative and Cognitive  A b i l i t i e s : E a r l y B e h a v i o r a l Assessment. Baltimore: U n i v e r s i t y Park Press, 1978. 102 Rees, N.S. " I m i t a t i o n and language development: issues and c l i n i c a l i m p l i c a t i o n s . " J o u r n a l of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 1975, 40, 339-50. Rodgon, M.M., Jankowski, W., Alenskas, L. "A m u l t i - f u n c t i o n a l approach to s i n g l e word usage." J o u r n a l of C h i l d Language, 1977, j4, 23-43. Ryan, J . "Early language development: towards a communicational a n a l y s i s . " In M.P.M. Richards (ed.), The I n t e g r a t i o n of a  C h i l d i n t o a S o c i a l World. London: Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1974. Schlesinger, I.M. "The r o l e of c o g n i t i v e development and l i n g u i s t i c input i n language a c q u i s i t i o n . " J o u r n a l of C h i l d Language, 1977, 4, 153-169. Schmidt, W., Hore, T. "Some non-verbal aspects of communication between mother and preschool c h i l d . " C h i l d Development, 1970, 4_1 (2), 889-896. Scroggs, C.L. "Analyzing the language of hearing-impaired c h i l d r e n w i t h severe language a c q u i s i t o n problems." American Annals of the  Deaf, 1977, 122 (4), 403-406. Se a r l e , J . "Chomsky's r e v o l u t i o n i n l i n g u i s t i c s . " In G. Harman (ed.), On Noam Chomsky: C r i t i c a l Essays. New York: Anchor Press, 1974. S e a r l e , J . Speech A c t s . Cambridge: Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1976. S i n c l a i r , H. "The r o l e of c o g n i t i v e s t r u c t u r e s i n language a c q u i s i t i o n . " In E. Lenneberg and E. Lenneberg (eds.), Foundations of Language  Development: A M u l t i - D i s c i p l i n a r y Approach ( V o l . 1 ) . P a r i s : UNESCO Press, 1975. Ska r a k i s , E.A., P r u t t i n g , C. "Early communication: semantic f u n c t i o n s and communicative i n t e n t i o n s i n the communication of the preschool c h i l d w i t h impaired h e a r i n g . " American Annals of the Deaf, 1977, 122 (4), 382-391. S l o b i n , D. "Cognitive p r e r e q u i s i t e s f o r the development of grammar." In L. Bloom (ed.), Readings i n Language Development. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1978. S l o b i n , D. "On the nature of t a l k to c h i l d r e n . " In E. Lenneberg and E. Lenneberg (eds.), Foundations of Language Development: A  M u l t i - D i s c i p l i n a r y Approach ( V o l . 1 ) . P a r i s : UNESCO Press, 1975. Snyder, L.S. Pragmatics i n Language-Disabled C h i l d r e n : Their P r e l i n g u i s t i c and E a r l y Verbal Performatives and P r e s u p p o s i t i o n s . Unpublished d o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y of Colorado, 1973. 103 Stoel-Gammon, C., Cabral, L. Learning How to T e l l I t L i k e I t I s : The  Development of the Reportative Function i n Children's Speech. Papers and Reports i n C h i l d Language Development, No.13. March, 1977. Streng, A.H. Syntax, Speech and Hearing. New York: Grune and S t r a t t o n , ' 1972. Streng, A., Kretschmer, R., Kretschmer, L. Language, Learning, and  Deafness. New York: Grune and S t r a t t o n , 1978. Sugarman-Bell, S. "Some organization.iaspects of p r e v e r b a l communication." In I . Markova (ed.), The S o c i a l Context of Language. New York: John Wiley arid Sons, 1978. Tate, M. "Comparative study of language development i n hearing-impaired c h i l d r e n and normally hearing i n f a n t s . " J o u r n a l of the B r i t i s h  A s s o c i a t i o n of Teachers of the Deaf, 1979, 3, (1), 153-159. Tough, J . Focus on Meaning. London: George A l l e n and Unwin, L t d . , 1974. Tough, J . L i s t e n i n g to C h i l d r e n T a l k i n g : A Guide to the A p p r a i s a l of  Chil d r e n ' s Use of Language. London: Ward Lock E d u c a t i o n a l , 1976. Tough, J . The Development of Meaning: A Study of Children's Use of  Language. London: George A l l e n and Unwin, L t d . , 1977. Vincent, M. "The performance of deaf and hearing c h i l d r e n on a c l a s s i f y i n g t a s k . " Enfance, 1957, 10. Vygotsky, L.S. Thought and Language. Massachusetts: The Massachusetts I n s t i t u t e of Technology, 1962. Wardhaugh, R. The Contexts of Language. Massachusetts: Newbury House P u b l i s h e r s , Inc., 1976. W e l l s , G. "The context of c h i l d r e n ' s e a r l y language experience." E d u c a t i o n a l Review, 1973, 27 ( 2 ) , 114-125. Widdowson, H.G. Teaching Language as Communication. London: Oxford U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1978. Wilbur, R.B. "The l i n g u i s t i c s of manual language and manual systems." In L. Lloyd (ed.), Communication Assessment and I n t e r v e n t i o n  S t r a t e g i e s . Baltimore: U n i v e r s i t y Park Press, 1976. W i l k i n s o n , A. The Foundations of Language. Oxford: Oxford U n i v e r s i t y P r ess, 1971. 104 APPENDIX A Toys Provided f o r the Home V i s i t Video-Tape Sessions I . 2 red telephones w i t h moveable d i a l s I I . 2 Richard Scary Golden Look-Look books 1. About Animals 2. Nicky Goes to the Doctor I I I . F i s h e r P r i c e P l a y Family Sesame Str e e t which i n c l u d e s : a p l a s t i c c o n s t r u c t i o n r e p l i c a of Sesame Str e e t which f u n c t i o n s as a c a r r y i n g case w i t h handle when closed and opens to r e v e a l 4 rooms and a blackboard i n between - the rooms are designed as: 1) a s t o r e , 2) a l i v i n g r o o m / k i t c h e n , 3) a bedroom, and 4) a li v i n g r o o m . 8 Sesame S t r e e t characters - B e r t , E r n i e , Cookie Monster, B i g B i r d , Mr. Hooper, Gordon, Susan, and Oscar i n h i s garbage can. Sesame Str e e t lamppost w i t h s t r e e t s i g n a garbage truck a m a i l box a 2-story ladder a soda-fountain with 2 seats a newsstand a 2-seater couch a T.V. a d i n i n g t a b l e a coffee t a b l e 2 monogrammed beds 2 c h a i r s B i g B i r d ' s nest a f i r e hydrant chalk and a chalk brush 105 APPENDIX B A System f o r Coding Pragmatic Functions Used by Hearing-Impaired C h i l d r e n Terry Parson-Tylka A p r i l , 1980 S p e c i a l Education Department, F a c u l t y of Education The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia The research reported h e r e i n i s i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l l m e n t of the requirements f o r the Degree of Master of A r t s at the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia INDEX INTRODUCTION GENERAL OVERVIEW OBSERVATIONS OF INTERACTIONS TRANSCRIBING THE TAPES CODING THE MODE CODING THE FUNCTIONS REFERENCES APPENDIX: SAMPLE TRANSCRIPTION 107 INTRODUCTION Language has been defined as "a code whereby ideas of the world (content) are represented through a conventional system of a r b i t r a r y s i g n a l s (form) f o r communication (u s e ) " (Bloom and Lahey, 1978). A c h i l d becomes an e f f e c t i v e language user and a t t a i n s communicative com-petence when he i s able to i n t e g r a t e content, form and use i n h i s s o c i a l interchange w i t h others. Communicative competence i s c r i t i c a l f o r the language l e a r n i n g c h i l d to f u n c t i o n e f f e c t i v e l y i n a s o c i a l environment (Parker, 1976). Communication i s "the p o t e n t i a l a b i l i t y to i n f l u e n c e another" (Melson and H u l l s , 1977). From i n f a n c y , the c h i l d i s able to communi-cate h i s needs and i n f l u e n c e others ( u s u a l l y h i s parents) to attend to those needs. As the c h i l d develops, h i s need to be understood and to understand others remains a powerful f o r c e . Communicating h i s needs and d e s i r e s becomes more complex as the v a r i e t y of people, places and s i t u a t i o n s i n c r e a s e i n the c h i l d ' s ever-broadening environment. The c h i l d must l e a r n "who can say what, to whom, i n what manner, by what means, and f o r what purposes" (Hymes, 1974). This knowledge, a v i t a l element i n l i n g u i s t i c competence, i s the c e n t r a l subject matter of prag-matics, the branch of language study which r e l a t e s the language to the speaker (Nelson, 1978) . Pragmatics can be defined as the f u n c t i o n of language use i n a s o c i a l context (Bates, 1976). Language s t r u c t u r e i s considered subordinate to f u n c t i o n by many l i n g u i s t s (Hymes, 1974; Se a r l e , 1974) . Bates s t r o n g l y supports t h i s view. She says "We have j u s t proposed that l o g i c a l l y and o n t o g e n e t i c a l l y , a l l of semantics and s y n t a c t i c s are derived u l t i m a t e l y from pragmatics, from language games that c o n s i s t i n the use of s i g n a l s i n contexts to c a r r y out some f u n c t i o n . " (Bates, 1976). L i t t l e i s c u r r e n t l y known about pragmatic knowledge. At present, pragmatics seems to be a "Pandora's Box". Ultimate success of the approach w i l l depend on the extent to which pragmatic frameworks can be c l e a r l y d e f i n e d , d e l i m i t e d and thus brought under c o n t r o l ( O i l e r , 1978) . The purpose of t h i s manual i s to propose a framework f o r coding the pragmatic f u n c t i o n s of language used by preschool hearing-impaired c h i l -dren. This system i s based on r e l e v a n t research i n the areas of psycho-l i n g u i s t i c s and c h i l d language use. Although the sample on which the system i s being researched c o n s i s t s only of four year o l d profoundly hearing-impaired c h i l d r e n , i t i s hoped tha t the usefulness of t h i s system w i l l extend beyond t h i s l i m i t e d age range. The sample data were c o l l e c t e d i n the home, but the researcher suggests t h i s should not exclude the use of t h i s system i n classroom i n t e r a c t i o n s . While t h i s coding system was s p e c i f i c a l l y designed to be used with a hearing-impaired p o p u l a t i o n , i t s e f f e c t i v e n e s s i n determining appropriate programming and teaching s t r a t e g i e s f o r t h i s p o p u l a t i o n can only be t e n t a t i v e l y i m p l i e d from t h i s p i l o t e f f o r t . 109 GENERAL OVERVIEW The framework proposed f o r examining the pr a g m a t i c f u n c t i o n s of p r e -s c h o o l h e a r i n g - i m p a i r e d c h i l d r e n i n v o l v e s f o u r components: 1) o b s e r v a t i o n of i n t e r a c t i o n s 2) t r a n s c r i p t i o n s o f communicative b e h a v i o r s 3) c o d i n g of mode use 4) c o d i n g o f pr a g m a t i c f u n c t i o n s For t h e purpose o f t h i s r e s e a r c h , communicative b e h a v i o r i s o p e r a -t i o n a l l y d e f i n e d as any v e r b a l or n o n - v e r b a l b e h a v i o r t h a t i s e x p r e s s i v e l y communicated t o another p e r s o n i n t h e i n t e r a c t i o n p r o c e s s . The communi-c a t o r may use any one of f i v e modes a l o n e or i n co m b i n a t i o n . The communicative b e h a v i o r s of bo t h the c h i l d and h i s communication p a r t n e r w i l l be t r a n s c r i b e d and coded, s i n c e d e t e r m i n i n g f u n c t i o n i s o f t e n dependent upon the c o n t e x t of the s i t u a t i o n and t h e re s p o n s e of the p a r t n e r . The proposed system i n c l u d e s t h i r t e e n uses o f language t h a t have been found t o be important f o r l a t e r s c h o o l l e a r n i n g or a r e common i n the e a r l y communication of young h e a r i n g - i m p a i r e d c h i l d r e n . A s e p a r a t e c l a s s i f i -c a t i o n system f o r q u e s t i o n s i s sug g e s t e d . The t o t a l p r o c e s s i s i n i t i a l l y time consuming and t e d i o u s . I t i s sugge s t e d t h a t o b s e r v a t i o n , t r a n s c r i p t i o n and c o d i n g be done i n teams o f a minimum of two and maximum of t h r e e p e o p l e who a r e f a m i l i a r w i t h the speech and language o f h e a r i n g - i m p a i r e d c h i l d r e n . A knowledge of s i g n systems would be n e c e s s a r y i f t h e c h i l d r e n b e i n g o b s e r v e d a r e u s i n g a s i g n system i n t h e i r communication. As e x p e r i e n c e i s g a i n e d i n u s i n g the system, t h e speed and a c c u r a c y o f t r a n s c r i p t i o n and c o d i n g w i l l i n c r e a s e . Such e f f i c i e n c y w i l l make i t a much more u s e f u l t o o l f o r the c l a s s r o o m or h o m e - v i s i t i n g t e a c h e r . I l l OBSERVATIONS OF INTERACTIONS V i d e o t a p i n g has been found to be the most s u c c e s s f u l means of cap-t u r i n g the essence of i n t e r a c t i o n i n o r d e r t o most e f f e c t i v e l y t r a n s c r i b e and code the communicative b e h a v i o r s . V i d e o t a p e p l a y b a c k a l l o w s f o r more d e t a i l e d and p r e c i s e a n a l y s i s o f a l l the d a t a s i n c e none i s l o s t i n t h e c o m p l e x i t y and speed of t h e normal communication p r o c e s s . V i d e o t a p e a l s o a l l o w s f l e x i b i l i t y i n s c h e d u l i n g time f o r t r a n s c r i p t i o n and c o d i n g . The v i d e o t a p i n g s h o u l d be done as u n o b t r u s i v e l y as p o s s i b l e t o p r e s e r v e t h e s p o n t a n e i t y o f the n a t u r a l i n t e r a c t i o n . The p e r s o n d o i n g t h e v i d e o t a p i n g s h o u l d not be a s t r a n g e r t o the c h i l d o r the s e t t i n g . T h i s r e s e a r c h e r has found t h a t young h e a r i n g - i m p a i r e d c h i l d r e n a r e i n i -t i a l l y v e r y c u r i o u s about the v i d e o t a p e equipment but q u i c k l y choose t o i g n o r e i t and c o n c e n t r a t e on t h e a c t i v i t i e s and i n t e r a c t i o n s t a k i n g p l a c e . A minimum of 15 minutes of spontaneous i n t e r a c t i o n has been r e c o r d e d f o r each c h i l d . A f r e e p l a y s i t u a t i o n w i t h t o y s p r o v i d e d by the r e s e a r c h e r was s e t up i n the home. Depending on the purposes f o r the a n a l y s i s , a more s t r u c t u r e d o r s h o r t e r o r l o n g e r v i d e o t a p e s e s s i o n may be more appro-p r i a t e f o r t h e c l a s s r o o m or h o m e - v i s i t i n g t e a c h e r . 112 TRANSCRIBING THE TAPES A l l communicative b e h a v i o r s s h o u l d be t r a n s c r i b e d a l o n g w i t h t h e c o n t e x t of t h e i n t e r a c t i o n . One member of t h e team s h o u l d o p e r a t e the v i d e o t a p e p l a y b a c k and v e r b a l i z e what i s o b s e r v e d . The second p e r s o n i s then f r e e to w r i t e t h e t r a n s c r i p t i o n s onto p r e l i n e d graph p a p e r . I t i s o f t e n n e c e s s a r y to p l a y b a c k t h e same segment of tape s e v e r a l times u n t i l a l l o f the communicative b e h a v i o r s a r e t r a n s c r i b e d . A break p e r i o d i s n e c e s s a r y and 3 hours appears to be the maximum l e n g t h o f time t h a t a t r a n s c r i b i n g / c o d i n g s e s s i o n can c o n t i n u e . A v e r y s i m p l e format has been found to be t h e most u s e f u l way of t r a n s c r i b i n g t h e v i d e o t a p e s . A sample t r a n s c r i p t i o n i s i n c l u d e d i n the appendix. I t i s important to n o t e t h a t at times communicative b e h a v i o r w i l l be o c c u r i n g i n two modes at the same ti m e . When t h e communicative message i s e x a c t l y t h e same, the b e h a v i o r s are termed s i m u l t a n e o u s and are e n c l o s e d i n round b r a c k e t s . When t h e b e h a v i o r s o c c u r at t h e same time but t h e messages are n o t p r e c i s e l y the same, they are termed o v e r -l a p p i n g and a r e e n c l o s e d i n s q u a r e b r a c k e t s . I f mother says " g i v e me t h e bed p l e a s e " and a t t h e same time s i g n s "me bed p l e a s e " - the b e h a v i o r s are termed o v e r l a p p i n g ; i f mother says and s i g n s " g i v e me t h e bed p l e a s e " t h e b e h a v i o r s a r e termed s i m u l t a n e o u s . I f the b e h a v i o r s occur one a f t e r t h e o t h e r t o communicate the message, they a r e termed s e q u e n t i a l and e n c l o s e d i n s l a s h e s . C o n t e x t u a l i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t i s not d i r e c t l y communicative i s e n c l o s e d i n s q u i g g l y b r a c k e t s . 113 Space i s a l l o t t e d on the l e f t f o r coding the f u n c t i o n s and modes used by the c h i l d and space on the r i g h t of the t r a n s c r i p t i o n i s a l l o t t e d f o r coding the modes and f u n c t i o n s used by the partner ( i n t h i s case .the mother) . Conventions f o r T r a n s c r i p t i o n (adapted from Bloom and Lahey, 1978) General I n s t r u c t i o n s 1. Pages should be numbered f r o n t and back w i t h the number i n the upper r i g h t corner. 2. A s m a l l diagram of the room and the s u b j e c t s ' p o s i t i o n s r e l a t i v e to one another i s drawn on the top of the f i r s t page of the t r a n s c r i p t i o n . 3. In order to make i t e a s i e r to l o c a t e m a t e r i a l on the tape, a number should be placed i n the l e f t margin approximately every time the counter on the recorder r e g i s t e r s a m u l t i p l e of 10. 4. A l l communicative behaviors ( v e r b a l and non-verbal), are f u l l y t r a n s -c r i b e d . The communicator i s i d e n t i f i e d by an i n i t i a l . Information about the s i t u a t i o n a l context i s enclosed i n squiggly b r a c k e t s . 5. When communicative behavior occurs i n two modes at the same time and the communicative message i s e x a c t l y the same i n both modes, the behaviors are termed simultaneous. The communicative behaviors are w r i t t e n on separate l i n e s and enclosed i n round p a r e n t h e s i s . 6. When communicative behavior occurs i n two modes at the same time but the messages are not p r e c i s e l y the same, they are termed over l a p p i n g . The communicative behaviors are w r i t t e n on separate l i n e s and enclosed by square p a r e n t h e s i s . When communicative behaviors occur i n two or more modes one a f t e r the other to convey one message, they are termed s e q u e n t i a l and are w r i t t e n on separate l i n e s and enclosed i n l a r g e s l a s h e s . 7. D i f f e r e n t i a l use i s made of verb tense i n d e s c r i b i n g the s i t u a t i o n : - p rogressive tense i s used to d e s c r i b e communicative behaviors which are overlapping or simultaneous - simple present tense i s used to describe behaviors that precede or f o l l o w other communicative behaviors. 8. An arrow i s drawn from one l i n e to the next when a communicative behavior i s too long f o r the space provided, e.g. do you wanfr-> go to the-} 9zoo?/ 9. When a communicator suddenly i n t e r r u p t s h i s own behavior, apparently l e a v i n g the communication u n f i n i s h e d , a l i n e i n d i c a t e s the abrupt stop, e.g. put the man i n the / 10. When a communicator i n t e r r u p t s h i s own behavior apparently to change or c o r r e c t i t , a " s e l f - c o r r e c t " symbol (s/c) i s used, e.g. those are your s/c my toys/ Abbreviations 11. An X i s used to show complete and exact r e p e t i t i o n s or i m i t a t i o n s . Any change must be i n d i c a t e d i n c l u d i n g changes i n i n t o n a t i o n , e.g. open/ 12. # i s used to i n d i c a t e that there i s m a t e r i a l on the tape that i s not t r a n s c r i b e d , i . e . i n t e r r u p t i o n s C a p i t a l i z a t i o n and Punctuation 13. Names are c a p i t a l i z e d . I n i t i a l l e t t e r of the communicative behavior i s not. 14. The s i g n of a communication boundary i s a s l a s h , (/). 15. An exclamation mark may be used when appropriate, but should be followed by a s l a s h . 16. Questions are i n d i c a t e d by a question mark or a r i s i n g arrow (+) i f i t seems to be a question due to r i s i n g i n t o n a t i o n , and followed by a s l a s h . 17. A pause w i t h i n a communicative behavior i s i n d i c a t e d by a dot, e.g. oh . good/ 18. A long pause between communicative behaviors w i t h i n the same general s i t u a t i o n i s i n d i c a t e d by 3 h o r i z o n t a l dots across the l i n e , e.g. i t ' s a ... c h a i r / 19. A long pause between behaviors where there i s a change i n the general s i t u a t i o n i s marked by 3 v e r t i c a l dots on the l i n e , e.g. the boy. .' Recording U n i n t e l l i g i b l e Communicative Behaviors 20. An u n i n t e l l i g i b l e communicative behavior i s i n d i c a t e d by 3 dashes ( ). I f p o s s i b l e , a phonetic t r a n s c r i p t i o n i s used i n s t e a d . 21. Guesses about the form of u n i n t e l l i g i b l e communicative behaviors are X x: 115 e n c l o s e d i n p a r e n t h e s i s above the b e h a v i o r and f o l l o w e d by a q u e s t i o n mark, e.g. {read book?} / 22. An a d u l t ' s m i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of a c h i l d ' s communicative b e h a v i o r i s i n d i c a t e d w i t h a check, e.g. want mine// 116 CODING THE MODE Mode i s defined as the form of the communicative behavior used by the communicator. F i v e modes commonly used by hearing-impaired c h i l d r e n are i n c l u d e d : Speech, V o c a l i z a t i o n , Sign, Gesture, A c t i o n . This approach i s supported i n the l i t e r a t u r e . I t has o f t e n been observed that what young c h i l d r e n say i s u s u a l l y r e l a t e d d i r e c t l y to what they do and see (Bloom, 1970). Melson and H u l l s (1977) b e l i e v e that a l l s o c i a l communication i s c o n t e x t u a l and suggests that a more accurate and e d u c a t i o n a l l y u s e f u l means of understanding c h i l d r e n ' s language develop-ment i n v o l v e s a scheme p o r t r a y i n g v e r b a l behavior, non-verbal behavior and s i t u a t i o n c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s as a communicative whole. This view i s a l s o h e l d by Mehrabian and W i l l i a m s (1971) who imply that c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n of c h i l d r e n ' s e a r l y grammars and l i n g u i s t i c behavior could gain considerably from the study of motor g e s t u r a l phenomena that accompany language during the e a r l y phases and e v e n t u a l l y are replaced by i t . The f o l l o w i n g o p e r a t i o n a l d e f i n i t i o n s are used f o r the f i v e d i f f e r e n t modes: Speech - comprehensible utterances recognizable as spoken language by a naive l i s t e n e r , i . e . i n t e l l i g i b l e words, phrases or sentences V o c a l i z a t i o n - sound production of a phoneme alone or i n s y l l a b l e s but not i n the form of or r e c o g n i z a b l e as speech, e.g. aaaaa, i i i i , mmhmm, laughing and c r y i n g are included Gesture - a movement of the body or body p a r t s that symbolizes or emphasizes an i d e a or f e e l i n g and conveys t h i s meaning to another person. The 117 gesture may supplement, re p l a c e , or c o n t r a d i c t v e r b a l behaviors, e.g. shrugging the shoulders, p o i n t i n g , waving, frowning. Sign - a gesture made by one or both hands that i s a symbolic representa-t i o n i n a) a conventional s i g n language system f o r the deaf, e.g. S.E.E., A.S.L., Signed E n g l i s h . The gesture must be recognized to be a Sign by a person f a m i l i a r w i t h such systems. b) a system devised and used by the c h i l d and/or f a m i l y and i s recognized as such by the mother c) the manual alphabet of the deaf, i . e . f i n g e r s p e l l i n g A c t i o n - one or a s e r i e s of purposeful p h y s i c a l movements of the body or body parts which act upon another person or object such that p h y s i c a l contact i s made. An a c t i o n i s determined to be oommunicative i n the context of the communicative behavior which precedes or fo l l o w s i t . For example, p u t t i n g a d o l l i n the d o l l house i s a communicative a c t i o n when i t f o l l o w s a d i r e c t i v e "put the d o l l i n the house", or when i t precedes a d i r e c t i v e "do the same". The modes may be used independent of each other or may be used s i m u l -taneously (denoted by round brackets) or i n an overlapping manner (denoted by square b r a c k e t s ) . When two or more modes communicate e x a c t l y the same message at the same time they are s a i d to be simultaneous. When two or more modes are used at the same time but communicate supplementary or r e i n -f o r c i n g messages they are termed over l a p p i n g . Modes may a l s o be s e q u e n t i a l . In order to s i m p l i f y the coding of the modes, the f o l l o w i n g a b b r e v i -a t i o n s are suggested: 1) Speech - Sp 2) V o c a l i z a t i o n - V 3) S i g n - S i 4) G e s t u r e - G 5) A c t i o n - A 6) Simultaneous 7) O v e r l a p p i n g 8) S e q u e n t i a l -119. CODING THE FUNCTIONS The most comprehensive reference to functions used by preschool c h i l d r e n found i n the l i t e r a t u r e comes from the work of Tough (1977). Tough developed a framework of seven uses of language which are somewhat developmental and are considered r e l e v a n t f o r l a t e r s c h o o l l e a r n i n g . I t i s w e l l documented that hearing-impaired c h i l d r e n are o f t e n delayed i n t h e i r a c q u i s i t i o n and use of language s t r u c t u r e s . In the s i n g l e study that has looked at the pragmatic func t i o n s used by preschool hearing-impaired c h i l d r e n , the func t i o n s were based on Dore's categories which he developed f o r c h i l d r e n at the one-word utterance stage ( C u r t i s s , P r u t t i n g and L o w e l l , 1979). The researchers found that the h e a r i n g -impaired c h i l d r e n were comparable to hearing c h i l d r e n at the same stage of language development i n terms of the pragmatic func t i o n s used. Most of the s i x t e e n f u n c t i o n s described by C u r t i s s et a l . are at a lower developmental l e v e l than the f u n c t i o n s proposed by Tough. The system proposed i n t h i s research i s a combination of the f u n c t i o n s deemed necessary by Tough, and the func t i o n s found to be used by the hearing-impaired preschool c h i l d r e n i n C u r t i s s et a l . ' s study. In t h i s way i t i s hoped that a p r o f i l e can be made f o r each hearing-impaired c h i l d , demonstrating which f u n c t i o n s the c h i l d i s using and which need to be developed and encouraged by teachers and parents. I n o r d e r to e x p e d i t e the c o d i n g p r o c e s s , l e t t e r a b b r e v i a t i o n s a r e s u g g e s t e d f o r each f u n c t i o n . O p e r a t i o n a l d e f i n i t i o n s and l e t t e r codes f o l l o w : I m i t a t i n g - t - i m i t a t i n g a communicative b e h a v i o r performed by someone e l s e R e p e a t i n g - r r - i m i t a t i n g one's own communicative b e h a v i o r R i t u a l - u - g r e e t i n g or o t h e r s o c i a l r i t u a l , i n c l u d i n g p l e a s e , thank-you h i Acknowledging - a - e v i d e n c i n g comprehension Complying - c - r e s p o n d i n g i n accordance w i t h t h e i n t e n t o f a d i r e c t i o n e.g. c h i l d p u t s d o l l i n house when mother s a y s , "put t h e d o l l i n the house" M a i n t a i n i n g - m - r e f e r r i n g to p h y s i c a l and p s y c h o l o g i c a l needs and wants p r o t e c t i n g t h e s e l f and s e l f - i n t e r e s t I g n o r i n g - g - not r e s p o n d i n g t o the i n t e n t of a d i r e c t i o n D i r e c t i n g - d - d i r e c t i n g the a c t i o n s of t h e s e l f o r o t h e r s R e p o r t i n g - r - r e p o r t i n g on e v e n t s , i n c l u d i n g l a b e l l i n g , r e f e r r i n g t o d e t a i l , making comparisons, r e f e r r i n g t o i n c i d e n t s or sequences of e v e n t s Reasoning - e - e x p l a i n i n g a p r o c e s s , r e c o g n i z i n g cause and e f f e c t r e l a t i o n s h i p s , r e c o g n i z i n g problems and t h e i r s o l u t i o n s , j u s t i f y i n g judgments, and drawing c o n c l u s i o n s P r e d i c t i n g - p - a n t i c i p a t i n g and f o r e c a s t i n g e v e n t s , problems and t h e i r s o l u t i o n s , a n t i c i p a t i n g d e t a i l s and sequences of e v e n t s , p r e d i c t i n g t h e consequences of a c t i o n s and events P r o j e c t i n g - j - p r o j e c t i n g i n t o e x p e r i e n c e s , f e e l i n g s , and r e a c t i o n s of o t h e r s and i n t o s i t u a t i o n s n e v e r e x p e r i e n c e d 121 Imagining - i - d e v e l o p i n g i m a g i n a r y s i t u a t i o n s based on r e a l l i f e o r on f a n t a s y , d e v e l o p i n g an o r i g i n a l s t o r y Q u e s t i o n s w i l l be d i s c u s s e d s e p a r a t e l y . Q u e s t i o n s - Q u e s t i o n s w i l l be coded a c c o r d i n g to t h e t h i r t e e n f u n c t i o n s p r e v i o u s l y d i s c u s s e d , on the b a s i s of t h e t y p e of responses they a n t i c i p a t e . F o r example, "Who i s t h a t ? " i s a q u e s t i o n form a n t i -c i p a t i n g a r e p o r t i n g response and would be coded as r e p o r t i n g . "Who w i l l you p r e t e n d to b e ? " i s a q u e s t i o n form t h a t a n t i c i p a t e s an i m a g i n i n g response and would be coded i m a g i n i n g . I t appears t h a t u s e f u l i n f o r m a t i o n r e g a r d i n g t h e a c t of q u e s t i o n i n g would be l o s t i n t h i s c o d i n g system. In o r d e r t o r e t a i n t h i s v a l u a b l e i n f o r m a t i o n , a l l communicative b e h a v i o r s i n the form of q u e s t i o n s , or w i t h q u e s t i o n i n g i n t o n a t i o n , w i l l be coded as t o f u n c t i o n and then d e s i g n a t e d as q u e s t i o n s by the use of a c i r c l e around the code l e t t e r . The importance of c o d i n g q u e s t i o n forms a c c o r d i n g t o response a n t i c i p a t e d by the communicator becomes more obvious i n t h e case of q u e s t i o n s such as "Do you want t o put the t o y s away?" where the i n t e n t i o n i s c l e a r l y a d i r e c t i v e t o "Put the t o y s away." I f such a communication was merely coded as a q u e s t i o n , the i n t e n t of t h e communicator would be l o s t . By c o d i n g b o t h the f u n c t i o n and t h e form of q u e s t i o n s , i t i s hoped no v a l u a b l e d a t a i s l o s t . Codes Mode F u n c t i o n Speech Sp I m i t a t i n g V o c a l i z a t i o n V R e p e a t i n g G e s t u r e G R i t u a l S i g n S i Acknowledging A c t i o n A Complying Simultaneous ( ) M a i n t a i n i n g O v e r l a p p i n g [ ] I g n o r i n g S e q u e n t i a l / / D i r e c t i n g R e p o r t i n g I m a g i n i n g Reasoning P r o j e c t i n g P r e d i c t i n g t Q u e s t i ons - 0 r r m 3 P Uncodable - due t o t h e communication - U - due t o t h e c o d i n g system - UU H-1 ho NO 123 REFERENCES Bates, E. Language and Context: The A c q u i s i t i o n of Pragmatics. New York: Academic Press, 1976. Bloom, L. Language Development: Form and Function i n Emerging Grammars. Massachusetts: The Massachusetts I n s t i t u t e of Technology, 1970. Bloom, L., Lahey, M. Language Development and Language Di s o r d e r s . New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1978. C u r t i s s , S., P r u t t i n g , C , L o w e l l , E. "Pragmatic and semantic development i n young c h i l d r e n w i t h impaired hearing." J o u r n a l of Speech and  Hearing Research, 1979, 22, 534-552. Hymes, D. Foundations i n S o c i o l i n g u i s t i c s : An Ethnographic Approach. P h i l a d e l p h i a : U n i v e r s i t y of Pennsylvania P r e s s , 1974. Mehrabian, A., W i l l i a m s , M. " P i a g e t i a n measures of c o g n i t i v e development f o r c h i l d r e n up to age 2." J o u r n a l of P s y c h o l i n g u i s t i c Research, 1971, 1, 113-124. Melson, G., H u l l s , M.J. The I n t e r p l a y of V e r b a l and Non-Verbal Communi- c a t i o n i n Young C h i l d r e n . Paper presented at the Annual N a t i o n a l Conference on Language A r t s i n the Elementary School, Phoenix, A p r i l , 1977. Nelson, K. " E a r l y speech i n i t s communicative context." In F. M i n i f i e and L. L l o y d (eds.), Communicative and C o g n i t i v e A b i l i t i e s : E a r l y  B e h a v i o r a l Assessment. Baltimore: U n i v e r s i t y Park Press, 1978. O i l e r , D.K. " D i s c u s s i o n summary: the r o l e of pragmatics i n c h i l d language research." In F. M i n i f i e and L. Lloyd (eds.), Communicative and  C o g n i t i v e A b i l i t i e s : E a r l y B e h a v i o r a l Assessment. Baltimore: U n i v e r s i t y Park P r e s s , 1978. Parker, E. Function of G e s t u r a l Behavior i n I n t e r a c t i o n Between Mothers  and t h e i r Language Learning C h i l d r e n . Paper presented at the Boston U n i v e r s i t y Conference on Language, Boston, 1976. S e a r l e , J . "Chomsky's r e v o l u t i o n i n l i n g u i s t i c s . " In G. Harman (Ed.), On Noam Chomsky: C r i t i c a l Essays. New York: Anchor Press, 1974. Tough, J . L i s t e n i n g to C h i l d r e n T a l k i n g : A Guide to the A p p r a i s a l of C h i l d r e n ' s Use of Language. London: Ward Lock E d u c a t i o n a l , 1976. Tough, J . The Development of Meaning: A Study of C h i l d r e n ' s Use of Language. London: George A l l e n and Unwin, L t d . , 1977. APPENDIX SAMPLE TRANSCRIPTION NAME: AGE: A.8. 4.2 DATE OF INTERACTION: 03/09/79 C h i l d ^Contexts and Communicative B e h a v i o r Mother St {Sp} A" G a E.C. potnti to the. laddeJiE, Oh the. laddun \jglcki> up the. ladd&si/J okay wu'lt-put tt thifit [putA laddo.fi agatnAt houAn/_ &ay& AomeXhtng unlnt2Zttgtbi.2./ E.C. takeA dolt down ladd^fiE, <iat? ~touLckoJ> dolZ [nodi yoJ>/ J Sp A_ A_ 1/ U 126 P e r m i s s i o n i s g i v e n f o r T e r r y P a r s o n - T y l k a to use t h e v i d e o - t a p e and i n t e r v i e w i n f o r m a t i o n o f ' '  ( c h i l d ' s name) as p a r t of h e r Master's T h e s i s on Communicative F u n c t i o n s o f H e a r i n g -Impaired C h i l d r e n i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l l m e n t of the r e q u i r e m e n t s a t th e U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia. I u n d e r s t a n d t h a t the i n f o r m a t i o n w i l l be s t r i c t l y c o n f i d e n t i a l . F u r t h e r , my p a r t i c i p a t i o n i s v o l u n t a r y and I may withdraw from t h i s p r o j e c t at any t i m e . Signed:__ ( P a r e n t s or G u a r d i a n s ) We do n o t w i s h to g i v e our p e r m i s s i o n at t h i s time. S i g n e d : ( P a r e n t s or G u a r d i a n s ) 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0054358/manifest

Comment

Related Items