UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

An ethnography of communication and its implications for teachers of native Indian students Nowell Preston, Jo-Anne 1986

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

Item Metadata


831-UBC_1986_A8 P73_5.pdf [ 6.03MB ]
JSON: 831-1.0078285.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0078285-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0078285-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0078285-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0078285-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0078285-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0078285-source.json
Full Text

Full Text

AN  ETHNOGRAPHY OF COMMUNICATION AND ITS IMPLICATIONS TEACHERS OF NATIVE INDIAN  STUDENTS  by JO-ANNE NOWELL  PRESTON  B.Ed., University of British Columbia,  A THESIS SUBMITTED  1978  IN PARTIAL F U L F I L M E N T OF  THE REQUIREMENTS  FOR T H E DEGREE OF  MASTER OF ARTS  in THE F A C U L T Y OF GRADUATE  STUDIES  Department of Language Education  We  accept this Thesis as conforming to the required  THE UNIVERSITY  standard  OF BRITISH  July,  COLUMBIA  1986  © Jo-Anne No well Preston,  1986  FOR  In presenting this Thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at The University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this Thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this Thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission.  Department of Language Education The University of British Columbia 2075 Wesbrook Place Vancouver, Canada V 6 T 1W5 Date: July,  1986  ii  Abstract  One urban native Indian community was observed over a period of seven months in order to: 1.  Complete an ethnography of communication, describing the sociolinguistic rules of interaction followed by members of one Native community.  2.  Examine the school environment to see whether  differences  between Mainstream rules for interaction and native Indian rules for interaction may cause miscommunication. 3.  Discuss ways in which teachers can be better prepared for Standard English as a Second Dialect situations, either in special S.E.S.D. programs, or as classroom teachers.  Data were collected in a wide variety of situations, mainly involving school age children and their interactants,  in mainly pedagogical and school settings.  Observation showed considerable diversity in the communication behaviours of community members.  This variation occurred in two dimensions: young-old and  traditional-Mainstream, and was especially apparent in four areas: volume, intonation, pause-time and eye contact.  Degree of intimacy and age of participants seemed to  be important in determining whether a situation was classed as speech or nonspeech.  In addition, many sociolinguistic behaviours seemed linked to (if not  generated by) various value orientations.  The value "respect elders" was reflected  in rules for interruptions, topic control, and the absence of "why" challenges. Respect for the individual seemed to be the basis for rules regarding introductions,  iia  performance, independence.  pulling strings, requesting assistance, and children's degree of The importance of family appeared to influence topic choice, and  naming.  A n avoidance of drawing attention  to oneself seemed to explain rules for  greetings,  farewells, showing off, praise, and taking oneself seriously.  community appeared to be more context-oriented  than Mainstream society.  A comparison of home-talk and school-talk suggested differences directives, closed questions,  and in assumptions  Finally, this  in the use of  about when to talk, specifically  regarding degree of intimacy, focus on task, and getting communicative space. Findings of this study suggest that teachers can facilitate communication (and thus education) in five ways, by: 1.  Getting out of the classroom and into the community.  2.  Dealing with parents on their terms.  3.  Adjusting classroom atmosphere.  4.  Adjusting classroom  5.  Teaching sociolinguistic rules.  language.  iii T A B L E OF CONTENTS  Abstract  ii  Acknowledgements  viii  CHAPTER I: Introduction  1  Focus of the Study  4  Purpose of the Study  5  Definition of Terms  6  CHAPTER II: Review of the Literature  8  S.E.S.D. with Native Indians  8  Importance of Interaction Patterns and Pragmatics  12  Descriptions of Indian English  17  Summary and Conclusions  23  CHAPTER III: Design of the Study  25  Theoretical Assumptions  25  Subjects  30  The Community  30  The Situations  31  a) The Nursery School  31  b) Evening Study Group  31  c) Schools  32  d) Native Language Classes  32  e) Family Drop-In Centre  33  f) Meetings  33  g) Social Events  33  h) The Families  34  iv Procedures  34 a) Nursery School  35  b) Evening Study Group  35  c) Schools  36  d) Native Language Classes  36  e) Family Drop-In Centre  36  f) Meetings  36  g) Social Events  37  h) Families  37  Difficulties Analysis  37 39  The Hypothesis Circle  39  Data Analysis  40  Generalizability  41  CHAPTER IV: Communication in the Community  42  Introduction  42  Communication Systems and Value Systems Four Stereotypes  44 45  Dealing with Variation-Continua in Two Dimensions  46  Volume  47  Intonation Patterns  48  Pause-time  49  Eye Contact  51  Speech and Nonspeech Situations  52  Introduction  52  Factors Influencing the Appropriateness of Speech  53  V  Speech Situations  54  Adults  54  Children  56  Quantity of Talk  56  Degree of Intimacy  58  Respect for Elders  59  Interruptions  60  Topic Control  61  Absence of "why challenges"  62  Respect for the Individual: Obligations and Face  63  Introductions  64  Performance  65  Pulling Strings  66  Requesting Assistance  67  Children: Degree of Independence  69  The Importance of Family  73  Topic Choice  75  Naming  76  Drawing Attention to Oneself  77  Greetings  78  Farewells  78  Showing Off  79  Praise  80  Taking Oneself Seriously  80  High Context Society Organization of Events  82 83  vi  CHAPTER V: Home-talk and School-talk  87  Introduction  87  Directives  88  A t Home  89  A t School  91  Length of Explanation  93  Closed Questions  97  In the Home  98  A t School  100  When to Talk  101  Focus on Task  104  Getting Communicative Space  105  a.  Taking a turn to get a turn  105  b.  Three classroom rules  106  CHAPTER VI: Summary and Implications  Ill  Summary  Ill  Purpose  Ill  Methodology  112  Generalizability  114  Communication in the Community  114  Speech and Nonspeech  Situations  . Sociolinguistic Patterns as Reflections of Value Orientations  115 115  Home-talk and School-talk  118  a) Directives  118  b) Closed Questions  118  c) When to talk  119  vii Conclusions  121  Implications for Teachers  121  Getting to Know the Community  122  Dealing with Parents  125  Adapting Classroom Atmosphere  127  Adjusting Classroom Language  128  Teaching Sociolinguistic Rules  130  A Comment  131  Implications for Further  Research  132  References  133  Appendix  139  viii  Acknowledgements  So many people assisted in this project that it would be impossible to thank them all.  However, I would like to give a special note of thanks to:  The members of my thesis committee-to Lee Gunderson for the constant and cheerful advice, to M a r y Ashworth, for her conviction that this was a valuable project, and to J a y Powell, for his confidence in my abilities. M y husband Doug, for his never-ending patience. School District #44, North Vancouver, especially to Judith McPhie and all the members of the Mainstay team, for their advice and cooperation. The principals who supported the study, and to the teachers, for being willing to put up with observation so that they could learn more about their students. The Squamish Indian Band (North Vancouver), especially the staffs of the Social Development and Education Committees, for making this project possible. The staff and patrons of the Family Drop-In Centre, for their assistance and trust. The staff of the nursery school, for their incredible tolerance. The families, for helping me understand  so many parts of community life,  and to Leona Nahanee, guide, co-worker, and friend, who cared so much about the children that she was willing to take a chance on a  stranger.  1  C H A P T E R I: Introduction  This chapter, after considering the British Columbia school system's failure to meet the needs of native Indian students, discusses the principles of "Standard English as a Second Dialect" programs, pointing out that little research has yet been completed regarding the existence and nature of a variety of English known as "Indian English."  In addition, the reasons for  the sociolinguistic focus of the study are explained, the purpose of the study is delineated, and essential terms are defined.  By most definitions of the word "success," British Columbia's native Indians are not succeeding in the provincial school system as well as their "white" counterparts.  Statistics on Native students point out that "the  current drop-out rate in B . C . is approximately 80%, down from about 90% in 1977. p. 49).  This compares to a non-Indian rate of about 32%" (More, 1984, In addition, Indian students not only leave school sooner, but  generally attain a lower level of achievement as well (More, 1984; Hunter & Stevens, 1980). Especially alarming is research which suggests that the gap between the achievement of Native students and the achievement of non-Native students widens as the students move through the school system.  For  example, a survey of Native students in Campbell River (1984) found that although Native students in kindergarten started out nearly at par with their non-Native peers (7% repeated), those students fell further and further behind until by grade three, 51% had repeated at least one grade.  A survey from  2  the Okanagan-Nicola area (More, 1984) showed a similar trend.  Children  from grades one through seven were tested using the Gates-MacGinite Reading Achievement Tests (G.M.) and the Canadian Test of Basic Skills. With both tests, and especially the G . M . , the Native students' scores lagged progressively further behind as they moved from grades one to seven (1984, pp. 44-45).  It appears that what is being done in B . C . schools is not  working. There have been many attempts to explain the lack of success in teaching Native students.  For instance, More (1985) and John (1972) have  suggested that differences in learning style are important.  McShane and  Plas (1984), and Brooks (1978) emphasize cognitive functioning.  Philips  (1972) and Arbess et al. (1981) compare our Mainstream teaching methods with those traditional in Native culture. important factor.  Economic status is likely an  Many other relevant differences and similarities are  sure  to exist. One explanation of the schools' failure in Native Education emphasizes the importance of language mastery for success in schools. course, not a new idea.  This is, of  In the past, educators, working under the  assumptions stemming from Bernstein's (1973) approach, had assumed that Native students arrived at school speaking a "deficient" or inferior type of English.  However, advocates of the "Standard English as a Second Dialect"  approach point out that Native students who speak English as their first language often speak a different, but completely valid, dialect from that which we call "Standard English."  Several B . C . school districts have  started  S.E.S.D. programs, and E . S . L . techniques are being adapted for use in many  3  classrooms.  It is to be hoped that the "deficit" model of perceiving Indian  English will be phased out in favour of a "bidialectal" model. However, even though the concept of Indian English is the basis of these programs, there has been very little research into three very fundamental  issues:  Does Indian English exist as a distinct and separate dialect?  A n d if  so . . . Are  there differences between the varieties of Indian English used by  different Native cultural groups? What aspects of Indian English are likely to have an impact on a child's success in school? In  Canada, there has been very little research into the first question.  Malorie Burton (1982) has described Carrier English, mainly from a phonological point of view.  Carole Nakonechney (1986) has examined the sociolinguistic rules in  operation at an urban Native alternate school.  The Scollons' (1981) work with the  Athabaskan people was done largely in the Chipewyan language, but discusses for  interaction also used in English.  rules  Clearly, if the concepts of S.E.S.D. are to be  applied to Canadian Native students, more research into Indian English is required. Even in the United States, very few descriptions have been completed. According to Potter (1981) only fifteen groups have been examined even superficially, and as a review of the literature in Chapter II points out, most of these descriptions are based on a very narrow conception of what a dialect is. This thesis, based on a broader definition of "dialect," will attempt to describe one aspect of one variety of Indian English, in a manner designed to be of the most use to teachers of native Indian students.  4  Focus of the Study  A complete description of all aspects of a variety of Indian English would be beyond the scope of this thesis.  Such a description would include depictions of  phonology, intonation, lexicon, semantics, grammar, orthography and social usage.  It  is necessary, therefore, to focus on one area which might be the most relevant to education. Toohey (in progress) conducted an extensive review of the literature of S.E.S.D., as applied to a variety of minority groups.  She concludes that structural  differences have few implications for schooling practice, but that differences in the area of language use offer more potential for "improving educational offerings" (in progress, p. 4). Heath (1983), after describing one "white" and one "black" community in the southeastern  United States, also emphasizes the need for understanding sociolinguistic  rules in order to facilitate classroom understanding. Susan Philips, working on the W a r m Springs reservation in Oregon, describes three cultural differences that can cause breakdowns in teacher-student communication, thus causing the teacher to define the child's speech as inappropriate: 1.  Dialect differences that may cause the teacher to misunderstand the child, or to define what she hears as  2.  unacceptable.  Differences in rules for appropriate discourse, or for the ways a  speaker  builds on or relates to the utterances of prior speakers. 3.  Differences in cultural knowledge that can contribute to the breakdown of communication whenever one speaker has no direct knowledge of what  5  another is speaking about.  (1983, p. 127)  As early as 1972, Philips linked cultural variation in sociolinguistic patterning to learning difficulties and feelings of inferiority. The findings of these researchers Statements  are echoed in statements by B . C . teachers.  like "The Indian students just don't talk," "they never seem to want to  participate" or "I just can't seem to reach them," suggest that Native students may be following different rules regarding social usage.  As these teachers point  out, Native students must learn more than grammar and pronunciation--they must learn ways of interacting with the Mainstream society while retaining ways of interacting appropriate for their own culture. The research cited above into the importance of sociolinguistic rules was used to delineate the focus of this thesis.  Thus, while this current research attempts to  determine whether one Native community speaks a distinct variety of English, it examines that issue only in terms of the social use of English.  Purpose of the Study  In a broad sense, the major purpose of this study was to observe Native peoples' language use in order to derive sociolinguistic rules of interaction, to examine the societal norms and values governing speech acts, and the principles and strategies underlying these acts.  The secondary goal was to see how these  rules affect the Native students' school environment.  More specifically, the three  goals of this study were: 1.  To complete an ethnography of speaking in one Native community, describing the rules of interaction followed by members of the community.  6  2.  To examine the school environment to see whether the difference between Mainstream rules for interaction and native Indian rules for interaction may cause miscommunication.  3.  To discuss ways in which teachers can be better prepared for S.E.S.D. situations, either in special S.E.S.D. programs, or as classroom teachers.  Definition of Terms  When speaking about cultures other than one's own, it is difficult to choose terminology which will make a concept clear and concise without offending people. For  this study the terms "Mainstream" and "Indian English" present the most  problems.  This researcher has chosen the term "Mainstream" in order to avoid the  racist connotations of "white" and the awkwardness of "non-Native." "Indian English" was chosen from the linguistic point of view.  The term  It is not at all a  derogatory term, any more than are the terms "Jamaican English" or "Black English Vernacular." Thus, for the purposes of this study, the following definitions will be used. 1.  Native Indian, Native, Indian-all refer to any person who refers to him or herself as a native Indian, either status or  2.  non-status.  Mainstream Culture-the dominant culture of Canada. . Although the majority of members of this culture would be "white," this term would apply to any member of the dominant culture, regardless of ethnic heritage.  3.  Standard English-that variety of [the] language . . . considered appropriate for communication over a wide area (outside local regions), which is used in  7  institutions, radio, television and newspapers,  which is usually taught in  schools and which has norms for accuracy written down. progress, p. 5) This variety is also known as Mainstream 4.  (Toohey, in Dialect.  Indian English-one of numerous varieties of English used by various groups of native Indian people.  5.  Ethnography of speaking--an area of research focusing on societal norms and values governing speech acts, and the principles and strategies underlying the acts.  6.  (Siler and Labadie-Wondergem, 1982, p. 95)  Situation—the physical and psychological setting in which a communicative act takes place.  7.  a) Elder: a Native person who is thus referred to by community members. This term implies age and respect. b) elder: a person who is older than the person being discussed.  This chapter discussed the need for further  research into the existence of a  variety of English which might be called "Indian English," in order to provide a more concrete theoretical basis for S.E.S.D. programs.  A possible link between  sociolinguistic rules and school success is cited as the explanation for the focus.  study's  In addition, the purpose of the study was delineated, and essential terms  were defined.  8  CHAPTER II: Review of the  Literature  To date, little has been written which links the three areas in this study-Native Indians, ethnographies Dialect.  of speaking, and Standard English as a Second  Because of this, the review of the literature has been divided into three  sections: 1.  Works discussing the use of S.E.S.D. methodologies with North American Indians.  2.  Works on S.E.S.D. (in general) which go beyond phonology and syntax, and discuss patterns of interaction and the use of pragmatics.  3.  Descriptions of Indian English.  S.E.S.D. with Native Indians  The first question educators must address is whether it is necessary for Native Students to learn Standard English at all. Language in Education Among yes (1982, p. 24).  According to Burnaby in  Canadian Native Peoples, the answer is a unanimous  This seems to be supported in More's study of the quality of  education in B.C.'s Okanagan-Nicola area, where parents' goals for education often stressed reading and writing, and "developing interpersonal skills and knowledge, especially communication skills for use in the Indian and White Community" (1984, p. 39).  This of course implies a lot more than the learning of structures. The concept of describing Indian English as nonstandard  substandard  is fairly recent.  as opposed to  Many classroom teachers still implicitly base their  methods on Bernstein's "deficit theory," which states that these students come from  9  deprived language environments and don't yet have an adequate language for communication.  However several writers argue with the deficit theory, and propose  adopting a bidialectal approach with Native S.E.S.D.  students.  Anthony (1984) surveyed and evaluated the general theoretical characteristics of the deficit model, the literature reporting verbal deficit in Indian children, and three categories of treatments.  He concluded that "at each level, theoretical,  empirical, and educational, the verbal deficit model is shown to be deficient and lacking vitality" (abstract). The depth and variety of language work by a five-year-old Cree child is described by Tootoosis (1983), who found that "the child was continually using her language to interpret and infer from her experience, to seek verification of her hypotheses and generate new interpretations in light of this experience (p. vii). Tootoosis contrasts the child's natural speech with the limited discourse available in the classroom. The B . C . Ministry of Education's Language Arts for Native Indian Students handbook, (Klesner, 1982) emphasizes the need for acceptance of the student's dialect, quoting Kenneth Goodman (1975): His language is so well learned and so deeply embossed on his consciousness that little conscious effect is involved for him in its use. It is as much a part of him as his skin. Ironically, well meaning adults, including teachers who would never intentionally reject a child or any important characteristic of a child, such as the clothes he wears or the color of his skin, will immediately and emphatically reject his language. This hurts him far more than other kinds of rejection because it endangers the means which he depends on for communication and self-expression. (p. 17) The handbook emphasizes the need for teachers to know the local form of English usage so that they can help students without "putting down" their language.  In  addition, the handbook points out that "Book Language" may be a third dialect the  10  students are expected to learn (after the home dialect and the classroom dialect). In The Ahousaht  Education Study (1980), Ashworth points out that  eliminating the first dialect is quite  unnecessary.  Most of us learn over the years to add different speech styles and different speech functions to our repertoire . . . we add different ways of producing and using language to meet certain needs without losing the speech habits we learned as children. Ultimately the language that the individual uses, or the dialect he uses, or the manner in which he uses language is a matter of personal choice. The schools must, when necessary, help children to make that choice . . . (p. C-13) Burnaby, in her extensive work, Languages  and Their Roles in  Educating  Native Children (1980), also criticizes the elimination model, but cautions that teaching the standard dialect using second language methods may be necessary only where there are extreme differences  (p. 299).  Burnaby also points out that the  curriculum for S.E.S.D. programs must be much more locally-oriented than E . S . L . curricula (p. 373).  In this as well as in her 1982 book, Burnaby proposes  that there is more involved than just learning the language.  In general, Indian  children must learn "how to go to school" (1982, p. 14). Working in Burns Lake, B . C . , Barth (1979) criticizes teachers who presume that a student's difficulties are caused by a cognitive disorder without investigating the possibility that the student speaks a nonstandard dialect.  He suggests training  teachers in linguistics, since 'language programs which fail to take into account the linguistic characteristics of native Indian learners may be one of the reasons Indian students often perform poorly on language-related school tasks" (1979, p. 357). Following Burton's analysis of the Indian English in Burns Lake, Ross Hoffman describes "a Language Development Program for Carrier Children," which attempts to "bridge the gap between the dialect of English which the child speaks and the 'School English' which is spoken in the classroom" (1985, p. 1).  11  Brilhart (1970) describes some of the problems experienced by Indian high school students and emphasizes the need for developing the student's feeling of self-worth, skill in spoken communication, and skill at listening to academic discourse.  Brilhart's suggestions for teachers agree with recommendations made by  Blair (1984), after  she studied teacher attitudes toward the oral language of  indigenous people in Saskatchewan, and in Queensland, Australia.  For example:  Extend the range of skills of the child by showing him that in certain situations it is appropriate to use certain forms of language, and in other situations it is appropriate to use a different form of language. Teach the features of standard English, that don't exist in the students' dialect, in terms of genuine communication needs and get away from teaching features in isolation. Pay attention to the differences between the rules of speaking which govern social interaction in the child's environment and in the standard English environment. This can be studied by informal observation and communication with the family and community. Learn as much as possible about the cultural and linguistic traditions of the students. (1984, p. 8) Also looking at ways teachers can adapt to the communication styles of their students, Fiordio examined the paralanguage university students.  of 200 Native and 200 Non-Native  After testing speech for volume, dialect, rate, articulation,  pronunciation, vocal variety, pauses, and vocal quality, he found that the "soft-spoken" way of describing Native people held true.  He describes using a  bicultural approach which teaches students to function in another cultural domain, and its success at improving all areas except rate of speaking (1985, p. 6). John (1972) describes the links between learning style, language and cognition in Navajo children, and criticizes the use of drill and repetition, saying that these techniques are inappropriate for the culture.  Tollefson also suggests that English  teachers must deal with more than the structures  of English:  12  . . . most young Native Americans have been brought up in a culture strongly influenced by a language they may have heard spoken only by old people. Yet they speak English at school and, frequently, at home. As a result, they are asked to perform an impossible task: to deal with the world in the particular way which their culture demands and which they themselves usually desire, but to refer verbally to this cosmological structure with a language which superficially at least-implies a different world view. (1977, p. 31) It thus appears that teaching standard English, even through a bidialectal approach, is a rather complicated matter.  The authors mentioned above seem to  suggest that S.E.S.D. teachers will need not only information on the linguistic backgrounds of their students, but also on their sociolinguistic cultural background.  Importance of Interaction Patterns  Historically speaking, the approaches paralleled those in E . S . L .  and Pragmatics  used in S.E.S.D. teaching have  Several authors who view the goals of S.E.S.D. as  mainly dealing with phonology and syntax include rules for discourse and interaction in their programs.  Clark, (1983) suggests including gambits, fillers and sympathetic  circularity as a way of providing students with the skeletal framework for Standard English Discourse.  Reed (1973) suggests the comparison of Black English  Vernacular styles of discourse and Standard English composition rhetoric, as well as the examination of various language functions.  Bruder and Hayden (1972)  developed these six objectives for their composition class, three of which relate more to use than to usage. We propose that by the end of the course the students would be able to: 1.  Identify the features which distinguish "standard" from "non-standard" usage.  13  2.  Recognize the appropriateness  of dialect to situation.  3.  Identify the features which distinguish the registers with special emphasis on those of the formal written register.  4.  Recognize the functional interrelationship between register and dialects within the speech community.  5.  Write compositions in the Standard Dialect on many topics using standard rhetorical form.  6.  Organize and carry out a research topic of his choice in acceptable academic form. (1972, p. 5)  Labov (1967, 1969) looked mainly at sociolinguistic variation in phonology and grammar, but suggests the need for analysis of discourse, of rules for commands, requests, quantity of talk, topic choice.  He makes this suggestion for  motivation: . . . it would be wise to emphasize [standard English's] value for handling social situations, avoiding conflict (or provoking conflict when desired), for influencing and controlling people. (1967, p. 10) Carter (1971) also emphasizes the need for students to understand the usefulness of Standard English in terms of their day to day lives, and discusses four conditions necessary for one culture to accept cultural items from  another.  Fishman and Leuders-Salmon (1972) discuss the uses of varieties of English in various situations and stress the need for both repertoire expansion and repertoire retention.  Dumas (1974) takes these concepts further, making the  following suggestions to  teachers:  We can, following the principles laid down by Labov and others, study the linguistic behaviour of our students and put our knowledge in perspective by actively seeking to structure classes so that students become aware of the importance of the difference between competence and performance, so that they understand that all dialects have internal structure and order, so that they listen critically to teachers, so that they are aware of style-shifting as a way of interacting socially, so they are aware of the importance of all nonverbal communication modes. The teacher herself should consider herself a model not of "correct" language or of "the prestige dialect" but of  14  linguistic versatility.  (1974, pp. 13-14).  Discussing some myths about rules for communication used by dialect speakers, Edwards (1983) describes some of the misunderstandings commonly held by teachers.  She "explodes" the myths that dialect speakers are non-verbal, saying  that this depends on the situation, and that dialect speakers do not value language, pointing out that other cultures have oral traditions, but they are different from ours. Several writers have argued that the differences between standard and nonstandard dialects involve much more than structures.  Kaplan suggests that  differences in structures may be the surface manifestation of deeper separations the level of cognition (1969, p. 388).  at  Barnitz (1981) discusses evidence from  ethnographies of communication which points to cultural differences in functional communication styles, and suggests that teachers must understand that a child's language and culture, and the situational context, all affect test performance.  Allen  (1969) suggests that students be taught to consider "who says what to whom, for what purpose, and to what effect" (p. 6).  She also suggests:  Findings from anthropology and the other social sciences belong in a program for teachers of S.E.S.D., not only to acquaint teachers with their students' life styles, but also to call attention to hitherto unnoticed features of cultural context in which the standard dialect is used. Studies of gestures and observations concerning the use of space in interpersonal communication make helpful contributions to the language teacher's preparation. (1969, p. 6) Silverman describes some linguistic-cultural differences between Blacks and Whites and their effect on the communications process.  She suggests that teachers  and students (Black and White) "need to be hipped to these differences, and in the process learn some general concepts and principles about language and communication throughout the world" (1976, p. 16).  15  Toohey (in progress) has completed an extensive survey of the literature of S.E.S.D., in an attempt to answer the question "Minority Educational Failure: Is Dialect a Factor?"  She concludes that:  . . . despite 20 years of sociolinguistic investigation concerned with identification of specific structural differences between standard and a variety of non-standard dialects, remarkably few implications for schooling practice have been discovered . . . The examination of differences in the area of language use (functional differences) may be much more productive of pedagogical adaptations which have some possibility of improving educational offerings for minority students, (p. 4) The need for research into the functions of language in communicative interaction is also suggested by Cromack (1971).  He discusses three pragmatic  functions  (manipulative, expressive and informative) and the ways they are linked to the situation, suggesting that teachers need to avoid "linguistic ethnocentrism, learning the language of the students, especially their world view" (p. 79). A remarkable work in this vein was published by Heath in 1983.  Heath  completed ethnographic descriptions of language use and language learning in two working-class communities, one "white" and one "black," in the southeastern States.  United  She compares the rules of these two dialect communities with those of the  nearby town and suggests the use of ethnographic techniques in order to "build a two-way channel between communities and their classrooms" (1983, p. 354).  Heath  describes the success of this approach, which has both teachers and students working on ethnographies  of communication in order to facilitate more effective  teaching and learning, a technique also described by McKay (1977). Heath and McKay suggest that by going out into the community and deriving rules for behaviour from observations, these teachers and students come to a better understanding of how one must operate differently in different  situations.  16  A n attempt to provide this type of information was completed by Nakonechney (1986), who described the communication patterns of teachers and students at a native Indian alternative school, studying student speech primarily to determine level of fluency in relation to the variables of turn content and teachers verbal strategy. 1.  She found that  Students took significantly more short turns (0-2 clausal chunks) than long turns (3 or more clausal chunks)  2.  The majority of short turns had predominantly public/impersonal content  3.  The majority of long turns had predominantly personal/private content  4.  Turn length varied according to teacher  strategy  Nakonechney critically re-evaluates the "talking to learn" methodology, and suggests specific discourse areas where radical readjustment  between teacher and student may  be needed for this methodology to have the desired effect. It appears then, that much more than phonology and syntax are involved in the teaching of S.E.S.D.  It is important to teach use as well as usage, in order  to expand students' repertoires.  However, in order to teach new patterns of  interaction it is necessary for teachers to understand not only the sociolinguistic rules used in Mainstream culture, but also those used in the students' home culture.  This study will attempt to provide the kinds of ethnographic information  called for by Toohey (in progress) and others, and although it will be briefer than Heath's (1983) study, it will attempt to provide some of the same kinds of information to teachers of native Indians.  17  Descriptions of Indian English  There are still relatively few descriptions of Indian English.  According to  Potter (1981), only fifteen groups had at that time been examined even superficially.  He calls for research, and especially research from an holistic  perspective, in order to help writing teachers decide whether Indian English is really a hindrance to effective writing by Indian students.  He also points out that in  some communities two varieties of Indian English may exist, that originally learned from traders, and that originally learned in boarding schools. Medicine (1981) suggests six areas which need further research.  Although  several deal with the use of Indian languages, the following applies to English as well: . . . there are few data deriving from contemporary Indian societies regarding the actual dimensions and idiosyncratic use of language among various communities on Indian reservations. Equally absent is information on the use of languages-ancestral or English-among Native residents in urban areas. In speaking of Indian English, we must be cautious, since these varieties are related to various Indian languages.  The following studies have examined forms of  Indian English according to a variety of criteria, the earlier studies examining phonology, morphology and syntax, the later involving discourse structure, interaction patterns and the relationship of world view to the rules of speaking. Wolfram, Christian, Leap and Potter (1979) studied the varieties of English used in two Pueblan communities in order to examine the effect of language diversity on the acquisition of certain educational skills.  Studying phonology,  grammar and convergence in San Juan and Laguna, New Mexico, they found that these two varieties share a number of different characteristics, at least on a  18  qualitative level.  These researchers suggest the similarities between these two  varieties of Indian English and other non-Mainstream varieties.  Also working in  Laguna, Stout (1977) describes the variety of English used by fifth and sixth grade students.  He compares the variability in their variety to continua developed in  previous inter-ethnic testing and scaling. Leap (1978, 1982) has described the phonology and grammar of the varieties of English spoken at Isleta Pueblo, New Mexico.  He describes five factors which  may be characterized by the grammatical structure of a particular sentence: 1.  The grammatical processes of Isletan Tiwa (the local Indian language).  2.  Grammatical processes common to other alternative processes.  3.  Alternative English grammatical processes employed in contrast to standard language conventions.  4.  Isletan Tiwa grammatical processes employed in contrast to the standard language conventions.  5.  Standard English grammatical convention. al., 1979, pp. 8-9)  (from Wolfram et  Another study of phonology and grammar was completed by Burton (1982) working with the Carrier people around Burns Lake, B . C .  She discovered that  language/dialect interference was only one of several factors influencing school performance: There are indications that cultural differences have produced a different attitude and approach to learning in the Carrier child. Perhaps our methods of teaching are not compatible with the Carrier child's learning strengths and cognitive style. The Carrier child's learning may also be hampered by extreme shyness, behaviour problems, or social and emotional problems caused by culture shock. The Carrier child who overcomes the above obstacles may still experience reading difficulties related specifically to language development. The three most common language-related problems are (1) developmental problems, (2) lack of oral language experience, and (3) first language/dialect interference. (1982, p. 4)  19  Flanigan (1983) studied the phonological, morphological and syntax/discursive characteristics of Lakota English.  She states that varieties of Indian English are  not caused by interference, but that varieties of Indian English are actually very similar in structure to other non-Mainstream varieties. Discourse structure was studied in more depth by Cooley and Lujan (1982). They studied speeches given by eight students and four elders from various tribes in Oklahoma.  They found that the students' speeches, rather than being  unorganized, were very similar to the speeches of the elders, implying that the students were using a different discourse structure than is common in Mainstream society.  Scler and Labadie-Wondergem (1982) describe the structure in terms of the  communication rules of Native American culture: The overall organization of Native American speeches can best be illustrated through a rhetorical model. The subject of the speech can be viewed as the hub of a wheel, with the speaker on the rim. The speaker proceeds through the speech, moving along the rim to offer the audience a series of different perspectives on the subject. The different perspectives, or topics, represent the spokes of the wheel and appear as though they are being presented serially. A l l of the topics relate to the subject of the speech, but are separate from each other. The listener should determine the extent to which the topics are separate. If this analogy characterizes the structure of the speeches, identifying relationships among topics will be difficult unless the listener is familiar with the style. In Native American cultures, the speaker is responsible for sharing with the audience knowledge about a subject, and the listener is responsible for determining the worth of the information. A n y indication of the relationship among topics might be interpreted as an attempt to lead the audience towards a decision. This rhetorical strategy would be considered inappropriate. (1982, p. 98) Hall (1969) discusses another cultural difference in sociolinguistic rules-that of listening behaviour.  Describing his experience with the Navajo, he points out that  to look at someone directly implied anger, and that other methods were used to" demonstrate attention to the speaker.  20  Mitchell (1974), writing of Northern B . C . , and Dumont (1972), writing about the Sioux and Cherokee, point out that the rules for when speech is are different in Indian and Mainstream cultures.  appropriate  Dumont even suggests that the  Indian children's use of silence may be one way of unconsciously manipulating the Mainstream teacher into using more appropriate Susan Philips (1972), after  teaching  methods.  working on the Warm Springs Indian Reservation  in Oregon, defines the communicative contexts in which Indian and Non-Indian participation behaviour differs, and describes the ways in which they differ.  These  include talk as "performance,"  concept  (or "demonstration of competence"), a different  of leadership, traditional forms of education and the concept of se/f-testing.  She  concludes that "Indian children fail to communicate verbally in social interaction because the social conditions for participation to which they have become in the Indian Community are lacking" (p. 392).  accustomed  She warns that:  Educators cannot assume that because Indian children. . . . speak English, or are taught it in the schools, that they have also assimilated all of the sociolinguistic rules underlying interaction in classrooms and other non-Indian social situations where English is spoken. To the extent that existing cultural variation in sociolinguistic patterning that is not recognized by the schools results in learning difficulties and feelings of inferiority for some children, changes in the structuring of classroom learning situations are needed. (1972, p. 392) Philips (1974) also describes the ways in which participation affects progression of events, pointing out that although Indians "have the  the  relevant  information to recognize the signals," even they will not be able to specifically state when something will start and how long it will take" (1974, p. 98). A comparison of the ways in which Warm Springs Indians and Anglos show attention to the speaker is documented in Philips' 1976 and 1983 works. briefly summarized, some differences  are:  Very  21  1.  Indian exchanges proceed at a slower pace.  2.  Longer pause time.  3.  Turns at talk vary less in a) length of time, b) number of turns per person.  4.  Less shifting of a) body and head alignment, b) body position.  5.  More movement in the area around the eyes.  6.  Less movement in lower face.  7.  Confirmation through nods, or "uh-huh"  8.  Indian speakers  9.  Rarity of distinction between addressed and unaddressed  10.  Much more "tieing" is done in Warm Springs sequencing between utterances  unnecessary.  gaze at each other less of the time. recipients.  that are not within several turns. 11.  Answers to questions are not obligatory. Erickson and Mohatt (1982) attempted  participant structures  to determine whether  could be generalized to another setting.  Philips'  They studied two  classes of native students, one with an Anglo teacher, the other with a native Indian teacher.  They found several differences, in areas such as social control  required, tempo, and turn-taking.  The native Indian teacher also made a distinction  between public and private areas of discourse, thus avoiding overt control of individuals. Basso, Philipsen and Darnell and Black, although working largely in Indian languages, make some observations which apply to English as well.  Basso (1970;  1976; 1979) describes the Apaches' use of silence, the creation of metaphor, the use of linguistic play and cultural symbols.  and  Working with the Navajo, Philipsen  (1972) discusses the importance of metaphysical beliefs and epistemological beliefs in  22  determining patterns of speech, especially on decision making. describes Ojibwe questioning etiquette  Black (1973)  as one which discourages direct questions, and  Darnell (1979) comments on several differences in the rules which Cree children may  bring to the classroom, such as:  1.  Children should not impose on adults.  2.  Skill learning is non-verbal.  3.  It is rude to a) ask direct questions; b) tell someone he's wrong; c) refuse direct requests.  4.  Avoid face-to-face  contact.  It appears that these rules may still apply when the students speak English. Although much of their work was done in the Chipewyan language, Scollon and Scollon (1981) describe many rules for interaction followed by the Athabaskan people, especially those rules which also occur when these people speak in English. Scollon and Scollon describe some difficulties which arise from different concepts of the presentation of self, the distribution of talk, information structure, and content organization.  The concluding chapter on politeness and communicative pluralism  makes some suggestions for preventing miscommunication, and provides charts which can help Anglos understand native Indians' sociolinguistic patterns. Closer to home, A r t More (1985, unpublished), in a general article on cultural and value differences, explains several behaviours which may non-Natives.  frustrate  These include Indians' reluctance to say "no" because they don't want  to appear uncooperative, and using long stories as a way of answering questions. More also emphasizes the importance of non-verbal communication for effective inter-ethnic communication.  23  The description of Indian English has been approached from a variety of viewpoints.  Although more research is clearly necessary, the works cited above  suggest that for teachers of S.E.S.D., an awareness of all aspects of language-linguistic, sociolinguistic and cultural--is essential.  Summary and Conclusions  In Section 1, we saw three major issues addressed.  First, the question of  whether Standard English was necessary for Native students was answered in the affirmative.  Second, the fallacy of the deficit theory was described, and the  necessity for a bidialectal approach was stressed.  Third, the question of what  S.E.S.D. programs should include was addressed, suggesting the need for linguistic information, sociolinguistic information and cultural information. Section 2 discussed S.E.S.D. in general.  It appears necesssary to teach use,  as well as usage, in order to expand students' repertoires.  Clearly, communication  styles vary across cultures and more research in this area is necessary. information can be used to help both teachers and  This  students.  Section 3 included descriptions of Indian English from a variety of viewpoints.  The structural characteristics of San Juan, Laguna and Isletan English  were described, and the variability of Laguna English phonology and grammar was compared to other inter-ethnic continua.  It was suggested that linguistic differences  alone may not account for Indian students' difficulties, and that interference  from  the Indian language may not be important to the structures of Indian English. Discourse analysis suggested that speeches given by native Indians are not "rambling" but are constructed using different structural rules.  Other communication  24  rules discussed were: the ways in which Navajo and Anglo listening behaviour differs, the meaning of silence, the importance of participant structures, and the concepts of timing and attention giving.  Several authors provided cultural insights  into rules of interactional etiquette. The variety of approaches to S.E.S.D. teaching and to describing Indian English suggest that our view of what language is must now include more than phonology, morphology and syntax.  For teachers working with native Indian  students, this requires research in all aspects of Indian English.  Philips and the  Scollons suggest that the rules for interaction may constitute the greatest area of difference between Standard English and Indian English.  This study, although of  only one group, will attempt to provide more of this necessary information.  25  CHAPTER III: Design of the Study  This chapter describes three methodologies used in the study: Hymes' Ethnography of Speaking, Enright's Interaction Hierarchy, and Schegloff and Sacks' Ethnomethodology.  The community and situations observed are described, and the  observational procedures used in the various situations are outlined. experienced by the researcher  The difficulties  are summarized, and the chapter concludes with a  description of the techniques used to interpret the data, including a statement regarding the generalizability of this study.  Theoretical Assumptions  Observation and interpretation were approached inductively, using three methodologies.  Each of these methodologies provide slightly different techniques for  examining language data. language is.  In addition, each has its own assumptions about what  However, all methodologies had one major assumption in common.  A l l these methodologies assume that the observation of natural language can lead to the description of sociolinguistic rules.  1.  Hymes Analysis of "Ways of Speaking" The analysis of "Ways of Speaking" suggested by Hymes (1974a, 1974b)  constructs an ethnography of speaking, assuming that the rules for language are governed by the following components:  use  26  1.  The  P A R T I C I P A N T S involved - senders, receivers, addressors, addressees, - spokespersons  2.  The  interpreters  various available C H A N N E L S - speaking, writing, body motion, print, touch, etc.  3.  The  various C O D E S shared by participants - linguistic, paralinguistic, musical, interpretive, interactional.  4.  The S E T T I N G S abridged.  in which communication is permitted, enjoined, encouraged,  - physical - psychological 5.  The F O R M S of messages and their G E N R E S - e.g. single words, speeches, routines, poems.  6.  The K E Y of the interaction - tone, manner or spirit  7.  The E N D S involved - ends as outcomes (participant viewpoint) - ends in view (community viewpoint)  Throughout the study, careful notes were made on each situation.  Particular  attention was paid to participants, setting, and key, but the interpretation of events included all seven of these factors.  2.  Interaction Hierarchy Susan Philips' (1972) work emphasizes the importance of "participant  structures" in governing communication behaviour.  She describes the ways in which  native Indians and Mainstream cultures differ in terms of where, when, to whom, and how one talks.  27  Enright (1984), doing ethnography  in classrooms, uses the term  "participant  structure" in describing an interaction hierarchy consisting of a "constitution" (the rules established by teacher in anticipating instruction), "events," and  "participant  structures":  The Constitution (Rules) cuts across almost all interaction a priori usually accompanied by a distinct, recurring, predictable set of events and participant structures Examples: "Stay in your seat." "Raise your hand if you want to talk." "Work with the group."  Events teachers' own division of the daily flow of interaction into units: "emic" Examples: "Show and Tell" "Reading Group" 'Tree Time" "Seatwork" "Recess" "Class Meeting"  Participant Structures observers' division of classroom interaction into units: "etic" W H E R E you talk, W H E N you talk, W H O you talk to, H O W you talk, and W H A T you talk about. Examples: Lecture (teacher talks, students listen) Discussion (teacher controls topic and floor, students permitted to bid for floor) Free Conversation (teacher supervises students who are permitted to engage in chosen conversations with specific but implicit limitations, e.g. no yelling) (Enright, 1984, p. 29)  28  This researcher has assumed that such an interaction hierarchy also exists in the broader context of a community.  Assuming that the constitution was set by  the community's norms, particular attention was paid to the delineation of participation in the various situations observed.  3.  Ethnomethodology Ethnomethodology is a method of analyzing conversation which assumes that  conversations proceed in an orderly fashion, because the}' are governed by rules for interaction, clearly (but subconsciously) understood by the participants.  According to  ethnomethodology, every utterance has a purpose beyond the semantic or even connotative meaning.  Utterances may cue, or even demand, what sort of  utterances must follow. Ethnomethodology is an inductive approach which uses transcripts of taped natural speech.  When using this methodology a researcher will generally ignore the  history of the conversation as well as the paralinguistic elements which cannot be transcribed, and attempt to describe both the syntagmatic organization of conversation (the way the parts are linked together), and the paradigmatic elements (the background knowledge needed by every speaker).  Through these techniques,  ethnomethodologists have studied and described such facets as the sequencing rule (turn-taking), opening sequences, closing sequences, and the rules for story-telling. Although Scheglof and Sacks (1973) caution against characterizing data according to such factors as those suggested by Hymes, Turner (1970) argues that not only do participants "invoke culturally provided resources," but researchers use their own competence in order to make sense of activities. to future researchers,  Turner points out:  must  Making suggestions  29  1.  That all and any exchanges of utterances-defining an utterance for the moment as one speaker's turn at talking—can in principle be regarded as "doing things with words."  2.  That there is no a priori reason to suppose that syntactical or lexical correspondences exist between units of speech and activities.  3.  That in constructing their talk, members provide for the recognition of "what they are doing" by invoking culturally provided resources.  4.  That "total speech situations" are to be elucidated as the features oriented to by members in doing and recognizing activities, and assessing their appropriateness.  5.  That in undertaking such elucidations, sociologists must (and do) employ their own expertise in employing and recognizing methodical procedures for accomplishing activities.  6.  That the task of the sociologist in analysing naturally occurring scenes is not to deny his competence in making sense of activities but to explicate it.  7.  That such explication provides for a cumulative enterprise, in that the uncovering of members' procedures for doing activities permits us both to replicate our original data and to generate new instances that fellow members will find recognizable. (1970, p. 214)  For this study, the researcher  used ethnomethodological techniques as one  method of uncovering rules for communication.  She used her knowledge as a  native speaker of the Mainstream dialect to determine when and how the patterns of English used by members of a particular Indian Band differ from those of the dominant culture.  30  Subjects  The Community  The community in which this research was completed is the Squamish Indian Band of North Vancouver.  The Band is spread over three reserves with a total  population of approximately 1,500 members.  Two of the reserves are located in  close proximity to retail and industrial areas. ' Located on reserve land are a major shopping centre, a hotel and several industrial sites.  The Band is well organized,  and has an active economic development strategy. Employment patterns are mixed, with Band members pursuing a wide variety of occupations.  While the Band is generally prosperous,  particular families varies considerably. government and Band sources.  the socio-economic status of  Band members may receive support from  One of the ways in which the Band provides  economic support to its members is through low-cost or no-cost housing. Band administration is through a central Band office.  Many  different  projects are organized through the economic development and housing departments. The Social Development Committee is responsible for the well-being of the Band's social development programmes.  Some of the services sponsored by this committee  are a Home-School Coordinators Programme, a Family Drop-In Centre, family counselling, an evening study group, a Native language programme,  and a drug and  alcohol counselling programme. The Band as a whole is very conscious of the need to maintain its cultural heritage.  Two programmes  designed to meet this goal are the Native Language  and Native Studies classes in the schools.  There are on the reserve a very active  31  Longhouse Society, as well as several productive and recognized artists and craftspeople.  In addition, Band members also work with the schools in a program  intended to make Mainstream students aware of the value of Native culture.  The Situations  Observations took place in a variety of situations.  Some situations involved  only Band members, while others involved a mixture of Native and Mainstream people.  Due to time constraints, the majority of observation time focused on school  age children, and on their interactions with different age groups. into the interaction patterns of adults were not ignored.  Insights gained  Because access to business  and political events was limited, the majority of settings observed were pedagogical or social. a) The Nursery School. all staff are of Native ancestry.  The nursery school is operated by the Band and There are two regular teachers,  and two teacher  aides who assist at special events and substitute when a regular teacher is away. The Band also provides a bus and driver to transport school.  the children to and from  Each day there are two classes, one composed primarily of three-year-olds,  the other of four-year-olds.  There are twenty children registered in each class, but  attendance varies considerably. b) Evening Study Group.  This group is designed for elementary  in grades 4-7, although children from grades 2-8 attend fairly regularly.  students For two  hours once a week, the home-school coordinator and the tutor (who is also the researcher)  provide supplementary learning materials and assistance  with homework.  There are two main goals: to provide students with an enhanced environment for  32  doing their homework, and to develop a positive attitude towards activities that are academically oriented. interact socially.  The group also provides an opportunity for the students to  Approximately 25 students are involved in the group, and  occasionally one or two parents will drop in for a short period. c) Schools.  Classes were observed at two schools, both of which are  classified as "community schools."  Both schools are very concerned about the  success of their Native students, and both work at incorporating aspects of Native culture into the school.  Like all schools in the North Vancouver School District,  these schools base their primary language arts programmes on the Whole Language approach.  A t both schools the teachers observed were members of the Mainstream  society. A t school A the researcher class.  observed a kindergarten class and a grade one  The kindergarten class contained twenty students, only three of whom were  Native.  One of these three students was disabled in terms of motor skills and  speech.  The researcher's attention focused on the other two Native students in  large group, small group, and free play situations.  The grade one class contained  approximately 26 students, about one third being of Native ancestry. A t school B , the researcher observed a kindergarten class of 26 students, more than half of whom were native Indian.  As with kindergarten A , the  morning's schedule included a lot of story time, some group writing time, arts and crafts time, free play time and snack time. d) Native Language Classes.  The local Native language is taught by a  team of three band members consisting of two young women, and one man who is an Elder.  The classes are conducted primarily in English.  The  researcher  observed one woman teaching Nursery School morning classes, and the  other  33  teaching afternoon classes.  In addition, she observed the whole team work with a  small, largely Mainstream grade one group at school B , and two team members working with a small, all Native junior high Native Studies class. e) Family Drop-In Centre. and small children.  The Band operates a drop-in centre for parents  Organized by a Mainstream family counsellor and a Native  social worker, the centre provides a "safe" place for mothers to relax and talk while one Mainstream teacher and one Native aide provide educational play experiences for the children.  Occasionally, there are guests who speak on issues  such as health care, child abuse and discipline.  On the days observed, between  three and eight mothers, and six to twelve children were present. f) Meetings.  A l l of the meetings observed were related to education.  The  researcher attended several meetings of the Native Education team, two parent-teacher  meetings, and a workshop.  She also often met with one home-school  coordinator and with various staff members at the Band office, in formal and informal ways. g) Social Events.  The researcher attended several child-oriented parties~a  Christmas party and an Easter party at the nursery school, and the Band Christmas party, held at the Band office.  A t the nursery school parties, about  half the children had parents, grandparents  or other relatives in attendance.  Band party was attended by approximately 200 people-children, parents, uncles, grandparents  The  aunts,  and friends.  The researcher also observed people in less structured situations such as in the mall, at a local hockey game and a school basketball game.  The researcher  sometimes had lunch with Band members, especially the nursery school teachers.  34  The only ceremonial event attended was one funeral, followed by a luncheon. On this occasion, approximately 100 people, mostly adults and pre-school children, were  present. h) The Families.  Six families were involved in this project.  The  researcher made informal visits to their homes, and sometimes went with them to the park or shopping.  Most of the children and several of the mothers knew the  researcher from other situations.  The fathers were not often present when the  visits occurred, but members of the extended family, such as a married children, or cousins, were often in the homes.  grandparent,  None of the  mothers  worked outside the home, although one was involved in child care within her home. Most of the fathers were employed as tradesmen or labourers.  Several of the  families lived in newer homes built by the Band; one lived in a townhouse, and two in older homes.  A l l but one family lived on the reserve.  Procedures  The researcher  was involved with the community for a period of seven  months, although the bulk of observation time was in the last five months.  During  those months, the researcher spent between ten and fifteen hours per week in specific observation settings and several hours more per week just being around the area.  Procedures for observation varied with the situation.  interactions were recorded on a Sony ZX-7 tape recorder.  Whenever possible, However, in some  situations the use of a tape recorder would have been socially inappropriate, and in others it was technically impossible.  In these cases the researcher was forced to  rely upon field notes and reconstructed conversations.  The role of the  researcher  35  also varied according to situation, along a continuum from passive observer to active participant.  The following is a description of the procedures used in each situation.  a) Nursery School.  The researcher  visited the nursery school for four  hours per week, for approximately fifteen weeks.  For the first seven weeks the  tape recorder was operating approximately 60% of the time.  More than ten hours  of usable audiotape were accumulated. The role of the researcher  varied considerably.  On some occasions she  sat  quietly watching the teachers and children, on others she was actively involved in whatever event was occurring, sometimes learning the Native language or doing crafts.  For twenty minutes of each class the researcher  conducted a music lesson.  As the teachers gradually tired of being "watched" and recorded, the  researcher  took on more and more of the role of teacher's aide, often reading to children and teaching music. b) Evening Study Group. week for 25 weeks. reasons.  This group was observed for two hours per  Audiotaping of the sessions proved impractical for two  The students were spread throughout a large room, and there was a  high level of background noise. slightly easier to record.  The social interactions before the sessions proved  However, only one and a half hours of conversation were  collected on tape. In this situation the researcher  was very much an active participant.  She  was involved in assigning the most appropriate kind of work to each student, and for providing assistance  with homework.  Only during the recess and upon the  completion of the session was the researcher observer.  able to become a more passive  36  c) Schools.  The three classes were each observed three times, for  approximately 90 minutes per visit.  Most of the classroom talk was recorded,  although this was impossible during physical education time.  The researcher  participated in all classroom activities, but in a generally passive way.  During  crafts time and on walks, she interacted with the children nearby. d) Native Language Classes.  A description of the classes at the nursery  school is included in section A above.  Only one junior high class and one grade  one class were observed, and both of these were recorded in full.  In both these  classes the researcher played the role of passive observer. e) Family Drop-In Centre. for two hours each time.  The researcher visited this centre four times,  Because the goal of the organizer was to create a  "safe" place for mothers to relax, the researcher decided that the use of a tape recorder would be inappropriate.  When possible, detailed notes were taken, although  it was often necessary to wait until after was appropriate.  a conversation had finished before writing  In this setting the researcher was relatively passive, but  regularly talked to mothers and played with children. f) Meetings.  The use of a tape recorder at the meetings would have  made the participants uncomfortable, thereby precluding the collection of natural speech data.  Thus, the researcher was forced to rely on field notes, written  whenever an appropriate time could be found. varied considerably.  The role of the researcher  again  She was always considered a participant at the meetings, but  unless her input was called for, she remained quiet.  However, during the informal  and social portions of meetings, she took part in conversation whenever this was appropriate.  37  g) Social Events.  Attempts were made to record the nursery school  parties but the results were poor.  In other social situations field notes were taken.  A t these social events the role of the researcher varied.  A t larger events, she  tended towards quiet, passive observation, but when fewer people were present,  she  participated in conversation and events. h) Families.  The researcher visited two families four times, three families  three times and one family twice. three hours. turned on.  The length of the visits varied from one to  After the initial awkwardness was overcome, the tape recorder was Thus, approximately fourteen hours of family talk were collected.  visits were conducted in a "stop by for coffee" style, although the schedule required her to make appointments ahead of time.  The  researcher's  The researcher drank  tea or coffee with the mothers and talked about whatever topic the mother brought up.  Sometimes the researcher talked with or played with the children.  Occasional^ the family and researcher left the house to go to the park, or store, or school.  Difficulties  The difficulties encountered during this study are probably common to all ethnographic research.  To integrate into a community often takes years.  However,  despite the relatively short period of time available, the researcher was able to observe numerous situations related to children's language use. One difficulty facing the researcher was in determining culturally appropriate times for her to be present.  The Band members were usually very helpful.  Within the Native community, though, modes of invitation seemed to differ  from  38  those of the Mainstream society.  In this community, invitations seemed to be of a  more casual nature, and this presented the researcher with some difficulties in interpreting norms.  Fortunately, one Band member felt comfortable explaining the  community's norms, and the assistance was very much appreciated. Going from "outsider" to somewhat of an "insider" was made more feasible because the researcher had specific roles to play in the community.  Thus, she was  seen not only as a researcher, but also as a tutor and a music teacher.  Many  Band members appeared to appreciate the fact that she was contributing something to the community, not just taking.  Having the role of tutor did require an ethical  decision though, when the Band decided to pay the researcher a small honorarium. The researcher experienced difficulty in accepting this honorarium and eventually most of this money was returned to the Band in the form of educational gifts. The collection of valid language data was made difficult by the wide variety of situations observed.  As mentioned above, there were several situations in which  the use of a tape recorder would have been socially inappropriate.  When the  recorder was used, though, the researcher discovered that participants very quickly forgot that it was there.  Children especially, were more interested in what they  were experiencing than in the presence of this machine.  Because of this, the  adults with whom they were interacting were also required to proceed with their activities and ignore the tape recorder.  It is the opinion of the researcher that the  audiotapes provide valid samples of natural language use. During the analysis stage the researcher experienced two difficulties. first involved attempting to validate results with Band members.  The  This checking of  hypotheses against the "insider" competence of community members was done in a fairly casual way, often over lunch.  The researcher learned that hypotheses in  39  written form could be misinterpreted to be statements of fact rather than working hypotheses.  As a result, questions were presented orally.  This validation technique  was used sparingly; most hypotheses were tested through further observation. The second difficulty in analysis and description involved the negative connotations of the word "different." "different" was not used as criticism.  It is very important to explain that Although in this thesis it was necessary to  comment on the presence or absence of various sociolinguistic rules occurring in Mainstream culture, every attempt was made to describe those differences in neutral terms. Overall, the researcher found the observation period very enlightening, and because of the helpfulness of the Band members and employees, there were surprisingly few difficulties.  Analysis  The Hypothesis Circle  The goals of this study were to complete a community language profile (ethnography of speaking) and to see how the rules described affect students in schools.  Since the researcher did not begin with any concrete hypotheses, analysis  of data took the following forms: 1.  Analysis of data to form an hypothesis  2.  Gathering further data to support/reject  3.  Confirmation or disconfirrhation of findings with band members by asking questions similar to the following:  hypothesis  40  "It appears that  is happening.  Do you feel this is a correct  interpretation?" This, of course, was not a linear procedure, but rather a cyclical one, since several different hypotheses were under consideration at any one time.  Data Analysis  In the early stages of the study the audible portions of seven cassettes were transcribed.  This resulted in eighty-Five pages of transcripts.  Examinations of  transcripts and field notes led to hypotheses which were examined in further observations.  Throughout the study, the researcher periodically listened to portions  of tapes, and attempted to clarify issues through further observation and through informal discussions with Band members. Near the end of the study, detailed analysis of the transcripts and tapes began.  The entire thirty hours of tape were examined aurally in order to delineate  clearly the main themes and subtopics discussed in chapters 4-6.  Although a  general outline of the sociolinguistic rules to be discussed had developed gradually throughout the observation period, this stage was necessary in order to focus the coding procedures.  A t this time, relevant material was transcribed from the  remaining tapes. Throughout this process, and in fact throughout the writing stage, contact with the community was maintained so that the rules described could be verified by observation and through a series of conversations with interested Band members.  41  Generalizability  The  degree to which this description can be applied to other Native groups  involves several issues. similar behaviours.  It is conceivable that other Native groups could display  Historically, interaction between Native groups through trade  and intermarriage may have contributed to some degree of sociolinguistic homogeneity.  This could account for the similarities between the findings of this  work and the works of Philips and the Scollons. However, it must be noted that this study is specific only to one group-the Squamish Band of North Vancouver.  In addition, the situations observed are  largely limited to only two areas of community life.  Thus, the relevance of this  study will not be in the immediate application of its findings to all persons of Native ancestry.  Rather, its main importance will be in the delineation of  sociolinguistic rules which may be different.  Thus a teacher reading this study  should not think "Oh, this is how Indians in my community behave," but  rather,  "here are some ways in which the rules of interaction may be different.  It is  now  my job to get to know my community, to see which rules apply here."  This chapter described the three methodologies employed in the study: Hymes' Ethnography of Speaking, Enright's Interaction Hierarchy, and Schegleff and Sacks' Ethnomethodology.  The community and the eight situations were described  and the observational procedures used in the various situations were discussed.  The  chapter concluded with a description of the cyclical technique used to interpret the data, including a statement regarding the generalizability of the findings.  42  CHAPTER IV: Communication in the Community  This chapter will discuss the tendency of many community members to follow certain sociolinguistic patterns which differ from those of Mainstream society. community's varied behaviour in the areas of volume, intonation, pause-time eye-contact are compared with the Scollons' (1981) results.  This and  A n outline of two  factors determining whether a situation is classed as speech or nonspeech is given, and the importance of values in determining sociolinguistic behaviour is emphasized. Rules regarding interruptions, topic control, and absence of "why" challenges linked to the value "Respect elders."  Differences in introductions,  "pulling strings," requesting assistance,  and children's degree of independence  discussed in terms of respect for the individual.  are  performance, are  Patterns of topic choice and  naming are outlined as reflections of a value system stressing the importance of family, and rules regarding greetings, farewells, showing off, praise and taking oneself seriously are discussed as outcomes of a tendency to avoid drawing attention to oneself.  The chapter concludes with a description of the community as more  context-oriented than Mainstream society, and of the organization of events.  Introduction  Early in the course of the study, the researcher became aware that many Band members  felt that language use within their community differed from that of  Mainstream society.  For example, one elder, speaking to a meeting of parents and  teachers, asked the teachers to remember as white children.  that Native children don't talk the same  Later, in a conversation with the researcher, he mentioned  43  differences in the sound system, and also differences in how one person talks to another.  One example of this was his statement "We Indians talk to our kids like  they were adults." A mother living off reserve regularly made comments such as "it's really different down there," and spoke about differences in quantity of talk, as well as volume and intonation.  In terms of speech patterns, she clearly wanted her son to  "see both sides of the fence," meaning both the ways of the Mainstream society and the "[Indian] side of things."  In several contexts, mothers and Native teachers  joked about the white man's way of doing things. It became clear that not only did Mainstream people notice this difference, but community members did as well.  Because the rules for communication were  largely unformulated, the task of the researcher  was therefore  to try to describe,  detect and formulate rules and differences, perhaps noting links between these communicative behaviours and values held by community members. Limitations in the time and in opportunity to gain access to events affected both the scope and course of the project.  Many of the conclusions originated not  with conversational transcriptions as much as in conversational imporessions. Furthermore, in-depth study of particular aspects of communication, while desirable, was simply not possible.  However, this study provided the opportunity to complete  a general overview of communication patterns in one Native community-an ethnography of communication.  44  Communication Systems and Value Systems  When the study began, the researcher did not intend to examine the value system of the community.  It was hoped that sociolinguistic behaviours could be  described in a less subjective manner, as was possible in the 'Four Stereotypes' section below.  However, it became clear that various sociolinguistic behaviours were  linked by (if not generated as a result of) an underlying cultural value. Repeatedly, attempts to confirm sociolinguistic rules with community members led to comments such as "that's because we believe . . . " Condon and Yousef (1975) suggest that an understanding of value orientations is essential to successful intercultural communication, because communication includes all kinds of behaviour. We cannot separate culture from communication, for as soon as we talk about one, we are almost inevitably talking about the other too. (1975, p. 34) These authors describe the usefulness of describing value orientations, but suggest caution. Value orientations are abstract constructs. They are useful only when tempered by an "as if" caution. People in culture X act as if they believe that materialism is more important than spiritual concerns, as if older persons deserve more respect than younger ones, as if intuition is a better guide than reason. Applied with caution, as a framework in which revealing questions can be asked and a great variety of specific behaviours can be related and organized, value orientations can be most helpful. (pp. 118-119) Describing the sociolinguistic rules in the linear fashion required by academia was extremely difficult, as all the elements seem interconnected in various ways. Thus the reader must be cautioned that: Value orientations are meaningful only in combination, not in isolation. To identify and discuss values or value orientations, we must treat each individually, but we will be mislead if we expect that what they represent can be so individuated. (Condon & Yousef, 1975, p. 119)  45  Although the values described below were discussed by community members in a general way, they are largely reformulated.  This task is always difficult for  an outsider, but the utility of trying is manifest, as it allows us not only to see the patterns, but the reasons perceived by community members for those  patterns.  However, it is necessary to caution the reader about the limitations of such descriptions. Value orientations are incomplete, biased and reflective of the purposes for which they were invented and for which they may be applied. Such are the limitations of labelling anything, but the significance is even more apparent where there is no standardized system and where the referent is as amorphous as the term, culture. (Condon & Yousef, 1975, p. 119)  Four  Stereotypes  The Scollons (1981) describe several ways in which cross-cultural communication can be inhibited by different patterns of speech.  They mention  pause-time in particular, as one factor which can cause a Native person to feel that he or she "can't get a word in edgewise," and cause a Mainstream person to feel that a Native person is being uncooperative.  The researcher looked for  evidence of longer pauses between utterances, as well as examining three other stereotypical descriptions of the speech of native Indians.  Thus, four of the speech  components addressed were: Is it true that 1.  Native Indian people speak more softly?  2.  Native Indians use a flatter intonation pattern?  3.  The appropriate length for the pause between utterances is longer?  46  4.  Eye contact is avoided?  Dealing with Variation-Continua in Two Dimensions  Observation immediately showed that there was considerable diversity in the communication behaviours of community members.  This was further  complicated by  the fact that variation occurred in two dimensions, young-old and traditional-Mainstream.  The word "traditional" is used here simply to describe a  behaviour which is common in the Native community and is different from that of Mainstream society.  Whether this behaviour is actually based on traditional Indian  ways of behaving cannot be ascertained  or proven by this study.  In an attempt  to describe the community with greater precision, the researcher will use continua whenever possible.  For example, regarding the issue of eye contact:  Older adapt eye c o n t a c t t o p a r t i c i p a n t s , but tend t o m a i n t a i n c o n t a c t f o r s h o r t e r p e r i o d s than Mainstream people  Traditional r e s p e c t shown by lowered eyes  Mainstream r e s p e c t and i n t e r e s t shown by m a i n t a i n i n g eye c o n t a c t  Younger adapt eye c o n t a c t t o p a r t i c i p a n t s , but tend t o m a i n t a i n eye c o n t a c t  47  Thus, in reality, any one individual's behaviour could be placed in any one of four quadrants.  Volume  It seemed that there was a tendency for most people in the community to speak at a slightly lower volume than would have been used in Mainstream society.  While there was considerable variation within the community and  accoustical measurements were not done, examination of the tapes often showed that Mainstream people spoke louder than their Native counterparts.  Many children and  several adults used loud voices, especially in school situations, but at social events, meetings, and paired co-conversation, the voices of the Mainstream people were often more noticeable. Observations of mixed school classes showed that children from both cultures varied considerably.  A description of volume level might look like this:  |  | Native children I  soft  I Mainstream children loud  48  Intonation  The  Patterns  researcher's  intonation differences.  training as a musician made her more cognizant of Again considerable individual variation was noted.  However,  in this community, many members spoke at a lower pitch level and used a narrower range of pitches than would Mainstream people. was a difference between older people and children.  In this regard there  Thus, in addition to individual  variation, there was also variation related to traditional Native speech patterns,  and  variation related to age.  Older lower p i t c h f l a t t e r intonation  Traditional lower p i t c h f l a t t e r intonation  Mainstream higher p i t c h wide v a r i a t i o n in intonation  Younger higher p i t c h wider i n t o n a t i o n  variation  Thus, the speech of many, but certainly not all, Elders could be placed in the upper left quadrant. lower right quadrant.  Likewise, the speech of most children could be placed in the  49  Pause-time  In Mainstream society, the length of time allowed between the end of an utterance by one person and the beginning of an utterance by another has been described by the Scollons (1981) as one second or less.  For most younger  members of this community, there was little difference in this pattern.  The pattern  used by older members was not strikingly different, but some members did use pauses which were longer than the Scollons' research indicated was the norm in Mainstream society.  For example, the researcher often worked with a woman in  her Fifties, and regularly had difficulty determining when a conversation was over. During one telephone conversation, the researcher misunderstood a lengthy silence as what Scheglof and Sacks (1973) call "giving notice of intent to close," and tried to close the conversation. hurry to get away?"  The Native woman uncomfortably asked "are you in a In this case, as in several others, the silence did not mean  that the Native woman was giving up her turn or signalling that no further  talk  was forthcoming. It was interesting to note that young people, whose pause-time  pattern was  usually close to that of Mainstream society, could adapt their style for use with those adults who used longer pause-times.  In this regard, many of the children  were quite bidialectal. Among adults, the need for veriFication of attention by nodding or "mm-hm" seemed to be slightly, but not markedly, different from the Mainstream society. Some Elders seemed to assume the other person was attending, and thus veriFication was unnecessary.  A t the other end of the continuum the following  50  examples point out the speakers' need for verification of attention.* Example 1: A t home Present: Mother, Child (6 years),  researcher  Mother: Every time I buy a teapot . . . a teapot? (waits for nod) it means, ah, somebody's comin' along, X have a baby. Researcher": Oh really // huh Mother: It always does that, all the time In this case, the mother waited for verification three times before continuing. Example 2: A t home, child tells story about a friend at a gas station Present: Much extended family, Mother and child (4 years) Child: Y o u know // M a Mother: H m Child: That X was at Mohawk . . . Jesse lost it there, X over there Mother: H m Child: Probably kept it in his pocket X Mother: H m Child: Then went home X X at Mohawk Mother: H m m . . . * Whenever possible, excerpts from transcripts of taped interaction will be used to substantiate the findings of the study. In order to facilitate comprehension of these transcripts, the reader should note the following symbols and abbreviations. X: unintelligible word UI sentence: unintelligible sentence UI section: unintelligible section (time given if necessary) . . . short pause // interruption. The following speaker's utterance began at this point. t ] word substituted to clarify meaning or to protect anonymity { more than one speaker at one time In addition, the tape number, the side (A or B), and the counter number, as on a S O N Y BM-46 transcriber will be provided at the end of each example.  51  Here, the mother verifies attention regularty, but doesn't interrupt the child's narration.  Eye  Contact  Mainstream culture uses eye contact as a way of expressing interest and respect.  In this Native Community most of the members followed this system.  However, for some older members maintaining direct eye contact appeared to be difficult.  During a conversation with one Elder who worked in the school system,  the stress of maintaining eye contact showed clearly.  This Elder would maintain  contact for a time, then look away, then maintain contact again.  Of the younger  adults observed, some who followed more traditional Indian ways, also tended to avert their gaze.  Thus, as was mentioned above, eye contact behaviour can again  be described according to two continua:  Older adapt eye c o n t a c t t o p a r t i c i p a n t s , but tend t o m a i n t a i n c o n t a c t f o r s h o r t e r p e r i o d s than Mainstream people  Traditional r e s p e c t shown by lowered eyes  Mainstream r e s p e c t and i n t e r e s t shown by m a i n t a i n i n g eye c o n t a c t  Younger adapt eye c o n t a c t t o p a r t i c i p a n t s , but tend t o m a i n t a i n eye c o n t a c t  52  These findings suggest that in this community children are becoming to some degree both bidialectal and assimilated.  Deriving the balance between these two  processes is beyond the scope of this thesis.  However, it appeared that in the  four communication areas described above, this community was very much a community in transition.  Speech and Nonspeech Situations  Introduction  A s within Mainstream society, the situation (i.e. the physical and psychological setting) was found to be an important factor affecting the use of speech.  For example, a boy who was quiet in the classroom, was clearly the  leader when a small group was trying to complete a jigsaw puzzle in another room.  In his home, he interacted freely and often with his siblings and with the  researcher.  In another home, a mother described her adult daughter as "shy."  Although this daughter did not interact with the researcher at all, she was very involved in talk and joking with the extended family.  A t the nursery school, the  children who rarely attended and were therefore in an unfamiliar environment spent much more time just quietly watching than those who were familiar with the setting.  The researcher noted that people's behaviour at social events was different  from their behaviour in the home. discussed below.  These speech and nonspeech situations are  53  Factors Influencing the Appropriateness of Speech  In many of the situations observed in this study, community members participated in a variety of verbal interactions, many of which were quite lively. It appeared, though, that the rules for when one talked and when one was silent were different from those of Mainstream society. These rules seemed to be governed more by the participants involved than by the setting.  In determining quantity of speech, who a person was talking to  was important.  Observation revealed two factors which were involved in  determining whether speech was appropriate. 1.  Degree of Intimacy  2.  Age of Participants  These were:  These two factors are, of course, also important in determining Mainstream usage. However, in this Native community, it appeared that the outcomes derived from these factors were different from those in Mainstream society. The  participants' degree of intimacy was important.  friends, talk was plentiful.  However, among strangers,  Among family and close  talk was scarce.  This  seems somewhat reversed from what the Scollons (1981) describe as the Mainstream pattern of talking to get to know someone. The  This will be discussed in detail below.  relative ages of the participants also appeared slightly more significant  in this community than in the Mainstream society. be plentiful.  Talk among peers seemed to  However, in interactions between young people and older people,  especially Elders, the younger person was often expected to be quiet and listen. Possible explanations of this tendency will be discussed below.  54  Speech Situations Adults.  Mitchell (1974), in describing traditional Northwest Indian culture,  describes two main uses of speech: There was a time for talking--for having fun with language, for plays on words and for puns, riddles and jokes, for storytelling, and for sharing experiences and ideas in that kind of easy, everyday conversation that exists everywhere among family and good friends. Words were used, too, for political and ceremonial occasions--for decision-making, for planning group activities, and for potlatching. (Mitchell, 1974, p. 165) The researcher had no access to political or ceremonial occasions.  She did,  however, observe many situations in which people caught up on local news and learned about who was doing what. talk was plentiful.  In homes and at community social events,  The topics discussed were often of a very personal nature, such  as who's having a baby when (1A, 199), who's sick, who's getting married.  Local  political events, and local politicians were also favourite topics. Adolescents also participated in this social talk about community Example 3: Evening Study Group Present: Researcher, Home-School Coordinator, approximately 10 students in grades 4-7. Students speaking are 10-13 years old. S I : [Name 1] didn't come up? S2: He didn't come last time either S i : I know S3: How did you get up, [name 2] S I : Bus . . . M a S2: Don't you live right there?  (across street)  S4: No, she moved down behind the Plaza S2: Oh, X X  members.  55  S4: Mm-hm . . . M a , save some S i : How come [name 1] didn't come S3: He wasn't allowed S i : He wasn't allowed to? Counsellor: No if  S4: He said, he's, I phoned there, and he said he's coming up . . . (hurts finger) Ouch! S i : Wonder if he got into trouble S4: Mm-hm (10A, 182) This type of conversation occurred often.  When among members of this community  (insiders), people talked a lot about themselves and each other.  In the home,  family members also talked about their day to day experiences. Example 4: A t home Present: Mother, daughter dress she's borrowed.  (13 years), researcher.  Daughter shows a  Researcher: Is there a special occasion coming up? Mother: She's gotta go to a funeral tomorrow Researcher: Oh no (4 second pause) Daughter: Did Gran go up there tonight? Mother: Y a . . . I caught her just, uh, when she was go, to go get diapers, at 4:00? She was ready to go then. So she took me down there first Daughter: Oh, she take X with her? Mother: Yah? Daughter: Except for her mom . . . [name] came walkin' in, she was down at the mall? She's walkin' like this, what, what, she says "did you get a haircut?" It, I went like that and it just stayed like that (26A, 082)  56  Children.  Verbal interaction amongst the children was plentiful.  While  playing, the children used language for a wide variety of functions, such as solving problems, threatening,  tattle-taling, teasing, negotiating, playing with words,  pretending, bragging.  A detailed discussion of the quantity and variety of language  use appears in the Appendix. The children used language for a wide variety of purposes and in a wide variety of situations.  With peers and siblings, verbal interaction was plentiful.  With parents, and older relatives, participation in the conversation seemed to be appropriate.  Quantity of Talk  One older woman spoke with the researcher about how uncomfortable it was to have non-Natives in her home: "I always feel like I have to talk all the time." This discomfort suggests that, at least in some situations, this community's norms for quantity of talk differ from the Mainstream society's. In this community, many members unless you have something to say." grandfather  appeared to follow the rule "Don't talk  For example, during one home visit, the  needed the grandson to change a cassette.  the child's name.  He needed only one word,  One day at the nursery school, a girl handed the bus driver a  brooch without saying a word.  The bus driver said "It's a brooch but it's broken"  and handed it back. In both these examples, the parties concerned knew what was required. Words were not necessary. and "ahs" over gifts.  A t the Band Christmas party there were few "oohs"  Throughout the community, directions to children were more  57  often given in the imperative form than by use of "would you like to" or other hidden directives frequently used by Mainstream society. Parents didn't seem to feel the need for constant verbal interaction with their children. volume.  "Baby talk" was present, but tended to be lower in pitch and  Some mothers talked extensively to their babies; some seemed to feel that  it shouldn't be overdone.  For example, one mother once warned the  who was playing with the baby "you'll spoil him like that."  researcher  Affection was shown  to the children frequently, but more often through touch than through words.  The  following example is clearly an exception: Example 5: A t the park, children playing on the swings Present: Researcher, Mother, Child 1 (4 years), Child 2 (18 months) C l : Love you Mom Mother: I love you, my son C2: (mumbles) Mother: He's saying "I love you, [name 1]" C l : I love you [name 2] This "don't talk unless you have something to say" rule aids in understanding why many Mainstream people have retained the stereotype of the silent Indian, a stereotype which is not valid when one examines social talk among intimates.  58  Degree of Intimacy  The above-mentioned discomfort around Mainstream people is also related to the way people get to know new people. know each other by talking.  In Mainstream culture, people get to  The initial contact is through "small talk."  A t social  gatherings one is obligated to "mingle," making verbal contact with a wide variety of people and talking about trivial topics. However, in this Native community, a different procedure was often followed. Many, but not all, community members preferred to get to know someone, and then to talk.  Being near someone did not seem to obligate speech.  A t the Drop-In  Centre one day, the researcher sat across the table from one mother for twenty minutes before the mother spoke to her.  On another day, the researcher gave one  of the teacher aides a ride to the store.  The aide, who had been quite talkative  in the classroom, seemed to feel no need to make small-talk.  This  watch-before-speaking pattern appeared among many adults in the community. Another example not involving the researcher  took place at the Drop-In Centre.  One mother, who didn't know anyone else there, quietly sat on the side, observing. When she was ready, and had something to say, she joined in.  In general, most  pre-school children skipped this stage entirely, and got down to the business of playing with each other. This "get to know someone before talking" rule was not followed by all community members.  Some, especially those whose jobs required regular contact  with the Mainstream culture, would make introductions and try to initiate some conversation.  However, these people also appeared to be bidialectal, willing to leave  people alone if the small talk caused discomfort.  59  Respect for Elders  There were certain situations in which the children were expected to sit and listen quietly.  Although the researcher could not observe at formal events such as  Longhouse functions or Band meetings, the role of children was described by one well respected older woman.  A t these formal events adult Band members have the  right to speak, but the role of children is to listen.  Elders say "Listen now.  You'll get your turn when you're an Elder." t A t one parent-teacher  meeting that was observed, an Elder spoke.  The  teenagers and children, who had been talking and joking amongst themselves, stopped to listen respectfully.  This is one example of the importance of age in  determining whether speech is appropriate. The researcher observed several communicative behaviours which this community's respect for Elders.  demonstrated  For example, at the nursery school Christmas  party, one woman Elder was seated in a very congested area. Elder: A m I in the way? Teacher: Oh no, stay there, you're not in the way, we'll walk around you. It appeared that it would not have been appropriate to ask this Elder to move. This hypothesis gained further support when the researcher realized that this Elder happened to be sitting in the chair that had been designated for Santa Claus. Rather than asking her to move, the teachers found a different chair for Santa.  t It appeared that Elders held a special status in terms of sociolinguistic rules, especially those regarding monologue and performance. However, limited access to data precludes specific comment here.  60  The quality of voice used by older people was described above as often being lower in pitch, with a flatter intonation.  Within the community, the  researcher  found that this quality of voice seemed to require attention, to assume respect. explanation for the power of this voice quality was  No  apparent.  Interruptions  The value "respect your elders" also applies to other adults and to parents. One example of this is the use of interruptions.  The following example shows that  children interrupt each other regularly. Setting: Nursery School, Free Play time P a r t i c i p a n t s : Three four-year-olds ( C l , C2, C3) C l : We have a Santa Claus colouring book and Santa // C2: M y mom // C3: You know what // C2: buyed one of those Santa Claus C?: see // C?: He wants to give you one. want. C2: You know my mom?  He writes a note // whatever you  Y o u know my mom?  This does not appear significant in its own right. interrupt each other.  Mainstream children also  What the researcher found surprising was that except in the  case of physical emergencies, children seldom interrupted adults. did a child break in on an adult conversation.  In very few cases  61  Topic Control  In many situations with intimates,  a child was permitted  topic chosen by adults, but was rarely permitted  to join in on a  to determine the topic.  For  example, in one family, the mother was clearly in charge of topic choice.  The  child (6 years) would occasionally start talking about his toys, and this would be totally ignored.  However, when he joined our topic the mother accepted his  participation. E x a m p l e 6: A t home Participants:  Mother, Child, Researcher  Mother: Got a cassette tape of a wrestler . . . singing . . . and it's by, I don't know what's his name but he sings Cara mia. It sounds . . . ah, okay Child: Mean it sounds like Roddy Piper? Mother: Y a h , I think that's him. Child: He's a bad guy, Roddy Piper Mother: When he's  trying to sing . . . (etc.)  This is not to say that children are discouraged example, one three-year-old  girl participated  (2 IB,  250)  from speaking in the homes.  in a conversation  about births:  E x a m p l e 7: A t home Participants:  Mother, Child, Researcher  Child: You remember I was a little baby? Mother: Mm-hm. Child: Y a . . .  I remember when you were in my (to researcher) I was in Mommy's  Mother: I remember the first day she kicked.  tummy.  tummy.  July 13th, '81.  For  62  Absence of "why challenges"  Another communication behaviour which seemed to reflect the value "respect your elders," was a relative absence of challenges to adults' opinions.  The  following two examples of "why" questions were very unusual coming from Native children: E x a m p l e 8: Nursery School, child accused of eating another student's lunch. Present: Two teachers, child, researcher  (other children in room)  Teacher: . . . Don't eat it // yet Child: Why?  Teacher: Well you gotta wait.  E x a m p l e 9: Kindergarten, circle time Present: Several children, Mainstream teacher,  researcher.  Child: Why you have the elastic on here? Teacher: Because, ah, the elastic shows you that that's the story of the Three Bears. (looking) Somebody moved the elastic, 'cause there's lots of stories in here, and so you wouldn't have to go looking through, for the Three Bears, I put elastic there. Because, see, the story starts on that page and finishes on that page. You don't have to turn any of the other pages, 'kay? In the next example, the child (6 years) made a comment to his mother which was construed as questioning her judgement.  After a look from mother, this  child used humour to lighten the situation, claiming his three month old brother made the statement: Mother: (to researcher) Do you have a car here? Researcher: Y a  63  Mother: X X bring me up to the Band and then we can walk up to [the school] Researcher: Sure, sure . . . when do you have to go? Mother: Oh . . . probably quarter to Child: 2:30 (adults look at child) I never said that. (adults laugh)  (rising intonation)  Mother: You never said // you didn't Researcher: Who said that! Child: Brandon!  He said that  Researcher: Brandon said 2:30 (laughter) (to Brandon) I don't believe you . . . The  above discussion is not intended to paint an idealized picture of child-rearing in  this community.  A s in all cultures, it takes time for children to learn the rules.  And for each family, the rules were slightly different.  However, most children in  this community learned the concept "respect elders" at a very early age.  Respect for the Individual: Obligations and Face  Several members of this community suggested that in this community, people seemed to value the right of the individual to do what he or she thought best for himself or herself.  People seemed to be valued more as people, and less in terms  of what they had done.  In general, it appeared rude to obligate someone to do  something he didn't want to do, and especially rude to put someone in the position where he'd have to refuse.  64  Introductions  One communicative behaviour which may reflect this value is the relative lack of introductions.  In Mainstream society, one is obligated to introduce two  strangers, and then those people are obligated to talk to each other.  In this  community most adults, except for those who regularly worked in Mainstream society, rarely introduced newcomers.  Thus the embarrassment of having to talk to  someone who doesn't want to talk, is avoided. The following example took place in a home, when the mother's sister-in-law arrived.  The researcher, after  70 seconds, felt obligated to introduce herself, but it  wasn't until much later that any real interaction happened.  A t that time, the  sister-in-law introduced herself.  Example 10 P a r t i c i p a n t s : Mother (M), three children ( C l , C2, C3), Sister-in-law (SL), two more children (C5, C6), and researcher Time  (minutes:seconds)  0:00  C l : H i [name] SL: H i C l : What you got  1:10  R: H i . I'm Jo-Anne (nervous laugh). I know Carl from the Nursery School but (nervous laugh) (explains why she's there) (kids play, mothers talk occasionally)  5:04  S L : What was your name? R: Jo-Anne S L : Oh yah . . . Mine is [name] R: A n d this is [child's name]? . . . How old is // [child's  65  name] SL: 13 months (16A, 594)  Performance  The right of the individual to make his or her own decisions applied, to some extent, to children.  Children were rarely coerced into performing.  Parents  and the nursery school staff encouraged the children to talk, but little pressure placed on the child.  The Native Language class often involved  was  one-at-a-time  repetition, but students were permitted to "pass" if they did not wish to participate. During circle time, students were encouraged to respond to roll call and games, but lack of participation did not bring rebuke. E x a m p l e 11: Circle time, singing "Hello to [name]" Present: Teacher, children, researcher A l l : Hello to you (3 times), Hello (teacher points to C l ) Teacher: Dear [name 1] C l : No, not me! T: (to researcher) oh yah, she always gets mad when you do that (Song goes around circle and comes back to C l , most children sing and clap) C2: [name 1] T: Shall we try [name 1] again? C l : Nooo T: We gotta sing your name, it's beautiful Cl:  (whimpers) I don't want one  T: Why  66  Cl:  (whimper)  T: Better not then (3A, 190) During this incident, the teacher's tone of voice was positive, not negative.  The  researcher observed several other situations when "passing" would have caused even less fuss. Even though many children followed the "don't talk unless you have something to say" rule, the encouragement to talk sometimes brought out long stories. E x a m p l e 12: Nursery school, free time, after one girl had a nosebleed P a r t i c i p a n t s : Teacher, Child 1 C l : Mine isn't bleeding T: Mine's not bleeding, it's running C l : Y o u know what, I don't X , I don't, when it's summertime, um, when it's wintertime I don't have no short, shorts . . . If I had . . . um, shorts on and . . . and me and my mom would go at the beach and I get X X X gonna swim in the water? And I think I would walk and I . . . would . . . fall on my knees in the water. But I don't, I didn't, not summer yet // I don't got no blood. T: Oh no, it's // winter.  Y o u got no blood?  C l : Blood T: How come you got no blood? C l : X fall on my knees  Pulling Strings  In Mainstream society the expression "it's not what you know, it's who you know" reflects a way of life in which one person has the right to obligate another  67  to perform an action.  "Pulling strings," using one person to get at another person,  is an integral part of our political and economic system.  However, in this Native  community, "pulling strings" in the sense of using one person to meet another, rare, and appeared to be considered rude. experience of the  was  The best example of this is the  researcher.  One method commonly used by ethnographers will make more contacts, etc.  is to make contacts who then  This technique did not work well in this community.  Most Native people, even those who seemed really to trust the researcher, were not willing to risk their relationships by asking friends and relatives to get involved. Instead the researcher was expected to approach people directly, although sometimes Mainstream people working for the Band became involved as intermediaries.  Such  intermediary behaviour also occurred when a Native person suggested that her sister might like to get involved in this research project and expressed a willingness to make the initial contact.  (23A, 306)  Requesting Assistance  In this community, especially among adults, the norms for when one may ask another for help appeared to be different from those of Mainstream society. One day, after the researcher had visited the nursery school several times, one of the teachers asked her to help move a table.  A t this point the researcher felt the  behaviour was different, and realized that up to that point, she had never been asked for assistance.  More observation showed that at meetings and large social  events, one person rarely asked another to do something.  A t first, the  researcher  thought that this might be related to the concept of "right of the individual," not  68  wanting to obligate a person to perform an action. However, in the home, family members often asked each other to do things: "Bring me a Pampers, would you, son?," or "Pass me that book," or "Can you take me to  ?"  Example 13: A t home Participants: Mother (M), Researcher (R) M:  (sigh) Oh boy, i t l l be really hard to move.  (laughs)  R: Y o u have lots of friends with trucks you can use? M : A a h , I hope we can . . . take that big Band truck. R: Oh, I didn't realize they had one. M : Mm-hm (2-second pause) take it. they say no I put my knees down.  (clowning) Can we use it? PLEEESE.  If  R: (laughs) M:  'Cause it's my cousin  R: Oh (laughs) M : Oh c'mon, do it for your cousin, 'cause he used to take him to, school // on his bike R: M m  In this regard, the degree of intimacy was an important factor.  To ask someone  for help implied trust, as both parties would feel embarrassed if the request was refused.  This may also be influenced by socioeconomic status.  In the following examples from homes, the mothers requested  transportation.  In the first example, the mother appeared to be experiencing some discomfort, which rapidly disappeared when the request was answered positively.  69  E x a m p l e 14: A t home 1 P a r t i c i p a n t s : Mother (M), Researcher (R), Child (3 yrs) M : Do you think, uh, you could run me down to Buy-Low and back? R: Buy-Low?  Sure.  M : (to child) What you lookih' for [name]? E x a m p l e 15: A t home 2 P a r t i c i p a n t s : Mother (M), Researcher (R), Child (6 yrs) M : Do you have a car here? R: Y a M : X X bring me up to the Band and then we can walk up to [the school] It is possible that the first question, "Do you have a car?" may have been a way of checking the researcher's response without losing face, as it is unlikely that the researcher could have arrived without a car. If this description of this speech function is accurate, the rules in this Native community differ from Mainstream society where children are trained to "Go ask.  A l l they can say is 'no'," implying that it's better to try and be refused  than not to try.  It is conceivable that in this regard Mainstream teachers might  well be regularly asking students to do something which is counter to the  student's  cultural norms.  Children: Degree of Independence  Within a culture there is likely to be considerable variability in the degree of independence deemed appropriate for a child.  In Mainstream culture some  70  families will actively train preschool children to make their own decisions.  In other  families, children have few opportunities to make decisions until they are in their teens. In the Native community observed in this study many, but not all, families trained their children to be more independent at an earlier age than would occur in Mainstream society.  A s one woman said, "our children run freer here."  Children  rarely expected to be entertained by adults; rather they would go off and play by themselves. lunch.  A t one home, the six-year-old was responsible for getting his own  A t another home, the mother discussed enrolling the child in nursery school  "when he's ready" (not when the authorities say is appropriate).  One  three-year-old regularly walked from her home to the Band Office in order to play with the other children.  The mother mentioned previously warned the  against pampering her three-month-old: "You'll spoil him like that." school three-year-olds were totally responsible for their own toileting.  researcher  A t the nursery The example  below shows one boy explaining to another why he can't do an activity at the moment. E x a m p l e 16: Nursery school (3-year-olds) C l : I'm going to bafroom first [name].  I go pee.  (10, 090)  In the following example the discouragement of tattle-taling seemed to be approached from the position "it's your responsibility not to hear dirty words" E x a m p l e 17: Nursery school P a r t i c i p a n t s : Teacher, Child 1 C l : Teacher . . . [name 2] sweared T: Don't listen to him Cl:  Okay  71  However, not all families emphasized this independence.  A t the nursery  school Christmas party, three or four children clung to their parents and relatives. One day a mother helped out at the nursery school, and brought her 18-month-old, who was still called "baby." E x a m p l e 18: Nursery school P a r t i c i p a n t s : Mother, Child 1 (4 yrs), Child 2 (18 months) M : Baby, no . . . (to other son) sit down, and drink that juice, you know you're not supposed to stand up X X X ( C l clings to mother who wants to chase C2) I'm just going to be over there with baby. (2B, 084) Some mothers were observed hovering over children, trying to prevent difficulties. being asked. (2A, 696).  A t an Easter party, two mothers repeatedly performed services before On another occasion, a mother offered "anyone else need help?" However, it seemed that most children did not assume that adults  were there just to help them.  The researcher once observed a four-year-old sit for  fifteen minutes in front of an orange she couldn't peel herself. asked for help and got it.  Eventually she  Many of the children seemed to follow a rule "ask for  what you want or be happy without it." E x a m p l e 19: In playground.  C l (4 yrs) approached researcher  C l : Will you push me on the swing?  (4B, 210)  In many cases, if a child could not have what he or she wanted, he or she accepted the fact quickly, and carried on.  This promotion of an accepting attitude  seemed to be a conscious decision on behalf of many parents, and by the nursery school teachers, one of whom explained, "The kids whine in September, but it doesn't get them anywhere."  Of the six families visited, only one child was  observed using whining to manipulate.  72  E x a m p l e 20: A t home. find it.  C l has lost a ball and wants an adult to  P a r t i c i p a n t s : C l (two yrs), Mother, Researcher C l : Where the, where it is?  (Looks a little) U m  R: Look under the cupboard C l : Where it is! R: Over here. C l : No.  The cupboard?  Where?  I think it's under here  I don't know where it is, I missed it  R: I don't know C l : Where what it is (mother arrives), where what it is, mommy. M : What C l : Where what it is M : Y o u U have to look for it C l : Where what it is, I missed it . . . Where X it is.  What it is  R: I don't know, you'll have to lok C l : Well X X R: Go down on the floor, see what you can find (etc.)  (24B, 865)  Most children rarely cried as a means to get what they wanted.  They  were observed crjdng because they were injured, and adults would give them a hug.  One girl began to cry when a boy kissed her. It should be noted that the researcher observed in only six homes, and that  among those six homes, there was considerable variation in the level of independence deemed appropriate for children.  The following continua compare  norms in this Native community with norms in Mainstream society:  73  Mainstream Families  I  Native Families  I  Dependence  I I Independence  The Importance of Family  Although the nuclear family (mother, father and children) is standard in North American Mainstream society, in this community the concept of the extended family seemed to be alive and well.  In terms of housing practice, the nuclear  family seemed to be the basic unit, but relatives visited each other often, and children often made extended visits to grandparents,  or aunts and uncles.  The  children were accustomed to having several different adults present from whom they could request attention or affection.  This may be the reason for the children's  rapid acceptance of the researcher as part of the normal scene. The researcher's importance of family.  observations at a local hockey game emphasized the It seemed to the researcher very strange that all the Native  people were all sitting in one section, off to the side.  However, this seemed very  logical, once she realized that almost everyone in that section was related, thus making a fifty-person family. Several communication behaviours seem related to the valuing of the family. People often related to others in terms of the family.  For example, on a walk  with some members of the Native Education team, one younger woman asked an older one "who was your mother?," and "who was your grandmother?"  In this  context the questions seemed a very normal way of relating to another human  74  being, but it is the opinion of the researcher that these questions would not have appeared in Mainstream society. In the following example, the students relate time and history to their family life. E x a m p l e 21: Study Group, looking at a picture of a lacrosse team Participants: 3 elementary students (SI, S2, S3), Researcher (R) S i : Lookit the old team. hair.  (pause) Looks like everybody had the  same  S2: How old was Sonny, do you know? S i : Oh yeah, Sonny would probably be about four or five years old. Or not even-how old is Sonny? S3: U I sentence S i : One two (mumbling) . . . something like that. S i : M y mom must have gone here. S3: M y mom did.  (pause) When was this a school?  Do you know?  S I : When my dad was here it was S3: How old is he now? S I : Thirty-two S2: Y a h , when Jackie was born, my sister, she came to this school. S i : So did my dad, and they had to wear these leather tie things. S2: 'Cause Jackie's grade 5 right now. S I : M y mom's twenty-nine S2: M y mom's thirty-three R: How old am I? S I : Thirty  75  R: Right on S I : You are? R: Yeah S2: M y mom's thirty-six S i : M y mom . . . S3: No, she'd be thirty-four S2: M y mom  . . .  S i : M y real dad is twenty-eight S3: Really?  (pause) M y mom is (pause) fifty-two, or fifty-three.  S I : Fifty-three, [-] S2: Shoot, my grandmother's  forty-nine  S3: M y dad is thirty-five S i : M y great grandfather's  ninety-one  Topic Choice  In the situations observed in this study the most common topic of conversation (by far) was the family.  During one 3 1/2 hour visit, at least  two-thirds of the conversation revolved around the extended family.  On many  different occasions one of the first questions asked of the researcher was "you got kids?"  In addition, the topics chosen were often more personal than would have  been possible in Mainstream society.  The researcher  heard about various  pregnancies, personal histories, difficulties with children and other very personal, family-oriented subjects.  This very personal topic choice appears to relate to  generalizations mentioned earlier.  It may be that, since the small-talk stage is  76  often avoided by community members, when talk does occur, it has real substance. Or, it may be that once one has been invited into the home, one has made a major leap in degree of intimacy, thus making personal topics acceptable.  The  researcher was unable to determine whether either of these explanations was accurate. In this small Native community, families were involved together in a wider i  variety of activities than would occur in Mainstream society.  Children seemed to  attend a very wide range of functions, from funerals to Band meetings, and there appeared to be less distinction between places adults could go, and places children could go. present.  Related to this, more topics were suitable for use when children were For example, in Mainstream homes and schools, it is not unusual to hear  two adults end a conversation abruptly with a comment such as "oh, the kids are here."  The researcher did not observe this tendency in the Native community.  However, it must be noted that not all subjects are appropriate for children, and various parents use various rules.  In this regard, there was considerable variation.  However, the Elder's comment, we "talk to our kids like they were grown-ups," seemed to be valid.  Naming  The rules regarding names and titles differed from Mainstream society, and in this area, there seemed to be little variation among community members. Except for two staff members at the nursery school, who were concerned about preparing children for school, the titles " M r . , " "Miss," " M r s . " were never used, although teachers were referred to by role (i.e. "Teacher").  A person was generally  77  referred to by his or her first name, unless the surname was required to distinguish him or her from someone else.  To show respect a term such as  "uncle" or "auntie" might be used, even by non-relatives.  For example, one  ninety-year-old Elder was known as "Uncle" by all Band members and even some Mainstream people. The use of family terms as names was quite prevalent. demonstrated the use of "my son" rather than the child's name.  Example 5 Siblings  sometimes used "brother" or "sister" to refer to each other, as in "Sorry, brother," or "sister's home."  One rather formal speech by an elder seemed to use the term  "cousin" as almost synonymous with "person." There seemed to be extensive use of nicknames for children, although many of these nicknames seemed confined to home use.  The choice of nickname varied  widely, and the researcher heard many different nicknames such as Newley, Junior, Animal, Chip and Dale (brothers), and Chubb-chubb.  Drawing Attention to Oneself  In the situations observed in this study, it appeared that many community members followed a rule "avoid attracting attention to yourself." wide variety of behaviours in this regard.  Certainly some children did "show off,"  and some adults clearly took leadership roles. make speeches  at many public functions.  There was a  Certainly, Elders were expected to  However, except for Elders, there was a  tendency for community members to try to do what they had to do as unobtrusively as possible.  78  The researcher observed several Native children in the role of "special person" at the kindergarten level.  It appeared that for many of them, this  singling out caused some discomfort.  Nonetheless, when "sharing time" arrived,  most of the children wanted to take part.  Greetings  A t large group events, people entering the room never announced their presence with a public statement like "Hello, everybody."  Rather, the greeting  would be unobtrusive and nonverbal, often a nod or a subtle wave to those with whom one made eye contact.  As one lady explained:  When you walk into a place you don't know what's been happening, so you don't say anything. Then when you figure out what's going on, you join in. It should be noted that in school situations, the rules for greeting were different again, but no pattern could be ascertained by the  researcher.  Farewells  Farewells seemed similar, but not identical.  Again, interrupting the  proceedings with a "Goodbye everybody" was inappropriate. especially, the leave-taking process was a fairly lengthy one.  However, for adults Rather than  disturbing the whole group, friends and relatives were often spoken to quietly and either individually or in small groups. part of this process.  Social talk and joking was often a regular  79  Children seemed to be in the process of learning this system. their immediate family, they would sometimes just leave the room. they would get hugs from various aunts and cousins. was quite similar to the adult system.  If not with A t other times  For adolescents, the process  For example, after study group, the  students would often still be hanging around twenty minutes after the tutor  started  packing things away.  Showing Off  The  tolerance for children "showing off" varied from family to family,  although much of the community discouraged this behaviour.  In one home, a  three-year-old put on quite a performance, imitating his mother, even "talking back." However, in another home, the three-year-old's "watch me" was actively ignored in most situations.  One mother handled the issue by allotting a specific time for  showing off. E x a m p l e 22: A t home, watching cartoons P a r t i c i p a n t s : Mother, Researcher, Child 1 (8 yrs), Child 2 (4 yrs), Child 3 (18 months) M : When this first comes on, first starts, I usually tell them (yawn) Excuse me please, I usually tell them "C'mon show off now," and they scream and they roll themselves around R: Oh really (laugh), Oh, that's neat M : Show off baby? C3: X X M : No? Cl:  See you (family waves goodby to cartoons)  80  Praise  Many of the mothers gave verbal praise to the children, such as "good boy, my son," or "good for you."  Especially with younger children, it was  for mothers, aunts and grandmothers completion of a puzzle.  acceptable  to comment on behaviour, art work,  However, in many situations the praise was usually spoken  directly to the child, rather than interrupting the group's activities to make a statement. A t the nursery school, the teachers and aides regularly praised the children's work with "Good," "Excellent," "Oh, nice picture."  The teachers were not quiet in  their praise, anyone nearby could hear it, but again, it was directed at the child. The researcher  observed no evidence of the Mainstream tendency to make  statements such as "Look, everybody, look what Johnny did!" The Band does give official recognition for good work.  There has been a  "mother of the year" award, and the Native Education team is instituting a set of awards and scholarships.  Dinners are given to thank Band counsellors, and staff  who are retiring.  Taking Oneself Seriously  In the course of setting up the study, one Mainstream educator the following statement to the researcher: group.  addressed  "You should get along fine with this  You have a nice manner--you don't come on as if you know everything"  (quote reconstructed from notes).  On several occasions during the study, several  adults made somewhat disparaging comments about people-both Mainstream and  81  Native, who had too high an opinion of themselves.  It seemed that many people  in the community observed the rule "Don't take yourself too seriously." It was not unusual for people in a position of authority to make fun of themselves. Example 23: Nursery school Christmas party. throw a temper tantrum. Tl:  (to group) I learned that from them (stomps  Example 24: Nursery school Christmas party. several songs to Santa.  Teacher 1 pretends to feet) Children had sung  T2: How Tjout Jingle Bells a couple more times 'cause we been practising for a month (much laughter) In the following example, the mother made fun of herself while refusing to give her child a taste of coffee. Example 25: A t home Participants: Mother, Child, Researcher M : Go play // Stunt your growth C: I play X ? M : Look what it did to me R: (chuckles) She would've been twelve feet tall i f she hadn't drunk coffee C: Again?  I drink again.  Family members and other intimates often teased each other.  Perhaps this  was one way to emphasize to children that no-one should think too highly of oneself.  The following example took place in a home, with an adult daughter  teasing an adult relative.  Example 26: Participants: Adult daughter  (AD), Female Relative (FR), Mother (M)  82  A D : I guess you can get used to, eating white bread now. won't ever have to eat whole wheat bread again  You  FR: Right A D : X that you're not babysitting. own bread 'cause she didn't . . .  She just went and bought her  The only type of teasing observed by the researcher was this good-natured joking among intimates. Tootoosis (1983), working with Cree people, suggests that there may be a cultural tendency to lighten the mood at an event.  Perhaps the tendency of people  in authority to make fun of themselves is an example of this tendency.  In this  community, there were formal situations, such as speeches by Elders, where it was appropriate to "be serious" for an extended period.  However, at the meetings and  social events observed during the course of this study, the people in charge appeared to work under the assumption that the presence of laughter was a major sign that things were going well.  The researcher did note, however, that one  woman thought this behaviour was negative:  Example 27: Us Indians aren't serious. Sometimes we act silly in class . . . [our supervisor] has to say [name 1]!, or [name 2]! I guess if we act like kids, she has to treat us like kids. It's a bad habit we have.  High Context Society  Hall (1984) has described cultures as being either "low-context" or "high-context." business."  Low-context cultures tend to act on set procedures, "getting down to  High-context cultures tend to realize that it takes time to develop  relationships.  He describes North American Mainstream culture as being  83  "low-context," that is, as focusing more on a pre-set agenda, plan or task, than on the people present or the events occurring at the moment.  rather  In this regard,  the community observed might be placed in the middle of a high-context-low-context continuum, thus being considerably more context-dependent  Mainstream  I  than Mainstream society.  Squamish Community  I  I  Low Context  High Context  Behaviour determined by pre-set plan  Behaviour determined by immediate surroundings  The researcher observed several examples of this tendency.  When a death  occurred in the community, day-to-day business and special events were often postponed, so that Band members could attend the funeral. families were not at home when home visits were scheduled.  On several occasions It took the  researcher some time to understand that this was not because she was unwelcome, but because family obligations suddenly required the family to be elsewhere.  Organization of Events  Example 27, above, demonstrates  a tendency for most community members  to behave as though relating to immediate surroundings (especially people) was at least as important as relating to a pre-set task.  This was occasionally frustrating  for Mainstream people, as to them it would appear that "nothing was happening." Many Native people felt that the Mainstream definition of "meeting" was not desirable.  In the following example two Native teachers discuss an upcoming  84  workshop for parents. E x a m p l e 28: Nursery school, T2 has been commenting on a child's poor behaviour Participants: Two teachers, child T2: (to child) I'll tell you, when we have our workshop, you're not gonna be there T l : Huh? . . .  I thought it was just on, ah . . . books  T2: They said it was a workshop, our parents are gonna paste and //  T l : Oh, they didn't tell me, they just told me language . . . The lady was comin' in to speak on language. T2: Maybe, I don't know, but I thought that, it, workshop X X X parents would be able to participate, to get like a workshop T l : No, I just heard that they were gonna . . . they were gonna sit there and listen T2: Well, well, um, we don't want it to be a meeting T l : Well that's what, ah, Peg was telling me T2: Parents find out it's some kinda meeting they won't stay. won't even come - X make it fun.  They  It seemed that at meetings the business at hand was accomplished. However, the Mainstream emphasis on discussing set agenda was absent.  A t the  meetings observed, the task was usually accomplished, but in a different way.  One  of those differences was that a longer period for socializing was built into the meeting times. Both the social events and meetings observed seemed to be organized 'like a bell."  One woman explained that she had been told to organize meetings like a  bell curve, "with the meat in the middle, so that you can account for late arrivers and early leavers."  85  Many of the events observed were organized this way.  A t the Band  Christmas party people arrived gradually, and talked extensively with their It was 45 minutes before the organized activities began.  friends.  There was no concrete  ending; people left gradually when their children had received their gifts. A t one meeting that was for educators,  high school students, and parents, no  organized activity took place for over thirty minutes. talked.  People arrived gradually, and  There was then an attempt by a Mainstream teacher to animate  discussion, followed by a speech by an Elder, and more discussion. was no real end to the organized activity.  a  Again, there  Rather, the discussion gradually turned  into coffee and socializing, and people left quite gradually. It should be noted that the researcher had no opportunity to observe meetings of political or economic natures, nor was she able to observe at traditional cultural events.  This bell-curve organization may or may not apply to events other  than the fairly casual social gatherings  and school-related meetings observed in this  study.  This study has discussed the tendency of many community members  to  employ certain sociolinguistic patterns which differ from Mainstream society. Behaviour regarding volume, intonation, pause-time continua: young-old and traditional-Mainstream.  and eye contact varied along two  The importance of degree of  intimacy and age of participants in determining whether  a situation was classed as  speech or nonspeech was outlined, and the importance of value orientations in determining sociolinguistic behaviour was emphasized.  It was suggested that the  value "respect elders" was reflected in rules for interruptions, topic control and absence of "why" challenges.  Respect for the individual was discussed as a  86  possible basis for rules regarding introductions, performance, pulling strings, requesting assistance, and children's degree of independence. family was suggested as influencing topic choice, and naming.  The importance of A n avoidance of  drawing attention to oneself was described as a possible explanation of rules for greetings, farewells, showing off, praise and taking oneself seriously.  The chapter  concluded with a description of the community as more context-oriented Mainstream society, and of the organization of events.  than  87  CHAPTER V: Home-talk and School-talk  This chapter, based on observations of three mixed classrooms taught by three Mainstream teachers who were highly regarded by principals and community members, compares sociolinguistic behaviours in the home and community with those in the Mainstream classroom.  Also discussed are the behaviours evident at the  Band-operated nursery school, which appeared between home and school.  to function as an intermediate  The uses of directives and closed questions  compared, followed by a comparison of assumptions  step  are  about when to talk, specifically  regarding degree of intimacy, focus on task, and getting communicative space.  Introduction  The observation of classes taught by Mainstream teachers began after researcher had worked in the community for three months.  the  Because home and  community observation continued through the period of school observation, comparison of language use in the two environments was facilitated. It was clear that all students entering the school system had a great deal to learn about the school system's rules for communication. many basic assumptions  However, because  and language functions employed at the school were  considerably different from patterns used in some of the Native homes, it is possible that the Native students had more to learn than their Mainstream peers. In the classroom, the ways in which specific functions (such as directing, questioning, and bidding for communicative space) were accomplished, sometimes differed from the ways used in the home.  In addition, assumptions  about when  88  talk is appropriate, the  and the need for whole-group focus, often differed from those of  home. One of the goals of the nursery school program was to facilitate students'  transition from home to kindergarten.  This thesis will suggest that in many ways,  the behaviours found in the nursery school were "half-way" between those of the home and those of the school.  Thus, this goal may be being achieved.  It should be noted that in all the Mainstream classes observed, there were no instances of major breakdowns in communication. school-talk to the needs of their students.  Teachers  attempted to adapt  Observations indicated both Native and  Mainstream children were learning school-talk to some degree.  However, it became  apparent that it is difficult for teachers to break out of a communication pattern imposed by the Mainstream school system.  Directives  The purpose of a directive is to compel another to perform an action.  As  Ervin-Tripp (1977) points out, in Mainstream society this can be accomplished in many ways.  For example, if one person wants another to bring a coat he might  say any of the following: a) b) c) d) e) f)  Bring me a coat. Would you mind bringing me a coat? Would you like to bring me a coat? You'll bring me a coat, won't you? It would be nice to have a coat. It's sure cold out here.  Choice is generally governed by the status of the participants formality.  and the level of  89  A t Home  In the Native community observed, directives were more often put in the imperative form than in a more indirect manner. when addressing children.  This was especially apparent  In most of the families observed, the use of the  imperative form did not necessarily reflect displeasure. economy of speech. among families.  Rather, it is an example of  It should be again noted that there was considerable variation  In this regard, one mother operated under rules very much like  those of school-talk, while others were very different. Example 1: A t home Participants: Mother, Child (3 years) M : Y o u should go get your pants on there girl. C: X X M : [Name] get that thing there. (Baby screams) Well, don't bother her okay . . . Get your pants on. They're over there in the box . . . in the box. (16,405) A t times, a phrase that sounded curt or preemptory to the researcher's Mainstream ear, had no such negative connotation. Example 2: A t home Participants: Mother, Child (8 years) M : (holds out hand) Where the money C: Oh (gives her change) M : Thank you. (17B, 397) Example 3: A t home.  Child tells researcher  about a toy  Participants: Mother, Researcher, Child (6 years)  C: I can tell which one's a bad one this one. I know this chopper man . . . which plan he's in Mayham // and this is Bear the X X X car's new X . R: H m M : Gonna put you in the funny farm honey.  He says so much.  R: M m M : Put that book away then. Although in many families it appeared that directives were often presented a very direct way, many families made some use of more indirect methods, and one family used mainly indirect methods. Example 4: A t home Participants: Mother, Child (3 years) M : You can lay down on the couch. Example 5: A t home Participants: Mother, Child (2 years) M : [name] why don't you get your puzzle? C: What? M : Your car puzzle, X lets do your car puzzle C: What? M : Pardon?  Would you like to do that?  In many families displeasure  was shown through intonation differences  repetition, rather than through the syntactic form used. Example 6: A t home Participants: Mother, Child (15 months) M : Go sit on your chair Go sit on your chair On your chair (23, 151)  and  91 Example 7: A t home Participants: Mother, Child (4 years) M : No, No, No. No . . . Sorry, You don't hit him . . . Sorry Brother.  A t School  In school, teachers often used the imperative form for directing groups.  In  this context, it did not appear to have negative connotations. Example 8: Kindergarten Participants: Teacher, Class T: Now listen carefully. When you're Finished, clean and put your things in the garbage. I'd like you to bear book please and sit on the floor . . . and wait the people are finished and I want everyone to have book to look at. You have lots to choose from. (13A, 154)  up j'our desk go and get a till the rest of their own bear  However, the imperative form was almost never used with an individual except to note displeasure. Example 9: Kindergarten Participants: Teacher, Student T: Put your toy down . . . Put your toy down . . . and X X X  It appeared that in the Mainstream classes, as Ervin-Tripp (1977) has suggested about Mainstream society, it was considered rude to phrase a directive too directly.  One rule children had to acquire was that of turning what  to be a question (Would you like to . . . ?) into a command.  appeared  The examples below are excerpts from different classes. teacher or aide was working with a small or large group.  In each case a  The preference for  phrasing directives in indirect ways is clearly demonstrated.  Example 10: S: Me, I'm done. T A : Are you done? S: Mm-hm T A : Okay, why don't you help [name] with the sea.  Example 11: T: Okay [name] why don't you move over to this side of the table.  Example  12:  S: It's play time now I guess T A : No it's not play time X .  We need help down here with Y .  Example 13: T A : Here's another red. You can both do it. [Name] move on the other side of X so you're not X .  Example 14: T: Boys and girls, can you stand up have a nice stretch (to S i ) Would you like to get a couple of towels for X S2: I'd like to T: No that's okay, X ' s looking after it. (to group) stretch out the other way, . . . Can you jump four times?  Example 15: T: I'll fix it, just leave it . . . oh [name] knows what to do . . . [name 2] would you like to put the cards for me over there by the calendar.  93  Length of Explanation  One mother made regular attempts to explain everything to her child. length of explanation in example  16 below was unusual in the community as a  whole. Example 16: A t home Participants: Researcher, [child] throwing boxes  The  Mother, Child  around  R: Watch the box on the // stove M : [name]! Careful okay 'cause there's not things on the stove, you'll get burned . . . okay, so please don't put it up like that, we don't want you to get burned. (14B,038) However, in the school settings, explanations  were often  lengthy.  Example 17: Kindergarten Participants: Teacher, Student T: [Name] . . . this is a quiet time for you and a book, that's all, not you and a friend, you and a book. (13A,202) Example 18: Kindergarten, calendar  time  Participants: Teacher, Class T: U m [name] I don't feel very comfortable dear with you opening and closing your running shoes with your velcro 'cause your velcro makes too much noise. (another students pulls his velcro). No [name 2] that's being very disrespectful . . . I just asked [name 1] not to do that and you did it. Now you have to think of my feelings and the feelings of the rest of the children in the class. Example 19: Kindergarten Participants: Teacher, Student T: Don't put it up that high.  It's gonna fall over.  94  S: I'll watch it T: No [name]. If you want to pile blocks up, you pile those ones up. Y o u don't pile those ones up that high. I know that it's gonna end up on somebody's head, that's why we want you to pile up those ones. (6A,630) The different length of directives was especially apparent when discipline was examined.  In many, but not all, of the Native homes, behaviour was corrected in  a soft-spoken way, with few words, "Be nice, my son" or "go play outside" or "stay away from there."  Thus, the length of the rebuke printed below might have  greater impact for a Native child. E x a m p l e 20: Kindergarten, leaving circle time for gym P a r t i c i p a n t s : Teacher, Class T: (Softly) It's our early gym day today (etc.) . . . (Loudly) I didn't say go [name]. Get back here. That's exactly what I don't want you to do. Come and stand right here, you know better than that . . . you're going to have to watch everybody go nicely and then you may go last. The Mainstream teachers preferred to use more indirect forms of directives, such as "would you," "why don't you" or even "we need help." form of questions were much less common in the homes.  Directives in the  In addition, the average  length of a directive and its explanation was generally much longer in the school than in the home.  In both regards, the pattern for directives at the nursery  school appeared to be between that of the home and that of the school, although perhaps being slightly closer to the home pattern.  It should be noted that because  recording one-to-one interaction was technically difficult, these examples are mainly from group situations, situations where Mainstream teachers may use the imperative form.  Example 21: Play time T: [Name] hit the brakes over there! Example 22: Leaving T: Y o u gotta zip up . . . Where's your sweater, don't you have a sweater. Example 23: Circle Time T: [Name] get over here . . . [name 2], get over here. Example 24: Crafts Time T: Okay [name]. one.  I'm coming X X X .  You're gonna use the green  Example 25: Decorating the Christmas tree T: On, you have to get a clip from M r s . [name]. [name]. (4B,055)  Give it to M r s .  Example 26: Play time T: [Name 1] and [name 2], I don't want no fighting though. be back in here again.  Youll  Example 27: Circle Time T: Ok. Everybody sitting in a circle. [Name 1] or [name 2] go take off your boots. X X X black. C'mon, in a circle, c'mon. (4B, 540) Example 28: Circle Time T l : [Name 1], come on over here. your coats off, come on over here.  Everybody, when you've take  T2: We'll have to have a circle over here (UI sentence) T l : Come on [name 2], Hey [name 3], [name 4] X . 5]. Come on [name 6]. (6A,000)  Come on [name  Example 29: Snack Time T: Hey kids. finished.  Be cool now please.  Put your lunches away if you're  (6A,530) Example 30: Snack Time T: [Name], can you go put your lunch away please. back at the table.  A l l of you get  S I : Back at table. T: [Name]!  Would you put your lunch away, (6A.577)  please!'  Example 31: Snack Time T: Lunch kits on the floor remember! Lunch kits on the floor, remember. (To child who needs apple peeled), 111 do yours. (later) T: Aren't you going to eat your lunch? (6B,577) Although long explanations of directives were not frequently nursery  made at the  school, the teachers occasionally followed the Mainstream pattern. Example 32: Play Time, after a fight Participants: Two teachers, Child T l : Take your coat off, you're staying in and tomorrow you get the big blue bike okay. C: 'kay T l : Remind me [T2] he gets the big blue bike tomorrow. T2: 'kay T l : That's the only way I can settle it . . . (to C) Okay, stay in now. (3A.281)  97  It has been demonstrated  above that the phrasing of directives can be  different in the home and school, with many Native families preferring to use fewer words, and a direct form; Mainstream teachers preferring to use more words, and a less direct phrasing.  In the classroom, however, it was unusual to see a child  misunderstand a directive.  With regards to comprehension, the children seemed able  to function equally well in both systems. and the researcher,  However, when addressing the teacher  many children preferred to use the Native pattern.  short, direct forms may be acceptable from young children, one wonders  While whether  Mainstream adults might misinterpret this pattern and think the children who use this pattern are being slightly rude, or at least, overly taciturn.  Closed Questions  Another obvious difference between home-talk and school-talk, was in the  use  of closed questions, described by Stubbs below. Many studies also comment on teacher's characteristic use of "questions" which are not genuine requests for information. These are variously called test questions (by Labov), pseudo questions and closed questions (by Barnes), and convergent and guess-what-I'm-thinking questions (by Postman and Weingartner). It is worthwhile pondering the effect on classroom dialogues when some teachers rarely ask questions because they want to know something. (1976, p. 114) Closed questions can take several forms, but in all cases the teacher already knows the  answer.  98  In the Home  Chapter I V described a sociolinguistic rule followed by many community members--"Don't talk unless you have something to say."  If this rule were strictly  applied, the use of closed questions would be absurd, the questionee being obligated to tell the questioner something they both know anyway. In reality, the use of closed questions varied considerably from home to home.  Most of the mothers made occasional use of this form of school talk,  especially with young children. E x a m p l e 33: A t home P a r t i c i p a n t s : Mother, Child (15 months) M : Where's your eyes? eyes C: X X M : (to researcher) I'm teaching her to point to her face (16,209) E x a m p l e 34: A t home P a r t i c i p a n t s : Mother, Researcher, Child 1 (4 years), Child 2 (2 years) M : He can count to six R: (to 2 year old) You can count to six? M : Watch, let's show [name], Baby, one C2: Two M : Three C2: Three C2: Four M : Five  99  C l : Five C2: Four M : Five C l : Five C2: Six, seven, eight, nine, ten, eleven,  twelve  Older children were sometimes involved in "playing teacher" with younger E x a m p l e 35: A t home, C l and C3 watching rock singers on T V Participants: years)  Child 1 (13 years), Child 2 (11 years), Child 3 (3  C l : Who's that . . . Motown C2: Prince! C l : No, Motown . . . Who's that C3: Prince! C l : No, Madonna C3: Donna C l : Who's that C3: Prince C l : No, Jerry Lee Lewis C2: X What are you listening to X What are you listening to C l : Who's that C3: Prince C l : Rod Stewart C3: Ron Stewart, Ron . . . Stewart . . . Steward Cl:  (slowly) No, Rod . . .  C3: Rod  . . . Steward  siblings.  100  Cl:  Stewart  C3: Stewart  . . . (loudly) Hurray!  However, in many homes, the use of the closed question was rare.  If a  child wanted to share his knowledge, he was often given attention, but the question-response-evaluation  pattern was unusual.  A t School  Although the teachers made frequent use of questions to get information, or to stimulate thinking, the most common type of question was the closed question. Example 36: Kindergarten, Story Time Participants: Teacher,  Class  T: This is a panda bear; what colour is a panda bear? Ss: Black and white (12B.289) Example 37: Kindergarten, Story Time T: They're going to go into a shop called Sam's Pet Shop. we see in the window of Sam's Pet Shop?  What do  Several Ss: Fish T: A n d what are those fish called? Ss: Goldfish T: Goldfish, good. The nursery  school teachers made use of closed questions,  specific times, such as calendar time, and circle time. room was often left for natural conversation. were especially difficult to transcribe.  but mostly at  In addition, at those times,  Unfortunately,  these lively sessions  101  There is a practical use for closed questions.  In order to decide what needs  to be taught, teachers need to find out what students know. (1972) suggests,  However, as Philips  it may be time to question the Mainstream belief that something  isn't learned unless it can be displayed publicly.  Perhaps teachers should be made  aware of cultural differences affecting the use of closed questions, so they can make conscious decisions about when and why to use them.  When to Talk  Chapter I V discussed degree of intimacy as one factor governing whether situation could be classed as speech or nonspeech.  a  Nakonechney (1986), quoting  Kleinfeld, has suggested the importance of developing close personal relationships between teacher and student, Kleinfeld's (1972) work is particularly germane when considering these issues. She emphasizes that the interpersonal dimension is highly valued in indigenous cultures, and classroom participation is contingent on students and teachers forming positive personal relationships. (1986, p. 142) In the homes, children had many opportunities to talk with intimates.  However, if  community norms suggest that when dealing with non-intimates talk is inappropriate, this may cause conflict with the norms of a school system which tends to make classroom talk less personal and more abstract as the student moves through the grades. Regarding the primary classes observed, a relatively intimate relationship between teacher and student was permissible.  Teachers used terms of affection,  such as "honey," or "lovey," and touch was not uncommon. teacher was referred to by her first name.  A t one school, the  In addition, teachers used humour to  102  keep the atmosphere light and friendly, using jokes such as "don't bunch like a can of sardines!"  (15B,224).  regarding who may talk.  However, much of the class time was governed by rules Except for talk at recess and lunch, this type of "family  chat" was relatively uncommon. The staff of the nursery school made a conscious effort to teach the rules of school-talk.  However, as example 38 suggests, even during circle time there  was opportunity for relaxed, friendly conversation. E x a m p l e 38: Nursery school, Circle Time, Roll Call Participants: Two Teachers, Researcher, Many Children Tl:  [Name 1], what happened  to your eye this time?  C?: [Name 2], [Name 2] kicked her T l : Who? C?: [Name 2] T l : Who's X ?  Oh, [name 1]  T2: [Name 2] kicked her? T l : What happened  to you kid?  ?: U I sentence :T1: Huh?  What happened to your eye?  T2: Were you and [name 2] fighting? C?: No, [name 3] was T l : (to students in the distance) Ah-ah . . . put them back. guys. [Name 1] (calls roll). [Name 4]. [Name 5]. C5: Yes T l : Did you sleep in yesterday? C5: No C?: She fall down, um, she falldown from, from //  C'mon  T l : (to other adults) A l l the guys blame [name 2] for everything that happens to [name 1]. [name 6]! Are you here? C6: Yup T l : Yup. No [name 7]. [Name 8], are you here? What happened to your front teeth? . . . eh? C8: I been, I been to the  Are you here?  dentist.  T l : You go to the dentist. [Name 9]. And poor [name 10]? I wonder if he's coming back. [Name 11], no [name 11]. Still sleeping. [Name 12] . . . not here either. [Name 13]. C?: Nope T l : Where'd you get the pretty // ribbons in your hair? T2: [Name 12]!  No!  T l : Aren't they pretty.  Have you got make-up on?  C13: Uh-huh T l : Uh-huh? C13: Got mommy's X make-up T l : Got mommy's make-up on. Y a h . were so rosy so early in the morning. have we got here?  (aside) I figured your cheeks (to group) Okay, how many  In the mixed kindergarten classes observed there was a slight difference the amount of talk produced by Native and Mainstream students.  Again, there  was considerable individual variation, and so the quantity of talk could be diagrammed as follows: Native students  Mainstream students  little  much  104  Focus on Task  Chapter I V described the organization of events in terms of a bell curve. In the home and community discussion of a specific topic often began gradually, evolving out of the general conversations that preceded it.  Unless an Elder was  speaking, it seemed appropriate for occasional side conversations to be taking place at the same time. Mainstream teachers are trained to focus group attention, to wait until all students are attending before beginning.  The teachers observed in this study were  somewhat flexible, sometimes offering students the opportunity to opt out of large-group activities.  However, in general, the teachers often tried to get the  attention of the whole group before proceeding, a process which, with children of this age, could be quite time consuming. E x a m p l e 39: Grade 1, Doing a group cloze passage Participants: Teacher, 3/4 of class T: Let's take it from the top.  Ready?  Ss: Today is // (teacher claps) T: Oh I'm sorry. [Name] are you ready? Ss: (read aloud) E x a m p l e 40: Kindergarten, calendar time P a r t i c i p a n t s : Teacher, Class T: [Name] . . . keep still dear, we've got to print it up here. Many speakers observed in the community did not seem to require the total attention of the group before beginning, but this requirement was sometimes observed in the homes, especially those homes in which the mothers actively trained  105  children in school talk. Erickson and Mohatt (1982), comparing a Mainstream teacher (of Indian students) with a Native teacher (of Indian students) found that the Native teacher spent less time demanding focussed attention before beginning.  In the primary  classes observed in this study, all the children were in various stages of learning this process, and so differences in this regard were somewhat tolerated.  However,  it is conceivable that an older student who attempted to follow this Native pattern of interaction at school might experience negative reactions from Mainstream teachers.  Conversely, a Mainstream teacher applying the Mainstream pattern to a  meeting of Native parents might also be seen as attempting to structure interaction in a pushy, overbearing or authoritative  the  manner.  Getting Communicative Space  Teachers face a continuous balancing act-how to encourage children to speak without encouraging disorder.  Erickson and Mohatt (1982) describe the teacher  a "switchboard operator," deciding who will be given a turn.  as  In order to be fair  to everyone, the teacher allots a certain amount of time to each student who requests it.  Requests can be made in several ways-by raising hands, calling the  teacher's name, or just speaking out. to learn these rules.  A l l children, Native and .Mainstream, have  It appears, however, that Native and Mainstream students  may come from different starting points. a.  Taking a turn to get a turn.  Schegloff (1968) has described a pattern  Mainstream children are trained to use in order to acquire a turn to talk. called "taking a turn to get a turn."  This is  In this pattern, even with two people who  106  are already in contact, it is necessary to use a turn. Child: Dad Father: Y a Child: Who's that? In the Native community, this pattern was not used as frequently.  The  children used "mom" or "teacher" to attract the attention of the adult if not in close proximity but usually the child would just begin speaking.  Many adults also  used this pattern. However, in the schools observed, it was often necessary for children to use the take-a-turn-to-get-a-turn  pattern.  The question arises: if children at home don't  have to take a turn to get a turn, and at school they can't get a turn without taking a turn or employing a gesture of intent (usually by putting up a hand) how do they ever get to talk?  This issue could be further complicated if the children  are brought up under a system which suggests that drawing attention to yourself should be minimized. In the classes observed it appeared that many of the children were eager to talk, and willing to go through the bidding process.  Perhaps these children do not  follow the rule discouraging drawing attention to oneself, or perhaps the primary school environment is intimate enough that such bidding involves little risk. b.  Three classroom rules.  Three of the sociolinguistic rules described by  Nakonechney (1986) are: 1.  Nobody talks when the teacher  does  2.  Speakers who are on topic have a right to proceed  3.  A l l legitimate talk is shared talk  107  For children trained to respect elders, the first rule is not likely to cause problems.  Likewise, given that children seemed rarely to interrupt adults,  teacher is unlikely to experience difficulties with the second rule.  the  However,  observation in the school, especially of sharing time . . . suggests that this rule only works one way.  Although the children may not interrupt, the rule seemed to  be "you may choose not to participate, but if you choose to talk, the teacher may interrupt for clarification." E x a m p l e 41: Kindergarten P a r t i c i p a n t s : Teacher, Class including Child 1 and Child 2 030th Native) T: Ok, do you want to tell us about your bear [name 1]? Speak up, face the children.  (Quietly)  C l : Care Bear T: A h , honey, this is [name l]'s bear (4 second pause) And . . . What kind of Care Bear (7 second pause) Cl:  (inaudible)  T: Lovealot Bear. Lovealot Bear  You wanna hold Lovealot Bear up so we can see  Class: A h T: Lovealot Bear is a Care Bear. [Name 2] (ng) You wanna tell us about your bear? (2 second pause). [Name 2] has a Care Bear too? (2 second pause). A n d what's your Care Bear's name? (3 seconds). It says *You are my sunshine"! And is your bear a Care Bear? C2: Sunshine Bear T: A n d welcome to the Care Bears today. E x a m p l e 42: Grade 1, Sharing time, Native student reading from journal. S: I like X .  I like X X / /  T: Oh, I'm sorry [name] I know you're trying really hard. really quiet because [name] does not have a big voice  Let's be  108  S: I like X , I like walking, I like X X , I like (can't figure out word) T: Can you tell from the picture what the word was going to be? Tell us what you think it would be, maybe, you didn't finish that word. S: I didn't finish it. T: Oh, can you, is there some clue there? letter? X  What's the beginning  S: I like purple T: You like purple.  Good [name]  E x a m p l e 43: Grade 1, Native student showing bicycle lock S i : This is my . . . lock (shows) S2: What's . . .  oh your lock  T: Can you tell us how it works?  I've never seen a lock like that.  S i : It works (3 seconds) X (2 seconds while he demonstrates) T: So you have to put the key and then what do you do? S3: You press down S4: And that locks the bike T: What's it made of, [name] Si:  Metal  T: Is it very heavy? S2: X T: I see, thank you. A l l the teachers observed were sensitive to the needs of their students, and allowed children to opt out of threatening activities.  However, at sharing time,  most of the Native students wanted to participate, even though it meant being singled out in front of a large group.  Among both Native and Mainstream children  there was considerable variability in the degree of ease felt about such  109  performances.  Again, comparison of the Native and Mainstream students requires  continua. Native students  Mainstream students  Ease of performance  Unease of performance  In the classrooms observed, the third rule suggested by Nakonechney, " A l l legitimate talk is shared talk" seemed to apply to all structured activities.  Group  (choral) responses were acceptable, but talking to one's neighbour was not. E x a m p l e 44: Kindergarten T: U m , [name] do you have something to say? if you have something to share with us?  How do you say it  Several Ss: Put up your hand T: Put up your? Ss: Hand T: Well I didn't see your hand up and I saw you trying to share with someone. [Name] too. This rule contrasts sharply with language use in the community, where the organization of social events has a more context-sensitive basis. are not unusual, nor a sign of disrespect for the speaker.  Side conversations  The overlap of social  talk and business seemed to be common. Again, at the primary level observed in this study, the atmosphere seems relaxed enough and the children so eager to please, that the teacher's corrections in this regard were not problematic.  However, it is possible that the control of all  110  talk by the teacher may cause some students in later years to feel isolated from other  students.  This chapter has compared sociolinguistic behaviours in the home and community with those of mixed classes taught by Mainstream teachers who were highly regarded by principals and community members, and the role of the Band-operated nursery school as intermediary was discussed.  A discussion of directives suggested  that Mainstream teachers use more indirect and lengthy forms than are used in the Native community. described.  The extensive use of closed questions in the classroom was  Also discussed were cultural assumptions regarding degree of intimacy,  the need for the whole group to focus on a task, and getting (and keeping) communicative space.  Observations in these kindergarten and grade one classes did  not suggest major breakdowns in communication. difficulty were discussed.  However, potential causes of later  Ill  CHAPTER VI: Summary and Implications  This chapter will summarize the purpose, methodology and findings of the study.  A section on implications for teachers will suggest that teachers might  facilitate communication in five ways, by: 1.  Getting out of the classroom  2.  Dealing with parents according to their sociolinguistic rules  3.  Adjusting classroom atmosphere  4.  Adjusting classroom language  5.  Teaching sociolinguistic rules  In each section, specific suggestions for accomplishing these tasks will be discussed.  Summary  Purpose  The  major purpose of the study was to observe one Native community's  language use in order to derive sociolinguistic rules of interaction, to examine the societal norms and values governing speech acts, and the principles and underlying those acts.  The secondary goal was to examine how these rules affect  the Native students' school environment. 1.  Specifically, the three goals were:  To complete an ethnography of speaking in one Native community, describing the rules of interaction followed by members of the community.  2.  strategies  To examine the school environment to see whether  the  112  difference between Mainstream rules for interaction and native Indian rules for interaction may cause miscommunication. 3.  To discuss ways in which teachers can be better prepared for S.E.S.D. situations, either in special S.E.S.D. programs, or as classroom  teachers.  Methodology  Three methodologies, Hymes' Ethnography of Speaking, Enright's Interaction Hierarchy and Schegloff and Sacks' Ethnomethodology, were employed in this study. These methodologies had one common assumption-that  observation of natural  language can lead to the description of sociolinguistic rules. Observation took place in the Squamish Band community in North Vancouver.  This urban band of 1,500 members had well established economic and  social development programs, providing a wide variety of services, and a diverse economic base. Observations took place in a variety of situations, some of which involved only Band members, some of which involved a mixture of Native and Mainstream people.  Due to time constraints, the majority of observation time was focused on  school age children and their interactions with different age groups.  Because access  to business and political events was limited, the majority of settings observed were of a pedagogical or social nature.  Observations were conducted at the  Band-operated nursery school, an evening study group for 7-13 year olds, three primary classes taught by Mainstream teachers,  Native Language classes, a family  Drop-In Centre, various meetings, several social events, and in the homes of six  113  families. Data were collected over a period of seven months.  During the latter  five  months the researcher spent between and ten and fifteen hours per week actively observing.  Procedures for observation varied with the situation.  Extensive field  notes were made, and interactions were recorded on tape whenever this was socially appropriate.  The role of the researcher  also varied according to situation, along a  continuum from passive observer to active participant. The researcher began with no concrete hypotheses.  During the course of the  study analysis of data took a circular form: 1.  Analysis of data to form an hypothesis  2.  Gathering further data to support/reject  3.  Confirmation of findings with Band members by asking questions similar to  hypothesis  the following: "It appears that  is happening.  Do you feel this is a correct  interpretation? " Since this process was cyclical, several different hypotheses could be under consideration at any one time. Seven tapes were transcribed in full; the remaining 21 tapes were examined aurally, and relevant sections were transcribed.  Throughout this process, contact  with the community was maintained so that rules could be verified through observation and consultation.  114  Generalizability  This is a study of one Native community.  In addition, the  situations  observed were limited to only two areas of community life, and exposure and adult males was extremely limited.  to Elders  Thus, the relevance of this study will not  be in the immediate application of its findings to all persons of Native  ancestry.  Rather, its value will be in the delineation of sociolinguistic rules which may be different.  It will be the task of individual teachers to go into their own  communities to see which of these rules apply there.  Communication in the Community  Observation immediately showed that there was considerable diversity in the communication behaviours of community members.  Thus, many of the sociolinguistic  rules described below should be called "tendencies," thus requiring descriptions  such  as "members of the community tended to behave in X manner."  further  This was  complicated by the fact that variation occurred in two dimensions, young-old and traditional-Mainstream. diagrams  Thus, behaviours  are best discussed through use of  (see Chapter IV).  This variation was especially apparent in the areas of volume, intonation, pause-time and eye contact.  Community members who could be described as older  and traditional tended to speak more softly, use flatter intonation patterns, employ longer pause-times and avoid prolonged eye contact.  Members who could be  described as younger and less traditional tended to follow patterns closer to the Mainstream norms.  Data suggested that children were, to some degree, becoming  115  both bidialectal and assimilated; thus, this community seemed to be very much a culture in transition.  Speech and Nonspeech Situations.  Contrary to the myth of the silent  Indian, members of this community used speech for a wide variety of functions. In homes and at community events, talk was plentiful.  It appeared, though, that  the rules for when one talked and when one was silent were different from those of Mainstream society, and (as in Mainstream society) governed by two factors-degree of intimacy, and age of participants. members preferred  In this community, many  to get to know someone before talking to them, rather than  using small talk to get to know someone (as in Mainstream society).  There was a  tendency to avoid "small talk," suggesting a sociolinguistic rule "don't talk unless you have something to say."  In addition, the relative ages of the participants  was  more significant in this community than in Mainstream society.  Sociolinguistic Patterns as Reflections of Value Orientations  It appeared that various sociolinguistic behaviours could be related to underlying value orientations,  as suggested by Condon and Yousef (1975).  The  value "respect elders" seemed to apply to both uses of the word "elder."  The  class of well respected old people (called Elders) was often given special  attention,  and children were usually expected to sit quietly and listen when an Elder spoke. Respect for elders, in the sense of those older than oneself, also seemed to influence sociolinguistic behaviour.  For example, children interrupted  most would rarely interrupt an adult.  each other, but  Also, it appeared that in many  situations  116  with intimates, a child was permitted to join in on a topic chosen by adults, but rarely permitted to determine the topic.  Compared to children in Mainstream  society, children in this community rarely challenged adults' opinions.  "Why"  challenges seemed to be relatively uncommon. It appeared that many community members valued the right of the individual to do what he or she thought best.  Perhaps because of this, it  appeared to be considered rude to obligate someone to do something he or she didn't want to do, and especially rude to put someone in the position of having to refuse.  As a result, requests for assistance seemed to imply a greater  trust than would be implied in Mainstream society.  degree of  Introductions, which obligate  two strangers to talk to one another, were rarely made, except by those community members used to working with Mainstream people.  Children were rarely coerced  into performing, although they were often encouraged to talk about their experiences.  "Pulling strings" in the sense of using one person to meet  seemed extremely rare.  another,  Finally, many, but not all, families trained children to be  more independent at an earlier age than would occur in Mainstream society.  As  with all the behaviours described above, there was considerable variation within the community. Most members of this community placed a great deal of value on family relationships, here referring to the extended family, including grandparents, and uncles, cousins, etc.  This was reflected in several behaviours.  the most common topic choice was "the family." seemed to reflect this value orientation. used.  aunts  For instance,  In addition, naming practices also  " M r . , " "Miss," " M r s . " were almost never  A n adult was generally referred to by his or her first name, children often  by nicknames or family names such as "my son," or "brother."  To show respect,  117  a term such as "uncle" or "auntie" would sometimes be used, even by non-relatives.  One formal speech by an Elder seemed to use the term "cousin" as  almost synonymous with "person." In the situations observed in this study (which included very few Elders) many community members seemed to follow a rule "avoid attracting attention to yourself."  Although there was considerable variation in this regard, there was a  tendency for community members to try to do what they had to do as unobtrusively as possible. considered inappropriate.  It appeared that group greetings and farewells were Rather, greetings were either nonverbal or individualized,  with farewells often lengthy and highly personal. discourage children from showing off.  Most parents seemed to  Praise, which was common, seemed more  often directed to the individual rather than announced to the group, although formal recognition of good work was not uncommon. The community also seemed to follow a rule suggesting "Don't take yourself too seriously." distrusted.  People who had too high an opinion of themselves seemed to be  A t organized events, it was not unusual for people in authority to  make fun of themselves, and family members teased each other in a good-natured way.  Although there were formal situations, such as speeches by Elders, where it  was appropriate to "be serious" for an extended period, people in charge of meetings and social events appeared to work under the assumption that the presence of laughter was a major sign that things were going well.  This may  relate to what Tootoosis (1983) calls a cultural tendency to lighten the mood at an event. Although there was considerable variation, this community appeared to function on a more context-sensitive basis than does Mainstream society.  118  Observations at social events and meetings suggested that events were organized in a manner which focused at least as much on the people present or the  events  occurring at the moment, as on a pre-set agenda, plan, or task.  Home-talk and School-talk  Comparison of homes with three mixed classrooms taught by successful Mainstream teachers revealed major differences in the use of directives, closed questions and assumptions about when to talk.  In these areas, behaviours used at  the nursery school appeared to be a compromise between the two, thus suggesting the importance of the nursery school as an intermediate step in preparing the children for school. a) Directives.  The phrasing of directives appeared to be different in the  home and school, with many Native families preferring to use fewer words, and a direct form, and Mainstream teachers preferring to use more words, and a less direct phrasing.  In these primary classrooms, however, it was unusual to see a  child misunderstand a directive.  With regard to comprehension, the children seemed  able to function equally well in both systems.  However, with regard to production,  most children preferred to use the Native pattern. b) Closed Questions.  Closed questions (those questions which are not  genuine requests for information) were the most common question type used by teachers.  Home use of this form of school-talk varied considerably, but the use of  the closed questions was relatively uncommon.  If a child wanted to share his or  her knowledge, he or she was often given attention, but the -evaluation pattern was unusual.  question-response  119  c) When to talk.  It appeared that in the home and community, degree  of intimacy was a major factor governing whether a situation could be classed as speech or nonspeech.  It seems possible that i f community norms suggest that  when dealing with non-intimates, speech is inappropriate, this may cause conflict with the norms of a school system which tends to make classroom talk less personal and more abstract as the student moves through the grades. the relatively intimate atmosphere  However,  of the primary classes observed seemed to be one  in which many Native children felt free to speak.  Even so, much of the class  time was governed by rules regarding who may talk, and the relaxed "family  chat"  was uncommon. In the community, events seemed to be organized in the shape of a bell curve, with the "meat" of the event in the middle.  Discussion of a specific topic  often began gradually, evolving out of the general topics that preceded it.  Side  conversations were more tolerated than they would be at Mainstream functions. This practice contrasted sharply with the Mainstream teachers' tendency to expect all students to attend before beginning.  It seemed that all the school children  observed were in various stages of learning this process, and so differences in this regard were somewhat tolerated.  However, it is conceivable that an older student  who attempted to follow this Native pattern of interaction at school might experience negative reactions from Mainstream teachers.  Conversely, a Mainstream  teacher applying the Mainstream pattern to a meeting of Native parents might also experience some difficulty. The manner of getting communicative space at school often differed from that in the home.  In school, children were often required to bid for space, vocally or  by putting up a hand.  The "take a turn to get a turn" pattern was relatively  120  rare in the homes, and drawing attention to oneself seemed to be considered inappropriate.  In the classes observed, however, many (though not all) Native  children were eager to talk, and willing to go through the bidding process. Perhaps these children do not follow the rules discouraging drawing attention to oneself; perhaps the primary environment is intimate enough that such bidding involves little risk. Three classroom sociolinguistic rules described by Nakonechney (1986) were examined in terms of congruence with community norms. 1.  Nobody talks when the teacher does  2.  Speakers who are on topic have a right to proceed  3.  A l l legitimate talk is shared talk  These were:  It appeared that for children trained to respect elders, the first of these classroom sociolinguistic rules presented no problem.  Likewise, because children were  unlikely to interrupt adults, the second rule as stated seemed unlikely to cause difficulties.  However, analysis of sharing time suggested that this classroom rule  only applied to the teacher.  For students the rule was: "you may choose not to  participate, but if you choose to talk, the teacher may interrupt for clarification," a process which caused discomfort to several Native (and Mainstream) students.  The  third sociolinguistic classroom rule appeared to be the most incongruent with the Native community, where the organization of events seemed to have a more context-sensitive basis.  Although this rule did not appear to cause these primary  children difficulty, the control of all talk by the teacher might cause some students in later years to experience feelings of isolation.  121  Conclusions  This ethnography  of communication has demonstrated that, sociolinguistically  speaking, members of the Squamish Band community speak a variety of English considerably different from that of Mainstream society.  In addition, examination of  three areas of classroom discourse suggests that the sociolinguistic rules employed in the classroom may be very unfamiliar to some Native students.  These findings  suggest a need for teachers of Native students to understand the sociolinguistic norms of their local Native community, in order to a) accommodate  differences  b) aid students in developing the ability to communicate successfully in both cultures.  Implications for  Teachers  This study suggests that teachers can facilitate communication (and thus education) in five ways, by: 1.  Getting out of the classroom and into the community  2.  Dealing with parents on their terms  3.  Adjusting classroom atmosphere  4.  Adjusting classroom language  5.  Teaching sociolinguistic rules.  and  122  Getting to Know the Community  In  the course of the study, many Native parents made comments  "the teachers don't understand around the province.  our kids": a sentiment  such as  likely shared by other parents  The findings above show the ways one community's  communicative behaviours differ from those of Mainstream society.  Although it is  likely that sociolinguistic rules in other Native communities differ from Mainstream rules, these differences will vary from community to community.  The usefulness of  this thesis will be in the provision of a set of rules which may be examined by individual teachers.  As mentioned previously, a teacher reading this study should  not think "Oh, this is how Indians in my community behave" but rather "here are some ways in which the rules of interaction may be different.  It is now my job  to get to know my community, to see which rules apply here." There are several reasons teachers should determine the norms of their local Native community.  First, if we are to avoid the feelings of failure and rejection  caused by comments about "bad" English, it is necessary understand  the rules under which a student is functioning.  for the teacher to To a degree, all  teachers of Native students are teachers of Standard English as a Second Dialect, and as such, need to become familiar with the students' home dialect. was suggested  Second, as  in Chapter V , students using some patterns from the Native  community can be misunderstood by teachers as being rude, or withdrawn, or inattentive. expectations.  Differences in communicative patterns can result in lower teacher Third, since degree of intimacy seems to be an important factor in  determining whether speech is appropriate, it appears very important for teachers to get to know students outside the classrooms, where relaxation of roles can occur.  123  Finally, if we are training children to survive in a school system predominated by the "talk to learn" methodology, the inclusion of more personal and locally oriented materials could be a good starting point (see Burnaby, 1980).  Use of locally  developed materials requires a familiarity with and understanding of the local Native community. For  overworked teachers, the suggestion that they spend time getting to  know the local community may seem unreasonable.  However, the insights gained  in regard to better communication with students and parents, and the availability of data regarding student needs for becoming bidialectal, outweigh the loss of time. This is a task that can be accomplished by the average Mainstream teacher (this researcher had little training in anthropology or ethnography). which can at times be intimidating, but also rewarding. were derived through the researcher's community.  It is a task  The following suggestions  own experiences in getting to know a Native  However, because the norms of each community will be different, the  reader should note that these are only suggestions, not guidelines. 1.  One should remember that the Native community may be more closely knit than that to which one is accustomed.  It will take time for a  teacher/observer to be seen as anything but an outsider. 2.  Acceptance by the community can be facilitated by taking on a role other than teacher.  During this study one home-school coordinator suggested that  this researcher  help with cooking, or bring food to social events.  church or hobbies can help one be seen as something besides 3.  Sports,  "teacher."  One should be sure that one is not perceived as just taking information from the community. "nosy outsiders."  It appears that some Native people are suspicious of  Community members must perceive the  teacher/observer's  124  involvement as something more than  self-interest.  4.  One should never assume anything.  Watch, and listen.  5.  As much as possible, one should try to behave according to local norms.  If  one is lucky, a bicultural guide may help to prevent some mistakes. 6.  It is important to remember that drawing attention to oneself, and taking oneself too seriously may be culturally inappropriate.  It may be best to  present oneself as humble, unobtrusive, and soft-spoken.  Community  members will have much to teach a good observer. 7.  One should be aware that pause-time, eye contact, volume and intonation may be different, and expect to be uncomfortable when trying to adapt to local  8.  patterns.  One must be careful not to sound negative.  Some Native people have had  bad experiences with supposedly neutral observers, and to them, the word "different" may have negative connotations. 9.  In the community, the manner of getting to know someone new may be different than that to which one is accustomed.  It is easier to accept not  being introduced around, or not being spoken to at social events, if one realizes the need to give people time to "size you up." 10.  It is probably necessary to find an "insider" to explain where one is welcome and where one is not.  The way in which invitations are given  may be different, and waiting for a formal invitation may result in wasted time. 11.  One should not expect too much too fast. patience usually paid off.  This researcher found that  There were several long periods when it appeared  that no progress was being made.  However, periodically something would  125  happen which clearly showed major gains in trust and respect.  It can be very difficult for a Mainstream person to enter an Indian community.  However, it is hoped that the suggestions above may make it easier  for Mainstream teachers to cross the boundary and, to some degree, come to understand another culture.  Dealing with Parents  Becoming familiar with the sociolinguistic norms of the local Native community can be especially useful in improving communication with parents.  With  good teaching, children may become bidialectal, but those parents who have little contact with the Mainstream society may only feel comfortable with the Native sociolinguistic rules.  A teacher employing communication patterns closer to those of  the parents may avoid the problems in interethnic communication so well described in Scollon and Scollon (1981).  The following suggestions for improving relationships  may prove useful to some teachers. It is important to remember that many parents have had bad school experiences.  Many parents may have been educated in boarding school, and so  have no idea of what public school is like. failure in the school system.  Many parents will have experienced  Also, many parents may have only heard from their  children's teachers when there was bad news.  These parents are unlikely to take  the first step in getting to know the teacher.  Therefore the teacher must make  the initial contact, preferably in an unstructured way, and preferably with positive comments about the child.  126  In the community observed in this study, delivering information in written form was often ineffective.  The best way to reach parents was through  contact, preferably face-to-face  contact (see Darnell, 1979).  personal  In addition, it seemed  that calling parents to the school was not nearly as effective as meeting them in the community, in informal settings.  Again, it appears that parent-teacher  communication could be improved if teachers were to make personal contact.  Since  most school districts employ home-school counsellors, teachers can make initial contacts through them.  Unfortunately, many teachers do not yet realize the value  of the home-school counsellor, possibly the teacher's greatest resource. In the community observed, many parents disliked "meetings."  As one  nursery school teacher pointed out, "if you call it a meeting nobody'll come."  It  may be necessary for teachers to find informal ways of meeting with parents; dinners, for example, were often well attended.  Proper timing may be essential.  Because the Native community may be closely knit and more context-sensitive  than  Mainstream society, teachers may benefit from consulting an "insider" so that school events do not interfere with community events. unavoidable.  Some conflict though, will be  For example, an unexpected funeral may disrupt the entire community  for several days. When meeting with parents in any situation, it is necessary  for the teacher  to slow down, to expect more socializing, less attention to a pre-set task.  The  organization of events in the community may seem unfocused to the Mainstream teacher, but to the Native person, the Mainstream organization of meetings seem brusque  may  and impersonal.  In addition, the quantity of talk normally used by Mainstream teachers may cause some Native parents to feel uncomfortable.  However, if the Mainstream  127  teacher tries to adapt pause-time, turn-taking and control of topic to the Native norms communication may be facilitated.  In short, teachers probably need to be  quiet and give the Native person a chance.  Adapting Classroom Atmosphere  Starla Anderson (personal communication, March, 1986) has suggested one possible explanation of the decline in school performance  that  which appears at about  grade four, is the increasing formality and impersonality in classroom talk.  She  suggests that it is important to provide students with the opportunity for casual conversation with the teacher and peers, as well as training them in the more formal style of academic discourse.  This agrees with Kleinfeld's emphasis on the  student and teacher developing positive personal relationships. This study has suggested  two reasons why the creation of a positive  atmosphere is more important when working with Native students than when working with Mainstream students. determiner in the appropriateness  First, degree of intimacy is an  of speech.  important  If we expect children to "talk to  learn" we must at least provide them with a psychologically safe environment in which to do so.  Second, in the Native community, requests for assistance seemed  to imply a greater degree of trust than they would in the Mainstream society. Thus, it is conceivable that Native children in a somewhat impersonal environment might find it very difficult to ask for help, especially if it means publically bidding for communicative space. It seems possible for teachers of all grades and of all subjects to make the classroom environment more personal.  Kleinfeld (1972) emphasizes  a cheerful  128  manner and having high expectations. a simple addition.  The use of humour to lighten mood seems  The elimination of " M r . , " "Miss," and " M r s . " would make  sense, especially when one considers their decreasing usage in Mainstream society, and almost total absence in the Native community.  The inclusion of family  members (especially siblings), and bidialectal role models in some classroom events would help create a more relevant atmosphere  for speaking and learning.  For students involved in special S.E.S.D. programs, the creation of a personal environment seems more important.  These students may feel isolated from  friends and peers, either through timetabling, or through physical absence (in the case of those students who must come to the city to complete school).  These  S.E.S.D. students have to deal with some degree of culture shock, as well as separation from parents.  The S.E.S.D. teacher thus not only has to create a  warm, personal relationship between himself or herself and the student, but must also provide opportunity for students to develop those relationships with their other teachers,  a rather difficult  task.  Adjusting Classroom Language  As Burnaby (1980, 1982) points out, Native children (like all children) have to learn "how to go to school."  Likewise, Philips (1972) points out,  Educators cannot assume that because Indian children . . . speak English, or are taught it in the schools, that they have also assimilated all of the sociolinguistic rules underlying interaction in classrooms and other non-Indian social situations where English is spoken. To the extent that existing cultural variation in sociolinguistic patterning that is not recognized by the schools results in learning difficulties and feelings of inferiority for some children, changes in the structuring of classroom learning situations are needed. (1972, p. 392)  129  It appears that teachers of Native students, either in formal S.E.S.D. programs, or as classroom teachers, face a balancing act.  A n ultimate goal is to  provide students with the skills necessary to communicate successfully in both cultures.  However, in order to avoid problems caused by conflicting sociolinguistic  patterns, the teacher must also modify his or her behaviour in order to facilitate communication, so that the student will not feel that his or her language and culture are in any way inferior. There are several ways in which teachers can modify classroom language to make it more sociolinguistically appropriate. talking.  First, teachers should spend less time  Chapter I V showed that in the Native community observed, many people  were uncomfortable around non-Natives, because they felt they had to talk all the time.  The Scollons (1981) point out that when around Mainstream people, many  Native people feel they "can't get a word in edgewise." describes the experiences of her  Nakonechney (1986)  students:  A t times Outreach students feel that their white teachers are endless talkers who have a perverse, inexplicable appetite for more and more words. (1986, p. 76) A second way teachers might adapt their classroom language may be simply to talk more softly.  In this study, many community members spoke more quietly  than would be the norm in Mainstream society.  This finding suggests that the  loud volume level employed by many teachers many be intimidating to some Native students.  In addition, the louder the talk, the more difficult and risky it is for a  child to bid for communicative space.  A few Native children observed seemed to  suffer two disadvantages, when compared to Mainstream children.  Although the  teachers tried to provide opportunities for all children to speak, the children who had soft voices, and were unwilling to bid aggressively for communicative space,  130  were sometimes inadvertently ignored. A third way teachers might adapt classroom language, is to avoid singling children out.  As Chapter IV pointed out, in the Native community, children were  never coerced into performing.  In addition, it appeared that community members  operated under a rule which discouraged drawing attention to oneself.  During  "sharing time" at school, even though all children seemed eager to participate, it appeared that more Native children felt discomfort than did Mainstream children. Erickson and Mohatt (1982) found that the teacher of Native ancestry distinguished between public and private areas of discourse.  In the public area, (or "on the  record") students were most often involved in choral responses, were addressed to an individual child.  and no comments  Individualized comments were "privatized" by  the close proximity and low voice volume of the teacher (p. 159).  The children  observed in the current study varied considerably in their ease at being singled out in front of the class.  For some, it was very comfortable, for some not.  In  addition, all the teachers permitted children to "opt out" of some activities. However, since much of the questioning and controlling done by the teacher could have been done in the private area of discourse (one-to-one) this language  change  seems worth investigating further.  Teaching Sociolinguistic Rules  Teachers of Standard English as a Second Dialect operate under the assumption that the various dialects of English are neither "good" nor "bad." Rather, they are acknowledged as two different, but equally valid, dialects. Sociolinguistically speaking there should therefore be no "right" behaviour or "wrong"  131  behaviour, but only behaviours more appropriate in one culture or  another.  If children are to maintain their cultural identity, yet achieve school and economic success, a conscious effort should be made to teach the rules of both sytems.  Philips describes the need to teach school-talk for educational and economic  success: If . . . the people's main concern is to enable Indian children to compete successfully with non-Indians, and to have the choice of access to the modes of interaction and life-styles of non-Indians, then there should be a conscious effort made in the schools to teach the children the modes for appropriate verbal participation that prevail in non-Indian classrooms. (1972, p. 393) The potential problems caused by the major differences in home-talk and school-talk described in Chapter V could be avoided, if teachers were a) familiar with the norms of the Native community, b) willing to explain the ways in which sociolinguistic rules functioned in both societies.  Although primary children might  not grasp these concepts, intermediate students would find this valuing of their home culture a highly motivating experience.  A t the secondary level, students  should be involved in investigating dialect, register, situation, and in translating discourse from one culture to another,  thus opening up what Health (1983) calls a  "two-way channel of communication" (p. 354).  A Comment  It is unfortunate  that Native students are expected to function in a school  system developed for a different culture.  In many ways this system is not flexible  enough to accommodate the value systems and communication behaviours of its Native students.  Perhaps when more Native teachers become part of the school  system and more Mainstream teachers really understand the norms of Native  132  communities, more  flexibility  and better communication can be  Implications for Further  established.  Research  This thesis has shown that the sociolinguistic rules followed in one Native community differ from those in Mainstream society as a whole, and that some interaction patterns used in this community differ significantly from the patterns used in the Mainstream school system.  More research  into the sociolinguistic  aspects of Indian English is necessary in order to determine  which, if any, of these  rules also apply to other Native communities. In addition, although a link between sociolinguistic differences  and school  failure has been suggested by researchers such as Heath (1983) and Toohey (in progress),  this link has not yet been thoroughly investigated.  This thesis has  shown that a separate variety of English, which might be called Indian English, does exist.  A logical next step would be to investigate  communication patterns on educational success. need to answer the question "Do the differences  the influence of differing  More specifically, there is an urgent in the communication patterns of  Indian English and Mainstream English contribute to the school system's failure in the education of Native students?"  133  References  Allen, V . F . (1969). Preparing teachers to teach across dialects. Paper given at the third annual T E S O L Conference (Chicago, March 1969). (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. E D 030 100) Anthony, R. J . (1984). The verbal deficit fallacy in native education. Abstract of a paper presented to the First Annual Conference of M O K A K I T Indian Education Research Association, August 1984. Arbess, S., Murdock, M . , & Joy, P. (1981). New strategies in Indian education: Utilizing the Indian child's advantages in the elementary classroom. Three reports from workshops held February 2-20, 1981. Ashworth, M . (1980). Language development and the children of Ahousaht. In G. Cannon (Ed.). The Ahousaht education study. Prepared for the Ahousaht Band Council, Vancouver: University of B . C . Barnitz, J . C. (1981). Standard and nonstandard dialects: Principles for language and reading instruction. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. E D 211983) Barth, L . (1979). Nonstandard English and Native Indian students: When is a difference a disability? B.C. Journal of Special Education, 3(4), 357-363. Basso, K . (1970). To give up on words: Silence in the Western Apache culture. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology, 26, 213-230. Basso, K . (1976). Wise words of the Western Apache: Metaphor and semantic theory. In K . Basso and H . A . Selby, Jr. (Eds.), Meaning in Anthropology. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. Basso, K . (1979). Portraits of "The Whiteman": Linguistic play and cultural symbols among the Western Apache. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bauman, R. & Scherzer, J . (1974). Introduction. In R. Bauman and J . Scherzer (Eds.), Explorations in the ethnography of speaking. London: Cambridge University Press. Bernstein, B .  (Ed.)  (1973).  Class, codes and control, Vol. 1.  London: Paladin.  Black, M . B . (1973). Ojibwa questioning etiquette and use of ambiguity. in Linguistics, 23, pp. 13-29.  Studies  Blair, H . (1984). Teachers' attitudes toward the oral English of indigenous children in Saskatchewan and Queensland. Paper presented to M O K A K I T Institute  134  Conference, July 1984. Brilhart, B . L . (1970). Oral communication for the Indian student. Journal, 60(5), 629-632.  English  Brooks, I. R. (1978). Teaching Native children: Lessons from cognitive psychology. The Journal of Educational Thought, 12(1), pp. 56-67. Bruder, M . N . & Hayden, L . (1972). Teaching composition: A report on a bidialectical approach. Language Learning, 23, 1-15. Burnaby, B . (1980). Languages and their roles in educating native children. Toronto: O.I.S.E. Press. Burnaby, B . (1982). Language O.I.S.E. Press.  in education among Canadian  native people.  Toronto:  Burnaby, B . , & Elson, N . (1982). Final report on the TESL Canada Symposium on Language Development for Native Peoples. Winnipeg: T E S L Canada. Burton, M . (1982). The Carrier English accent: A source of decoding problems for Carrier children? Paper presented to the Special Education Teachers, School District #55 (Burns Lake, B . C . , November 1982). Carter, T. P. (1971). Cultural content for linguistically different Elementary English, 48(2), 162-175. Cazden, C. B . (1979). in language use.  learners.  The situation, a neglected source of social class differences In J . B . Pride & J . Holmes (Eds.), Sociolinguistics.  Clarke, P. (Ramkissoon). (1983). TALK, 14(3), 48-57.  A n approach to E.S.D. writing problems.  TESL  Coolley, R. & Lujan, P. (1982). A structural analysis of speeches by native American students. In F . Barkin, E . Brandt and J . Ornstein-Galicia (Eds.), Bilingualism and language contact. New York: Teachers College Press. Cromack, R. E . (1971). The functional nature of social dialects: Social change and the teaching of Black English. English Record, 21(4), pp. 79-82, (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. E D 056 009) Darnell, R. (1979). Reflections on Cree interactional etiquette: Educational implications. Working Papers on Sociolinguistics, No. 57, Austin, T X : Southwest Educational Development Laboratory. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. E D 174 037) Dumas, B . K . (1974). Sociolinguistics in the classroom. Revised version of a paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Conference on College Composition and Communication (Anaheim, C A , April 1974). (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. E D 094 379)  135  Dumont, R. V . Jr. (1972). Learning English and how to be silent: Studies in Sioux and Cherokee classrooms. In C. B . Cazden, V . P. John and D. Hymes (Eds.), Functions of language in the classroom. New York: Teachers College Press. Edwards, V . (1983). Dialect speakers: Fact and fantasy. and Care, 11, 79-87.  Early Child Development  Enright, D . S. (1984). The organization of interaction in elementary classrooms. In J . Handscombe, R. A . Orem, B . P. Taylor, on TESOL '83: The question of control. Washington: T E S O L . Erickson, F . & Mohatt, G . (1982). Cultural organization of participant structures in two classrooms of Indian students. In G . Spindler (Ed.), Doing the ethnography of schooling: Educational anthropology in action. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Ervin-Tripp, S. (1977). Wait for me, Rollerscate! In C. Mitchell-Keman and S. Ervin-Tripp (Eds.), Child discourse. New York: Academic Press. Fiordio, R. (1985). The soft-spoken way vs. the outspoken way: A bicultural approach to teaching speech communication to native people in Alberta. Journal of American Indian Education, July 1985. Fishman, J . A . & Leuders-Salmon, E . (1972). What has the sociology of language to say to the teacher? On teaching the standard variety to speakers of dialectal or sociolectal varieties. In C. B . Cazden, V . P. John and D. Hymes (Eds.), Functions of language in the classroom. New York: Teachers College Press. Flanigan, B . O. (1983). Bilingual education for native Americans: The argument from studies of variational English. In J . Handscombe, R. A . Orem and B. P. Taylor (Eds.), On TESOL '83. Washington: T E S O L . Goodman, K . (1975). Standard and nonstandard English, quoted in M . Klesner (1982). Language arts for native Indian children. Victoria, B . C . : Ministry of Education. Gumperz, J . J . & Hymes, D. (1964). The ethnography of Menasha, WI: American Anthropological Association.  communication.  Hall, E . T. (1969). Listening behavior: Some cultural differences. Kappan, 69(7), 379-389. Hall, E . T.  (1984).  Heath, S. B . (1983). and classrooms.  The dance of life.  Phi Delta  Garden City: Anchor/Doubleday.  Ways with words: Language, life, and work in Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.  communities  Hoffman, R. (1985). School English: A language development program for Carrier children. School District #55, Burns Lake, B . C . (unpublished).  136  Hunter, S., & Stevens, R. (1980). A demographic study of native Indian students in Vancouver schools. Vancouver, B . C . : Board of School Trustees. Hymes, D. (1974b). Ways of speaking. In R. Bauman and J . Scherzer (Eds.), Explorations in the ethnography of speaking. London: Cambridge University Press. Hymes, D . (1974b). Foundations in sociolinguistics: An ethnographic Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.  approach.  John, V . P. (1972). Styles of learning-styles of teaching: Reflections on the education of Navajo children. In C. B. Cazden, V . P. John and D . Hymes (Eds.), Functions of language in the classroom. New York: Teachers College Press. Kaplan, R. B . (1969). vs. Bidialectism.  On a note of protest (in a minor key): Bidialectism College English, 30, 386-389.  Kleinfeld, J . (1972). Instructional style and the performance of Indian and Eskimo students. Fairbanks: University of Alaska. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. E D 059 831) Klesner, M . (1982). Language Ministry of Education.  arts for native Indian  children.  Victoria, B . C . :  Labov, W. (1969). A study of non-standard English. Washington: Center for Applied Linguistics. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. E D 024 053) Leap, W. L . (1978). American Indian English and its implications for bilingual education. In James E . Alatis (Ed.), International dimensions of bilingual education. Washington: Georgetown University Press. Leap, W. L . (1982). The study of Indian English in the U . S . southwest: Retrospect and prospect. In F . Barkin, E . Brandt and J . Ornstein-Galicia (Eds.), Bilingualism and language contact. New York: Teachers College Press. M c K a y , S. (1977). A n inductive approach to the rules of speaking. Arizona English Bulletin, 19(2), 42-46. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. E D 151 833) McShane, D . A . , & Plas, J . M . (1984). The cognitive functioning of American Indian children: Moving from the WISC to the WISC-R. School Psychology Review, 73(1), 61-88. Medicine, B . (1981). Speaking Indian: Parameters of language use among American Indians. Focus, number 6. Arlington, V A : National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. E D 209 052) Mitchell, M . (1974). Message of silence: Language and the Indian child. B.C. Teacher, 53, 162-166.  137  More, A . J . (1984). Okanagan-Nicola Indian Indian and Northern Affairs.  quality of education study.  Dept. of  More, A . J . (1980). Indian students and their learning styles: Research results and classroom applications. Unpublished More, A . J . (1985). Indian students and their learning styles: Research results and classroom applications. (unpublished paper). Vancouver, B . C . : University of British Columbia. Nakonechney, C. (1986). Classroom communication: A case study of Native adolescents. Unpublished master's thesis, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B . C . Philips, S. U . (1972). Participant structures and communicative competence: W a r m Springs children in community and classroom. In C. B . Cazden, V . P. John and D . Hymes (Eds.), Functions of language in the classroom. New York: Teachers College Press. Philips, S. U . (1974). Warm Springs Indian time: How the regulation of participation affects the progression of events. In R. Bauman and J . Scherzer Eds.), Explorations in the ethnography of speaking. London: Cambridge University Press. Philips, S. U . (1976). Some sources of cultural variability in the regulation of talk. Language in Society, 5, 81-95. Philips, S. U . (1983). The invisible culture: Communication in classroom and community on the Warm Springs Indian reservation. New York: Longman. Philipsen, G. (1972). Navaho world view and culture patterns of speech: A case study in ethnorhetoric. Speech Monographs, 39, 132-139. Potter, L . D. (1981). American Indian children and writing: A n introduction to some issues. In B . Cronnel (Ed.), The writing needs of linguistically different students. Proceedings of a Research Practice conference held at the Southwest Regional Laboratory for Educational Research and Development (Los Alamitos, C A , June 1981). (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. E D 210 932) Reed, C. E . (1973). Adapting T E S L approaches to the teaching of written English as a Second Dialect to speakers of American Black English vernacular. TESOL Quarterly, 289-305. Schegloff, E . A . (1968). Sequencing in conversational openings. Anthropologist, 70, 1075-1095. Schegloff, E . A . & Sacks, H . (1973). School District No. 72.  (1984).  Opening up closings.  American  Semiotica, 8, 289-327.  A survey of Native ancestry students enrolled in  138  School District No. 72 (Campbell River), Sept. 1981 to June 1983, level. Campbell River, B . C . : School District No. 72. Scollon, R. & Suzanne, B . K . (1981). Narrative, communication. Norwood, N J : Ablex.  Elementary  literacy and face in interethnic  Siler, I. C. & Labadie-Wondergem, D. (1982). Cultural factors in the organization of speeches by native Americans. In F . Barkin, E . Brandt and J . Ornstein (Eds.), Bilingualism and language contact. New York: Teachers College Press. Silverman, G . (1977).  Soul 'n style.  English Journal,  65,  14-16.  Stout, S. 0 . (1977). English non-uniformity: A non-adult form of ethnic English. Paper presented at the Annual Southwestern Language and Linguistic Conference (6th, 1977). (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. E D 143 242) Stubbs, M .  (1976).  Language, schools and classrooms.  London: Methuen.  Tollefson, S. K . (1977). The sheer edge of meaning: Teaching composition to native Americans. Arizona English Bulletin, 29(2), 30-37. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. E D 151 833) Toohey, K . (in press). Minority educational failure: Is dialect a factor? Curriculum Inquiry.  In  Tootoosis, V . M . (1983). Oral language and learning of one five year old Cree child at home and school. Unpublished master's thesis, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alta. Turner, R. (1970). Understanding  Words, utterances and activities. everyday life. Chicago: Aldine.  In J . Douglas (Ed.),  Wild, J . , Nakonechney, C , & St. Jacques, B . (1983). Sociolinguistic aspects of native Indian speech. Journal of Social Linguistics, 14{1). Wolfram, W., Christian, D., Leap, W. L . & Potter, L . (1979). Variability in the English of two Indian communities and its effect on reading and writing. Arlington, V A : Center for Applied Linguistics. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. E D 179 108)  139  Appendix  140  Children at Play  Tootoosis' (1983) study of a five-year-old Cree child's "Language for Learning" points out that when interacting with intimates, the child used a wide variety of functions, and was clearly not at all "deficient" in her ability to communicate her thoughts.  More specifically  It was found that the child was continually using her language to interpret and infer from her experiences, to seek verification of her hypotheses and generate new interpretations in light of this experience. It was also found that through interaction with others, the child was often involved in a collaborative construction of meaning through talk. In addition, the child was observed using talk to herself (what Vygotsky calls "egocentric speech") in order to focus upon, familiarize herself with, plan, prepare and evaluate her experiences. (1983, p. vii) In this study extensive observation of three to five year olds also showed that, at play, talk was plentiful, and based on a wide variety of functions.  All  the functions observed by Tootoosis were observed, although not all were recorded on tape.  The following short excerpts demonstrate  the quantity and variety of uses  of language, a) Comparing Comparing Lunches Example 1: Nursery school, snack time Present: Four three-year-olds, called C l , C2, C3, C4) C l : He got baby orange C2: I got big one C3: I got big one too C2: I got two of 'em C3: I got one  141  C4: I got juice . . .  X X X  C2: I'll have this X X . . .  He has has . . .  We do!  C3: Me too C?: X X C2: No, we do 'cause we got Japanese orange C3: Y a , we got Japanese orange too C2: [name] got same not you C?: H a H a H a (loud) C l : I got little baby orange . . .  I got Japanese orange  C2: You guys . . . [name 2] you don't got same orange as us C l : No (IB, 045) b) Negotiating Negotiating Play E x a m p l e 2: Nursery School Free Time Present: Two three-year-olds S I : Wanna do that? S2: 'kay Negotiating Roles E x a m p l e 3: Nursery School, playing house Present: Two four-year-olds S I : I H set the table up S2: I wanna be the mom Negotiating Ownership and Role E x a m p l e 4: Nursery school, playing house P a r t i c i p a n t s : Two four-year-olds  S i : I got this pair of shoes on S2: Hey those ones are mine S i : 'Cause you're the little girl Is this your purse, Mom S i : Yes, whoops.  Thank you, daughter  c) Problem-Solving Solving a Problem Example 5: Back room at kindergarten, doing a jigsaw puzzle Present: Three Native Boys (NB1, N B 2 , NB3), one Mainstream Boy (MB1), all five or six years old N B 2 : That doesn't go there N B 1 : I know where, right down there N B 3 : X X X somebody M B 1 : See, look what he X there N B 1 : X that really does go??  X  ?: U I sentence N B 3 : That goes there N B 2 : Let me, let me see under it . . . : Y a that goes . . .  No, it doesn't belong there  N B 1 : No, it doesn't go like that N B 2 : Could be . . . (various noises) M B 1 : C'mon let's try // N B 1 : Must be, yah!  That belongs there, that goes in  N B 2 : (soft) Wait, wait X man N B 1 : He man, X . record?  What is I doin! . . . Oh, [name], you the  143  N B 2 : No N B 3 : Dog goes there N B 1 : This dog goes // N B 2 : Oh, look what he did M B 1 : Lookit what I found N B 1 : Hey that's mine! N B 3 : Can I just, I just findin a piece where it goes M B 1 : There cards (pieces) are mine N B 3 : Hey, this belong? N B 2 : That's mine N B 1 : (whisper) X X I can't find it ?: Hey N B 1 : Tryin to rip up this puzzle ?: I never ripped it up you! M B 1 : There . . . Hard puzzle N B 2 : X , look N B 2 : Lookit this M B 1 : That goes like that (15A, 025) This puzzle took approximately 15 minutes to complete. period of silence was 10 seconds.  It is also interesting to note that N B 1 and  N B 3 were described by their teacher as quiet.  d) Word Play Word Play and Repetition E x a m p l e 6: Nursery School, Snack Time Present: Four four-year-olds  In that time, the longest  144  S I : Hey, donut face S2: Hey, donut face S i : Hey donut booga, hey donut noley S3: Hey donut eye S?: We all goin fast (4B, 530) Word Play: Leader-response E x a m p l e 7: Nursery school, snack time Participants: Four four-year-olds ( C l , C2, C3, C4) C l : I know.  X took my Barbie's clothes off her  C2: Did somebody take his shoes and socks off and smell their feet? A l l : No! C2: Did somebody just take their shoes off and smell their socks? A l l : No! Did girls do that? . . . smell their feet?  Do X take their shoes and socks off and  C3: I don't know C l : No! Teasing Occasionally, the children would tease the researcher. "who ate the cookie."  A favourite game was  The children would accuse each other, then all turn at  once, point at the researcher  and say "you did."  E x a m p l e 8: Nursery school, snack time S I : (pointing to others) Y o u did!  Y o u did!  Y o u did!  S2: What do you mean, "you did"? S i : (pointing at researcher) No. S2: You!  You did!!  (much laughter) You!  145  S3: You did it! S I : Stupid mouse (laughter) Stupid mouse, e) Other Organizing Play Imagining E x a m p l e 9: Nursery school, free play P a r t i c i p a n t s : Two four-year-olds ( C l , C2) C l : C'mon!  G.I. Joe!  C2: Hey, pretending these are G.I. Joe [name], pretending these are G.I. Joe. Comparing Possessions Sharing Experiences "Egging O n " Planning Play E x a m p l e 10: On the swings Present: Three four-year-olds S3: Okay S i : Hey I see he got the wunners in at K - M a r t S2: Who? S I : That people S2: Say S i : I seen an eagle at K-Mart. S2: See Rachael?  Whoa.  I'm slowin' down  Whoa.  S I : I didn't wanna go on there.  H a , ha. Too scary  S2, S 3: (laughter & silliness) Don't  1  146  S2: Okay get off.  Scary huh?  S3: Y u p S2: Why'n'cha try it Rach? S I : No, I don't think so S2: Scared huh. X X teeter-tot go up ' n ' down, up ' n ' down. Joseph you wanna try on the big one? (4B, 250) Establishing Relationships Example 11: Nursery school, free play Participants: Two three-year-olds  ( C l , C2)  C l : A r e you my friend [name] C2: No C l : you're not my friend [name] Fighting Example 12: Nursery school, playground Participants: Two children (age 3 or 4) S I : Push that out X S2: Don't.  That's  mine  S I : Wanna have a fight? S2: No S I : 'na have a fight? S2: That's Tl:  mine!  [Name]!  


Citation Scheme:


Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics



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"
                            async >
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:


Related Items