Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Characteristics of mothers’ interrogatives to young children Craven, Carolyn Elizabeth 1983

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

Notice for Google Chrome users:
If you are having trouble viewing or searching the PDF with Google Chrome, please download it here instead.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1983_A6_7 C73_3.pdf [ 6.78MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0095714.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0095714-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0095714-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0095714-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0095714-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0095714-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0095714-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0095714-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0095714.ris

Full Text

CHARACTERISTICS OF MOTHERS' INTERROGATIVES TO YOUNG CHILDREN By CAROLYN ELIZABETH CRAVEN B.A., The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF MASTER OF SCIENCE i n THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES ( S c h o o l o f A u d i o l o g y and Speech S c i e n c e s ) We a c c e p t t h i s t h e s i s as c o n f o r m i n g t o the r e q u i r e d s t a n d a r d THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA A p r i l , 1983 © C a r o l y n E. Craven, 1983 In p r e s e n t i n g t h i s t h e s i s i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of the requirements f o r an advanced degree at the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree t h a t the L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r r e f e r e n c e and study. I f u r t h e r agree t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e copying of t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by h i s or her r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . I t i s understood t h a t copying or p u b l i c a t i o n of t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l gain s h a l l not be allowed without my w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n . / Department o f Audiology and Speech Sciences The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia 1956 Main Mall Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Y3 Date A P r i l 27. 1983 DE-6 (3/81) - i i -ABSTRACT T h i s t h e s i s i n v e s t i g a t e s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the i n t e r r o -g a t i v e s mothers a d d r e s s t o t h e i r c h i l d r e n . The d a t a , o r i g i n a l l y c o l l e c t e d by Johnson (1981), c o n s i s t s o f an o b s e r v a t i o n a l s t u d y o v e r a 2-g- month p e r i o d of e i g h t m o t h e r - c h i l d p a i r s , a boy and a g i r l a t each s i x month i n t e r v a l from 1;6 t o 3>0. They came from m i d d l e - c l a s s , E n g l i s h - s p e a k i n g homes. Each m o t h e r - c h i l d p a i r p a r t i c i p a t e d i n s i x p l a y s e s s i o n s t h a t were a u d i o - and v i d e o -t a p e d i n a t e l e v i s i o n s t u d i o l i v i n g room s e t t i n g . A l l c o n v e r s a -t i o n was t r a n s c r i b e d i n t o E n g l i s h o r t h o g r a p h y from t h e a u d i o t a p e s . W i t h t h e a i d o f t h e v i d e o t a p e s , mothers! i n t e r r o g a t i v e s were i d e n t i f i e d , s e p a r a t e d i n t o i n t e r r o g a t i v e t y p e s and coded f o r f r e q u e n c y , c h i l d ' s r e s ponse and c o n t e x t u a l and g e s t u r a l cues. These were a n a l y z e d a c c o r d i n g t o i n d i v i d u a l m o t h e r - c h i l d p a i r s , and t h e c h i l d ' s age and l i n g u i s t i c s t a g e as d e f i n e d by Brown (1973). The r e s u l t s showed t h a t t h e f r e q u e n c y of i n t e r r o g a t i v e s i n g e n e r a l decrease w i t h t t h e c h i l d ' s i n c r e a s i n g age and l i n g u i s -t i c m a t u r i t y . E a r l y i n t e r r o g a t i v e s a r e p r i m a r i l y yes/no and what q u e s t i o n s and expand t o i n c l u d e wh- q u e s t i o n s t h r o u g h t h e c h i l d ' s development. I t was a l s o found t h a t m a t e r n a l i n t e r r o -g a t i v e s e x p r e s s a number o f d i s c o u r s e and u t t e r a n c e f u n c t i o n s e a r l y i n t h e c h i l d ' s development. The most f r e q u e n t , f o r a l l ages and l i n g u i s t i c s t a g e s , s e r v e t o c o n t i n u e the t o p i c a l r e a d y e s t a b l i s h e d and to r e q u e s t i n f o r m a t i o n . An a n a l y s i s o f form: - i i i -f u n c t i o n correspondences showed t h a t i n terms of u t t e r a n c e func-t i o n , mothers use a v a r i e t y of forms to express a number of f u n c t i o n s and t h i s does not seem to change s u b s t a n t i a l l y through the c h i l d ' s development (Shatz, 1979). With regard to form: u t t e r a n c e f u n c t i o n p a i r i n g s , i t seems t h a t while mothers use a f u l l range of forms to continue the t o p i c , they do not use new q u e s t i o n words to i n t r o d u c e a new t o p i c and thus g i v e t h e i r c h i l d r e n maximum o p p o r t u n i t y t o succeed i n answering. A l o o k at the c h i l d r e n ' s responses g i v e s evidence a g a i n s t a; f i n e - t u n i n g theory of maternal speech. I n s t e a d , the r e s u l t s suggest an i n c r e a s e i n c o r r e c t v e r b a l responses and a decrease i n no responses as the c h i l d gets o l d e r and more l i n g u i s t i c a l l y s o p h i s t i c a t e d . Looking at c o n t e x t u a l and g e s t u r a l cues showed t h a t , i n g e n e r a l , t h e r e was a decrease i n i n t e r r o g a t i v e s t h a t were context-bound, although the p r o p o r t i o n s t i l l remains about 50%; t h i s i s comparable to the l i t e r a t u r e on context. Regarding g e s t u r e , t h e r e seems to be a decrease i n the number of i n t e r r o g a t i v e s not accompanied by gesture, which i s not s u b s t a n t i a t e d by the l i t e r a t u r e concer-n i n g g e s t u r e . In g e n e r a l , i n those i n s t a n c e s where gesture i s a p p l i c a b l e , there i s no change i n maternal gesture p a t t e r n s with the c h i l d ' s development. O v e r a l l , i t seems that while mothers don't " f i n e - t u n e " t h e i r q u e s t i o n a s k i n g to t h e i r c h i l d r e n ' s age or l i n g u i s t i c s t a ge, they appear to have some sense of t h e i r c h i l d r e n ' s a b i l i -t i e s and g i v e them many o p p o r t u n i t i e s to succeed. As c h i l d r e n d i s c o v e r and develop t h e i r own i n t e r r o g a t i v e r e p e r t o i r e , maternal i n t e r r o g a t i v e s decrease, thus r e s u l t i n g i n a two-sided c o n v e r s a t i o n i n s t e a d of a one-sided n a r r a t i o n . -iv-TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ...... . . . i i L I S T OF TABLES, V CHAPTER I A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE AND STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM 1 M o t h e r s ' S p e e c h _ t o Young C h i l d r e n 2 M o t h e r s ' Q u e s t i o n s t o You n g C h i l d r e n 4 C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f M o t h e r s ' Q u e s t i o n s - Some H y p o t h e s e s . . 5 CHAPTER I I DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY .19 S u b j e c t s 19 D a t a C o l l e c t i o n 20 Time P e r i o d ....20 Type o f A c t i v i t y a n d P a r t i c i p a n t s 20 S e t t i n g 20 E q u i p m e n t 21 D a t a A n a l y s i s 21 T r a n s c r i p t i o n 21 S e l e c t i o n o f U t t e r a n c e s t o be A n a l y s e d 21 C o d i n g a nd A n a l y s i s 22 CHAPTER I I I A DISCUSSION OF THE RESULTS 24 G e n e r a l D e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e R e s u l t s 24 The F r e q u e n c y o f M a t e r n a l I n t e r r o g a t i v e s 25 The F orm o f M a t e r n a l I n t e r r o g a t i v e s 2 9 The C o m m u n i c a t i v e F u n c t i o n s o f M a t e r n a l I n t e r r o g a t i v e s . . . 33 U t t e r a n c e F u n c t i o n 33 D i s c o u r s e F u n c t i o n 38 F o r m : F u n c t i o n R e l a t i o n s h i p s i n M a t e r n a l I n t e r r o g a t i v e s . . . . 42 D i s c o u r s e F u n c t i o n 47 C h i l d r e n ' s R e s p o n s e s t o M a t e r n a l I n t e r r o g a t i v e s 52 C o n t e x t a n d G e s t u r e i n M a t e r n a l I n t e r r o g a t i v e s 57 C o n t e x t u a l C ues ^ ..57 G e s t u r e . , 59 Summary o f R e s u l t s 61 APPENDIX A CODING CATEGORIES WITH EXP L I C A T I O N AND EXAMPLES..65 APPENDIX B FORM:FUNCTION DATA 74 BIBLIOGRAPHY 97 V L I S T OF TABLES 1. Age (.Years j:Months .Days) and S t a g e o f S y n t a c t i c 22 D e v e l o p m e n t f o r e a c h C h i l d i n e a c h S e s s i o n A n a l y s e d 2. T o t a l Number o f M a t e r n a l U t t e r a n c e s i n a l l S e s s i o n s and Number (and P e r c e n t a g e o f t h e T o t a l ) o f I n t e r r o g a t i v e s , f o r e a c h s u b j e c t 2 5 3. Number o f I n t e r r o g a t i v e s Cand I n t e r r o g a t i v e s e x p r e s s e d a s p e r c e n t a g e o f t o t a l u t t e r a n c e s ) A d d r e s s e d t o e a c h S u b j e c t i n e a c h S e s s i o n ...26 4. Mean Number o f I n t e r r o g a t i v e s , E x p r e s s e d as P e r c e n t a g e o f T o t a l Number o f U t t e r a n c e s , A d d r e s s e d t o c h i l d r e n a t e a c h Age and L i n g u i s t i c S t a g e 27 5. I n t e r r o g a t i v e T y p e s , e x p r e s s e d a s P e r c e n t a g e o f a l l I n t e r r o g a t i v e s , A d d r e s s e d t o e a c h C h i l d 28 6. P e r c e n t a g e o f T o t a l I n t e r r o g a t i v e s , i n e a c h Type C a t e g o r y , a c c o r d i n g t o t h e c h i l d ' s age and L i n g u i s t i c S t a g e 28 7. P e r c e n t a g e o f T o t a l I n t e r r o g a t i v e s A d d r e s s e d t o e a c h S u b j e c t s e r v i n g e a c h U t t e r a n c e F u n c t i o n 34 8. P e r c e n t a g e o f T o t a l I n t e r r o g a t i v e s , s e r v i n g e a c h U t t e r a n c e F u n c t i o n , a c c o r d i n g t o Age and L i n g u i s t i c S t a g e .36 9. P e r c e n t a g e o f T o t a l I n t e r r o g a t i v e s a d d r e s s e d t o e a c h c h i l d u s e d t o f u l f i l l e a c h D i s c o u r s e F u n c t i o n 39 10. P e r c e n t a g e o f T o t a l I n t e r r o g a t i v e s u s e d t o f u l f i l l e a c h D i s c o u r s e F u n c t i o n , a c c o r d i n g t o Age a n d L i n g u i s t i c S t a g e 40 11 . T o t a l Number (and p e r c e n t a g e o f t h e t o t a l ) o f I n t e r r o g a t i v e T y p e s u s e d f o r e a c h U t t e r a n c e F u n c t i o n a c r o s s a l l S u b j e c t s a n d S t a g e s 4 4 12. T o t a l Number (and p e r c e n t a g e o f t h e t o t a l ) o f I n t e r r o g a t i v e T y p e s u s e d f o r e a c h D i s c o u r s e F u n c t i o n a c r o s s a l l s u b j e c t s a n d s t a g e s 48 13. C h i l d r e n ' s R e s p o n s e s t o M a t e r n a l I n t e r r o g a t i v e s e x p r e s s e d a s p e r c e n t a g e o f I n t e r r r o g a t i v e s a d d r e s s e d t o e a c h c h i l d , ..53 14. R e s p o n s e T y p e s c a l c u l a t e d a s P e r c e n t a g e o f I n t e r r o g a t i v e s a d d r e s s e d t o c h i l d r e n a t e a c h Age a nd L i n g u i s t i c S t a g e 55 v i 15. P r e s e n c e o f C o n t e x t u a l C u e s , e x p r e s s e d as p e r c e n t a g e o f I n t e r r o g a t i v e s a d d r e s s e d t o c h i l d 58 16. P r e s e n c e o f C o n t e x t u a l C u e s , e x p r e s s e d a s p e r c e n t a g e o f I n t e r r o g a t i v e s a d d r e s s e d t o c h i l d r e n a t e a c h age and l i n g u i s t i c s t a g e 58 17. P e r c e n t a g e o f T o t a l I n t e r r o g a t i v e s s u p p o r t e d by a c c o m p a n y i n g g e s t u r e , a d d r e s s e d t o e a c h c h i l d 60 18. P e r c e n t a g e o f T o t a l I n t e r r o g a t i v e s s u p p o r t e d b y a c c o m p a n y i n g g e s t u r e , a c c o r d i n g t o age and l i n g u i s t i c s t a g e 60 A. T o t a l Number (and p e r c e n t a g e o f t h e t o t a l ) o f I n t e r r o g a t i v e T y p e s f o r e a c h U t t e r a n c e F u n c t i o n a c c o r d i n g t o I n d i v i d u a l C h i l d r e n 75 B. T o t a l Number ( a n d p e r c e n t a g e o f t h e t o t a l ) o f I n t e r r o g a t i v e T y p e s f o r e a c h U t t e r a n c e F u n c t i o n a c c o r d i n g t o L i n g u i s t i c S t a g e s I I I - V 83 C. P e r c e n t a g e o f t h e T o t a l I n t e r r o g a t i v e T y p e s u s e d f o r e a c h D i s c o u r s e F u n c t i o n a c c o r d i n g t o I n d i v i d u a l C h i l d r e n 86 D. P e r c e n t a g e o f t h e T o t a l I n t e r r o g a t i v e T y p e s u s e d f o r e a c h D i s c o u r s e F u n c t i o n a c c o r d i n g t o L i n g u i s t i c S t a g e s I I I - V 94 -1-CHAPTER 1 A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE AND STATEMENT OF THE 'PROBLEM Man's complex speech and language competence s e t s him a p a r t and above the o t h e r s p e c i e s . Y e t , i t remains a mystery as t o p r e c i s e l y how he a c q u i r e s t h i s c a p a b i l i t y t o become a p r o f i c i e n t language u s e r . R e s e a r c h i n t h e past twenty y e a r s has s e t t h e scene f o r a l o n g s t a n d i n g argument r e g a r d i n g the major c o n t r i b u t o r t o t h i s a c q u i s i t i o n p r o c e s s - t h e c h i l d , o r h i s environment. T h i s s t u d y i s meant t o c o n t r i b u t e t o t h i s debate by p r o v i d i n g a f i n e - g r a i n e d a n a l y s i s o f one a s p e c t o f the c h i l d ' s environment. The e a r l y consensus of p s y c h o l i n g u i s t s l a r g e l y r e s i d e d w i t h t h e i m p o r t a n c e o f an i n n a t e knowledge o f grammar. That i s , t h e key t o language a c q u i s i t i o n l a y o u t s i d e t h e r e a l m of t h e c h i l d ' s l i n g u i s t i c environment and w i t h i n some s t r u c t u r e d i n n a t e a b i l i t y t o encode normal a d u l t speech (Chomsky, 1965; M a c N e i l , 1966). O t h e r approaches which a l s o s t r e s s the i m p o r t a n c e o f t h e c h i l d ' s mental a b i l i t i e s h o l d t h a t t h e r e a r e l i m i t a t i o n s on t h e t y p e and q u a n t i t y o f language i n f o r m a t i o n a l e a r n e r can use. That i s , t h e c o n s i d e r a t i o n i n v o l v e s c o g n i t i v e p r o c e s s i n g ( p e r c e p t i o n and memory c a p a b i l i t i e s and i n p u t i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s t r a t e g i e s ) i n a d d i t i o n t o i n n a t e p r i n c i p l e s of l i n g u i s t i c s t r u c t u r e ( e . g . S h i p l e y , S m i t h & G l e i t m a n , 1969; B e v e r , 1970; S l o b i n , 1973; G l e i t m a n & Wanner, 1982). -2-C o n v e r s e l y , d u r i n g t h e p a s t t e n y e a r s w i t h t h e d e s c r i p t i o n o f "Motherese" (Newport, 1977) as a d i a l e c t d i s t i n c t from normal a d u l t speech, emphasis has s h i f t e d from t h e ' s t r u c t u r e d i n n a t e c o g n i t i v e a b i l i t i e s o f t h e c h i l d t o t h e im p o r t a n c e o f th e v e r b a l environment o f t h e language l e a r n e r . I t i s t h i s p o i n t o f v i e w t h a t w i l l be i n v e s t i g a t e d f u r t h e r i n t h i s s t u d y . Mothers' Speech t o Young C h i l d r e n Mothers' speech t o t h e i r language l e a r n i n g c h i l d r e n d i f f e r s from t h a t a d d r e s s e d t o o l d e r c h i l d r e n and a d u l t s i n s e v e r a l p h o n o l o g i c a l , s y n t a c t i c , s e m a n t i c , and p r a g m a t i c ways. Phono-l o g i c a l and p r o s o d i c changes i n c l u d e s i m p l i f i c a t i o n s , s u b s t i t u -t i o n s and r e d u p l i c a t i o n s ( F e r g u s o n , 1967); e x a g g e r a t e d p i t c h , range i n t e n s i t y , d u r a t i o n , s t r e s s ( G a r n i c a , 1977); s l o w e r r a t e ( B r o e n , 1972; C r o s s , 1977); and i n c r e a s e d i n t e l l i g i b i l i t y (Newport, G l e i t m a n & G l e i t m a n , 1977). S y n t a c t i c changes i n c l u d e d e c r e a s e d s e n t e n c e c o m p l e x i t y and a h i g h p r o p o r t i o n o f q u e s t i o n and d e c l a r a t i v e forms ( B r o e n , 1972; L o n g h u r s t & S t e p a n i c h , 1975; C r o s s , 1977; Newport, et a l . , 1977). Semantic changes o c c u r , w i t h a d e c r e a s e i n d i v e r s i t y o f s e n t e n c e s and an i n c r e a s e i n c o n c r e t e -n ess o f speech a d d r e s s e d t o younger c h i l d r e n (Chapman, 1981). I n ihe r e a l m o f p r a g m a t i c s , i n t e r r o g a t i v e s a d d r e s s e d t o t h e l a n g u a g e - l e a r n i n g c h i l d c o n s i s t s p r i m a r i l y o f r e q u e s t s f o r a c t i o n o r i n f o r m a t i o n - r e g a r d l e s s o f t h e a c t u a l g r a m m a t i c a l form o f th e u t t e r a n c e . ( F o l g e r & Chapman, 1978; Rondal, 1978; S h a t z , 1978; Chapman, i n p r e p a r a t i o n ) A l t h o u g h i t a p p e a r s t h a t t h e s e changes i n mothers' speech seem t o f a c i l i t a t e t h e g e n e r a l M e v e l o p m e n t o f lan g u a g e , i t i s u n c l e a r as t o how t h i s o c c u r s . Speech a d d r e s s e d t o c h i l d r e n i s -3-not a mere s i m p l i f i c a t i o n o f normal a d u l t c o n v e r s a t i o n (Newport et a l . , 1977); i n s t e a d i t i s a complex d i a l e c t w i t h i t s own unique c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . The a c t u a l m o t i v a t i o n f o r t h i s d i a l e c t r e mains under s p e c u l a t i o n . I t has been d e s c r i b e d as the mothers' d e s i r e t o : 1) t e a c h grammar by: making t h e g r a m m a t i c a l s t r u c t u r e t r a n s p a r e n t ; making p r o c e s s i n g e a s i e r f o r t h e c h i l d ; a l e r t i n g t h e c h i l d t o t h e f a c t t h a t speech i s a d d r e s s e d t o him; or p r o b i n g as t o the e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f the m o t h e r - c h i l d communicative i n t e r -p l a y ( s e e , e.g., Macnamara, 1972; C r o s s , 1977; Snow, 1977; Chapman, 1981), 2) converse w i t h t h e c h i l d . a n d m a i n t a i n an i n t e r a c t i o n w i t h him d e s p i t e h i s i n e x p e r i e n c e and inadequacy as a c o n v e r s a -t i o n a l p a r t n e r ( S h a t z & Gelman, 1977; Snow, 1977), or 3) c o n t r o l t h e c h i l d ' s b e h a v i o u r (Newport, 1977; Newport e t a l * 1977). R e g a r d l e s s o f which i t t u r n s out t o be, and s u r e l y i t i s a complex c o m b i n a t i o n , the same f e a t u r e s ( p r e v a l e n c e o f i n t e r r o -g a t i v e s , s i m p l i c i t y , and redundancy) a r e observed. I f , i n d e e d , t h e s e same f e a t u r e s come up so r o b u s t l y , t h e n how might they p r o v i d e an environment s u i t a b l e and o p t i m a l f o r t h e a c q u i s i t i o n o f language? One s y n t a c t i c form t h a t i s u n i v e r s a l l y r e p o r t e d t o be c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of mothers' speech t o t h e i r c h i l d r e n , r e g a r d l e s s o f the view o f the i n v e s t i g a t o r , i s t h e i n t e r r o g a t i v e . H i g h l y s a l i e n t because o f t h e i r s y n t a c t i c form, and c h a r a c t e r i s t i c i n t o n a t i o n , i n t e r r o g a t i v e s comprise a l a r g e p r o p o r t i o n o f speech a d d r e s s e d t o c h i l d r e n . I t does appear f r u i t f u l , t h e n , t o i n v e s t i g a t e t h i s s e n t e n c e t y p e t o f u r t h e r e l u d i d a t e t h i s mother-- i t -c h i l d i n t e r a c t i o n i s s u e . The s p e c i f i c purpose of t h i s p a p e r . i s t o s t u d y t h e forms and f u n c t i o n s of t h o s e i n t e r r o g a t i v e s mothers a d d r e s s t o t h e i r c h i l d r e n . M others' Q u e s t i o n s t o Young C h i l d r e n The l a n g u a g e - i n p u t l i t e r a t u r e c o n s i s t e n t l y r e v e a l s t h a t 3 0 - 60% o f u t t e r a n c e s a d d r e s s e d t o the l a n g u a g e - l e a r n i n g c h i l d a r e i n t e r r o g a t i v e forms ( e . g . 37% - B r o e n , 1 9 7 2 ; 5 1 % - C r o s s , 1 9 7 7 ; kk% - Newport e t a l , , 1 9 7 7 ; 3 0 - 60% - Snow, 1 9 7 7 ) and t h a t t h e s e forms e x p r e s s a myriad o f communicative f u n c t i o n s . ^ A c o n c e r n r e g a r d i n g i n t e r r o g a t i v e f r e q u e n c y f i g u r e s i s t h a t t h e y may be a r t i f i c i a l l y i n f l a t e d due t o t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l paradigm where t h e aim i s t o e l i c i t c h i l d r e n ' s speech ( E r v i n -T r i p p , 1 9 7 7 a ; S h a t z , 1 9 7 9 ) . D e s p i t e t h i s , i t i s g e n e r a l l y a g reed t h a t i n t e r r o g a t i v e s a r e h i g h l y p r e v a l e n t i n speech a d d r e s s e d t o young c h i l d r e n . What i s not w i d e l y d i s c u s s e d , however, i s t h e form:: " f u n c t i o n correspondence: t h e v a r i e t y of sentence t y p e s , i n c l u d i n g i n t e r r o g a t i v e s , t h a t e x p r e s s a g i v e n communicative o r c o n v e r s a t i o n a l f u n c t i o n , o r t h e m u l t i p l e f u n c t i o n s a g i v e n form e x p r e s s e d (e . g . Snow, 1 9 7 8 ; S h a t z , 1 9 7 9 ) . There i s some l i m i t e d i n f o r m a t i o n , however, about t h e r e l a t i o n s between mothers' and c h i l d r e n ' s i n t e r r o g a t i v e f o r m s , and s e p a r a -t e l y , t h e i r f u n c t i o n s . C o r r e l a t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n i s p e r t i n e n t t o a b e t t e r u n d e r s t a n d i n g of language a c q u i s i t i o n s i n c e i t i s not y e t c l e a r t o what e x t e n t form: : f u n c t i o n r e l a t i o n s i n mothers' speech has p r e d i c t i v e v a l u e f o r form: : f u n c t i o n r e l a t i o n s i n c h i l d language. 1 . These a r e c u l t u r e s p e c i f i c d a t a , a p p l i c a b l e t o w h i t e , E u r o -A m e r i c a n , m i d d l e - c l a s s c h i l d r e n . W i t h t h i s i n mind, t h e s p e c i f i c purpose of t h i s paper i s t o examine mothers' i n t e r r o g a t i v e s a d d r e s s e d t o young c h i l d r e n t o determine t h e i r f r e q u e n c y , t y p e s and f u n c t i o n s as t h e y r e l a t e t o : 1) t h e age and l i n g u i s t i c development o f i n d i v i d u a l c h i l d r e n d u r i n g t h e s t u d y p e r i o d , 2) t h e ages and l i n g u i s t i c s t a g e s r e p r e s e n t e d by a l l t h e c h i l d r e n i n t h i s s t u d y , 3) c h i l d r e n ' s r e s p o n s e s t o those i n t e r r o g a t i v e s , and if) t h e p r e s e n c e o f c o n t e x t u a l and/or g e s t u r a l cues. I n l o o k i n g a t t h e s e , I propose some s p e c i f i c hypothes.es m o t i v a t e d ! b y t h e language i n p u t and q u e s t i o n a c q u i s i t i o n l i t e r a -t u r e s . My d a t a w i l l speak d i r e c t l y t o t h e s e h y p o t h e s e s . C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f M o t h e r s ' Q u e s t i o n s - Some Hypotheses H y p o t h e s i s A: The f r e q u e n c y o f i n t e r r o g a t i v e s a d d r e s s e d t o c h i l d r e n d e c r e a s e s as the c h i l d ' s age and l i n g u i s t i c m a t u r i t y i n c r e a s e s . The i m p o r t a n c e o f s t u d y i n g t h e f r e q u e n c y o f i n t e r r o g a t i v e forms l i e s i n t h e a s s u m p t i o n t h a t the f r e q u e n c y w i t h which t h e mother models v a r i o u s s y n t a c t i c s t r u c t u r e s l a r g e l y d e t e r m i n e s t h e o r d e r i n which t h e i r c h i l d r e n a c q u i r e s y n t a c t i c forms ( e . g . F o r n e r , 1977) or r u l e s ( e . g . van der G e e s t , 1981). I t i s w e l l documented t h a t i n t e r r o g a t i v e forms o c c u r f r e q u e n t l y i n speech a d d r e s s e d t o c h i l d r e n . I t i s not c l e a r , however, how, and t o what e x t e n t t h e number of q u e s t i o n s change as t h e c h i l d g e t s o l d e r and/or d e v e l o p s l i n g u i s t i c a l l y . One group o f i n v e s t i g a t o r s m a i n t a i n s t h a t f e a t u r e s o f mothers' speech change i n accordance t o t t h e c h i l d ' s age, not h i s competence w i t h t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n a l f e a t u r e s o f t h e language (Newport, et aL, -6-1977; Snow, 1977; S h a t z , 1979; B e l l i n g e r , 1980; Moerk, 1980), w h i l e a n o t h e r group r e p o r t s t h a t mothers' speech i s more f i n e l y t u n e d t o t h e c h i l d ' s l i n g u i s t i c , p s y c h o l i n g u i s t i c and communica-t i v e a b i l i t i e s t h a n t o age ( S a v i c , 1975; C r o s s , 1977). Some s t u d i e s l o o k i n g a t f r e q u e n c y changes w i t h c h r o n o l o g i -c a l age f i n d t h a t p a r e n t a l i n p u t f r e q u e n c y and t h e age a t which t h e c h i l d m asters t h e f u l l range o f s y n t a c t i c t y p e s , i n c l u d i n g i n t e r r o g a t i v e s , a r e h i g h l y c o r r e l a t e d - t o such an e x t e n t , even, t h a t t h e age of t h e a d d r e s s e d c h i l d c o u l d be p r e d i c t e d a c c u r a t e l y from t h e mother's speech (e . g . B e l l i n g e r , 1980; Moerk, 1980). B e l l i n g e r (1980) found t h a t t h i s change was e s p e c i a l l y n o t i c e a b l e when c h i l d r e n were between 1;8 and 2;3> and l e a s t when they were between 2;3 and 5*>0. O t h e r s m a i n t a i n t h a t t h e a c t u a l p r o p o r t i o n o f q u e s t i o n s remains c o n s t a n t over t h e c h i l d ' s age range from one t o t h r e e y e a r s , and t h e change i s a c t u a l l y one o f q u a l i t y , n o t q u a n t i t y , o f i n t e r r o g a t i v e s ( L o n g h u r s t & S t e p a n i c h , 1975; S h a t z , 1975; Newport et a l , , 1977; Snow, 1978). That i s , a l t h o u g h the a c t u a l p r o p o r t i o n o f i n t e r r o g a t i v e s doesn't seem t o change, t h e t y p e s and f u n c t i o n s r e p r e s e n t e d by t h e s e i n c r e a s e as t h e c h i l d d e v e l o p s . A change i n t h e q u a n t i t y o f p a r e n t a l q u e s t i o n s a c c o r d i n g t o c h i l d r e n ' s MLU was r e p o r t e d by S a v i c (1975)* i n h e r s t u d y of S e r b o - C r o a t i a n t w i n s . She found t h a t a l l p a r e n t a l q u e s t i o n s d e c r e a s e d as c h i l d r e n began t o ask q u e s t i o n s o f t h e i r own. The vie w t h a t t h e q u a n t i t y o f p a r e n t a l i n t e r r o g a t i v e s i s r e l a t e d t o the c h i l d ' s l i n g u i s t i c development i s sh a r e d by C r o s s (1977) who, w h i l e s t u d y i n g t w o - y e a r - o l d s , r e p o r t e d t h a t r i s i n g - i n t o n a t i o n q u e s t i o n s d e c r e a s e d as the c h i l d ' s v o c a b u l a r y i n c r e a s e d , t h a t wh- q u e s t i o n s d e c r e a s e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y w i t h b o t h age and MLU, and -7-that yes/no q u e s t i o n s showed no s e n s i t i v i t y to l i n g u i s t i c matu-r i t y . Thus, the i s s u e of e x a c t l y what determines the change i n frequency of i n t e r r o g a t i v e s addressed to c h i l d r e n has not been r e s o l v e d ; i t remains to be seen whether mothers "tune" t h i s p a r t i c u l a r aspect of t h e i r language to t h e i r c h i l d ' s l i n g u i s t i c a b i l i t i e s per se or simply to t h e i r age. (The a c t u a l amount of input t h a t i s c r i t i c a l i f o r c h i l d r e n ' s a c q u i s i t i o n of i n t e r r o -g a t i v e s i s a l s o an unknown, one which i s probably u n r e s o l v a b l e . ) Regardless of whether the change i s due to age or l i n g u i s t i c m a t u r i t y , t h e r e i s some consensus i n the l i t e r a t u r e that the p r o p o r t i o n of i n t e r r o g a t i v e s decreases over developmental time. Some seemingly d i s p a r a t e views i n the l i t e r a t u r e may be the r e s u l t of m e t h o d o l o g i c a l d i f f e r e n c e s r a t h e r than d i f f e r e n c e s i n the primary data. B e a r i n g t h i s i n mind, t h i s study w i l l examine the frequency of i n t e r r o g a t i v e use, as w e l l the frequency of s p e c i f i c forms with r e g a r d to both age and l i n g u i s t i c stage. Thus, with my data, one can p o t e n t i a l l y s o r t out whether age or l i n g u i s t i c m aturity i s the best p r e d i c t o r of i n t e r r o g a t i v e frequency. Hypothesis B: I n t e r r o g a t i v e s addressed to c h i l d r e n w i l l become more d i v e r s e and complex as c h i l d r e n get o l d e r and/or more l i n g u i s t i c a l l y competent. I t has been proposed by E r v i n - T r i p p (1970) t h a t c h i l d r e n l e a r n to respond a p p r o p r i a t e l y to q u e s t i o n s i n a s e t order -from yes/no, to what, to where, to c o g n i t i v e l y more complex wh- q u e s t i o n words (see a l s o Tyack & Ingram, 1977). Assuming th a t c h i l d r e n l e a r n what they hear, i t seems reasonable to con-s i d e r that c h i l d r e n must hear more yes/no q u e s t i o n s than wh-q u e s t i o n s . -8-There i s l i t t l e i n f o r m a t i o n i n t h e l i t e r a t u r e about t h e range of yes/no i n t e r r o g a t i v e forms a d d r e s s e d t o young c h i l d r e n . I t i s r e p o r t e d , however, t h a t e a r l y wh- q u e s t i o n s t o one- and t w o - y e a r - o l d s a r e f o r m u l a i c and r e s t r i c t e d i n c o n t e n t ( e . g . What 1s  t h i s ? w h i l e p o i n t i n g t o an o b j e c t or p i c t u r e i n a b o o k ) . (Brown, Cazden & B e l l u g i , 1969; S a v i c , 1975; Buium, 1976) Q u e s t i o n words t e n d t o be l i m i t e d t o t h o s e w i t h c o n c r e t e r e f e r e n c e ( i . e . what, where, who). I t i s c o n s i d e r e d t h a t t h i s e a r l y l a c k o f d i v e r s i t y i n q u e s t i o n forms r e f l e c t s t h e r e s t r i c t e d t o p i c s o f m o t h e r - c h i l d i n t e r a c t i o n (Chapman, 1981) o r t h e c o g n i t i v e l i m i -t a t i o n s o f the c h i l d ( E r v i n - T r i p p , 1970). Mother's s y n t a c t i c adjustment f o r q u e s t i o n t y p e s has been r e p o r t e d by s e v e r a l r e s e a r c h e r s , L onghurst & S t e p a n i c h (1975) found t h a t i n t e r r o g a t i v e s a d d r e s s e d t o c h i l d r e n a t one t o t h r e e y e a r s are s i m p l e , w e l l - f o r m e d ( p r i m a r i l y yes/no) q u e s t i o n s and t h a t the k i n d o f q u e s t i o n s h i f t s from p r e d o m i n a n t l y yes/no t o an e q u a l number of yes/no and wh- q u e s t i o n s when the c h i l d r e n a r e between two and t h r e e y e a r s o l d . C r o s s (1977)» however, found t h a t wh- q u e s t i o n s d e c r e a s e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y w i t h b o t h age and MLU, whereas f u l l yes/no q u e s t i o n s showed no s e n s i t i v i t y t o l i n g u i s t i c m a t u r i t y . T h i s d i f f e r e n c e can perhaps be r e c o n c i l e d by l o o k i n g not o n l y a t t h e a b s o l u t e p r o p o r t i o n s of q u e s t i o n t y p e s but d i f f e r e n c e s t h a t can o c c u r w i t h i n t i n t e r r o g a t i v e forms. W i t h i n her s t u d y o f i n t e r r o g a t i v e form:: f u n c t i o n r e l a t i o n s , S h a t z (1979) found t h a t s i m p l e , w e l l - f o r m e d q u e s t i o n s l i k e What  i s t h a t ? o r Can you c l o s e i t ? a c c o u n t e d f o r about 60% o f q u e s t i o n s a d d r e s s e d t o her low group (MLU = 1 - 2 ) and o n l y 45% o f t h o s e a d d r e s s e d t o t h e h i g h group (MLU = 3 - 4 ) . The h i g h group r e c e i v e d more s y n t a c t i c a l l y complex q u e s t i o n s l i k e Do you -9-t h i n k i t ' s h i s w i f e ? E l l i p t i c a l u t t e r a n c e s l i k e Can you? a l s o were a d d r e s s e d more o f t e n t o t h e h i g h group than t h e low, w h i l e s h o r t u t t e r a n c e s t o t h e low group were m a i n l y r e p e t i t i o n s o f t h e c h i l d ' s p r e c e d i n g u t t e r a n c e ( S t a r ? ) . A d d i t i o n a l l y , S h a t z found t h a t low group mothers used more s i m p l e , complete d i r e c t i v e q u e s t i o n s w h i l e h i g h group mothers used more complex q u e s t i o n s r e q u i r i n g i n f o r m a t i v e r e s p o n s e s . To d a t e , t h e n , i t seems t o be a u n i v e r s a l s u g g e s t i o n t h a t mothers' q u e s t i o n s become more d i v e r s e and complex as t h e i r c h i l d r e n d e v e l o p . However, no one has mapped t h i s change i n q u e s t i o n forms t o d e t e r m i n e i f t h e change i s random o r p r e d i c -t a b l e . T h i s has been done t o some e x t e n t w i t h t h e c h i l d r e n ' s comprehension data:'which s u g g e s t s t h a t t h e c h i l d ' s o r d e r o f comprehension p a r t i a l l y c o r r e l a t e s w i t h t h e development of wh-words ( e . g . E r v i n - T r i p p , 1970; Tyack & Ingram, 1977) and w i t h E r v i n - T r i p p and M i l l e r ' s (1977) c o n c l u s i o n s about th e r e l a t i o n between a d u l t i n t e r r o g a t i v e t y p e s and c h i l d s u c c e s s i n r e s p o n d i n g . H y p o t h e s i s C: Mothers use i n t e r r o g a t i v e s f o r a v a r i e t y of d i s c o u r s e and u t t e r a n c e f u n c t i o n s , and t h e s e become more d i v e r s e o v e r d e v e l o p m e n t a l t i m e . R e l e v a n t c h i l d language l i t e r a t u r e shows t h a t t h o s e i n t e r r o g a t i v e s a d d r e s s e d t o c h i l d r e n r e p r e s e n t a v a r i e t y o f d i s c o u r s e and u t t e r a n c e f u n c t i o n s . S e r v i n g the more g e n e r a l aims of c o n v e r s i n g (Snow, 1977), t e a c h i n g ( C r o s s , 1977) and c o n t r o l l i n g t h e c h i l d ' s b e h a v i o u r (Newport et a l , 1977)> mothers use i n t e r r o -g a t i v e s t o t e s t t h e c h i l d ' s knowledge of names of o b j e c t s , c o l o u r s , e t c . , t o a s c e r t a i n t h e c h i l d ' s needs and d e s i r e s (Do  you want some j u i c e ? ) , t o make o f f e r s , t o modify b e h a v i o u r , t o i n d i c a t e a t t e n t i o n and a p p r o v a l , and so on. I t has been su g g e s t e d t h a t mothers i n t r o d u c e forms and meanings i n a p r i n c i p l e d way, t h u s n a r r o w i n g t h e p o s s i b i l i t i e s about the language s t r u c t u r e t h e l e a r n e r i s i n a p o s i t i o n t o h i t upon ( L e v e l t , 1975). S i m i l a r l y , S h a t z (1979) h y p o t h e s i z e d t h a t a d u l t s l i m i t t h e i r e x p r e s s i o n s of each q u e s t i o n f u n c t i o n t o a s i n g l e common form so as not t o confuse t h e c h i l d w h i l e he i s l e a r n i n g form;: f u n c t i o n p a i r s . She i n v e s t i g a t e d the p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t mothers f i r s t use i n t e r r o g a t i v e s t o e x p r e s s o n l y a few communicative f u n c t i o n s and expand these as the c h i l d ' s compre-h e n s i o n i n c r e a s e s . I n ^ c o n t r a s t t o her p r o p o s a l s , S h a t z found t h a t mothers use a v a r i e t y o f i n t e r r o g a t i v e t y p e s f o r a v a r i e t y o f f u n c t i o n s , t h a t mothers o f l i n g u i s t i c a l l y "low" c h i l d r e n (MLU = 1 - 2 ) and " h i g h " c h i l d r e n (MLU = 3 - 4 ) use i n t e r r o g a -t i v e s f o r the same f u n c t i o n s , and t h a t b o t h groups use t h e same number o f forms f o r p a r t i c u l a r f u n c t i o n s . However, t h e low group mothers d i d d i f f e r from the h i g h group mothers i n t h a t t h e y made more?frequent use o f p a r a d i g m a t i c frames t o e x p r e s s p r i m a r y f u n c t i o n s and c h a r a c t e r i s t i c f r a m e - f u n c t i o n p a i r s ( e . g . m a t i c frames more t h a n low group mothers t o e x p r e s s f u n c t i o n s o t h e r t h a n p r i m a r y ones, t h e r e were no s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n s between mothers' b r o a d e r use o f p a r a d i g m a t i c frames and t h e c h i l d r e n ' s r a t e s o f a p p r o p r i a t e r e s p o n d i n g t o t h e i r p r i m a r y f u n c t i o n s . I n s p i t e o f t h e s e s p e c i f i c d i f f e r e n c e s i n q u e s t i o n a s k i n g between t h e two grou p s , i n g e n e r a l i t does not seem t h a t mothers* use o f q u e s t i o n s f o l l o w s t h e i r c h i l d r e n ' s development o f language a b i l i t i e s . I f i t were t h e case t h a t t h e use o f form: f u n c t i o n p a i r s i n m a t e r n a l i n t e r r o g a t i v e s d i d f o l l o w the c h i l d ' s g e n e r a l development, mothers would i n i t i a l l y use unique p a i r i n g s Y e t , w h i l e h i g h group mothers used p a r a d i g --11-between form and f u n c t i o n f o r a s m a l l s e t o f f u n c t i o n s , b r o a d e n i n g t h e s e t o m u l t i p l e p a i r i n g s as t h e i r c h i l d r e n demonstrated t h e a b i l i t y t o r e s pond t o t h e s e a p p r o p r i a t e l y . S i n c e t h i s i s not s u p p o r t e d i n t h e d a t a , i t i s n e c e s s a r y t o l o o k f u r t h e r t o a s s e s s the mother's r o l e i n t h e development o f t h e c h i l d ' s knowledge of i n t e r r o g a t i v e s and what t h e y can do. One s t e p i n t h i s p r o c e s s i s t o l o o k more c l o s e l y a t some o f the s p e c i f i c f u n c t i o n s mothers' i n t e r r o g a t i v e s t o t h e i r c h i l d r e n can s e r v e . R equests f o r i n f o r m a t i o n , i n c l u d i n g t e s t q u e s t i o n s , c o n s t i -t u t e the most f r e q u e n t f u n c t i o n o f i n t e r r o g a t i v e s a d d r e s s e d t o young c h i l d r e n ( F o l g e r & Chapman, 1978). Requests f o r a c t i o n a r e the second most f r e q u e n t u t t e r a n c e i n t e n t ( F o l g e r & Chapman, 1978), but i t appears t h a t t h e i r p r o p o r t i o n i n m a t e r n a l speech drops as the c h i l d moves from h i s second t o h i s t h i r d y e a r ( R o n d a l , 1978). Other common f u n c t i o n s m a t e r n a l i n t e r r o g a t i v e s s e r v e a r e d i r e c t i o n o f the c h i l d ' s a t t e n t i o n and c l a r i f i c a t i o n o f the c h i l d ' s u t t e r a n c e s . Keenan et a l (1978) suggest t h a t mothers use r e q u e s t s f o r a t t e n t i o n t o i d e n t i f y "immediate con-c e r n s " ; t h i s use might be m o t i v a t e d by c o n v e r s a t i o n a l d i s t r e s s caused by t h e c h i l d ' s i n a b i l i t y o r i n a t t e n t i o n . R equests f o r c l a r i f i c a t i o n s e r v e as " d i s c o u r s e management t o o l s " w hich seem t o have no o t h e r f u n c t i o n t h a n t o m a i n t a i n the f l o w of the c o n v e r s a t i o n . They have been d e f i n e d by C o r s a r o (1977) as " i n t e r r o g a t i v e s w hich c a l l f o r c l a r i f i c a t i o n , c o n f i r m a t i o n o r r e p e t i t i o n o f t h e p r e c e d i n g u t t e r a n c e of t h e c o - i n t e r a c t a n t " (p 185). These i n t e r r o g a t i v e s have been r e p o r t e d t o account f o r 5 - 25% o f u t t e r a n c e s a d d r e s s e d t o c h i l d r e n between 2;3 and 2;8 (Corsaro,1977; Heath, 1981). A l s o commonly r e p o r t e d i s the mothers' use o f i n t e r r o g a t i v e s -12-as e x p a n s i o n s o r r e p e t i t i o n s o f her own o r t h e c h i l d ' s p r e v i o u s u t t e r a n c e . As w e l l as p r o v i d i n g checks on the c h i l d ' s commu-n i c a t i v e i n t e n t i o n , e x p a n s i o n s and r e p e t i t i o n s o f t h e c h i l d ' s u t t e r a n c e s p r o v i d e i n f o r m a t i o n about the c o r r e c t r e a l i z a t i o n o f a s p e c i f i c s t r u c t u r e a t t h e time t h e c h i l d most wants t o know i t (Brown & B e l l u g i , 1964; C r o s s , 1975; Brown, 1973; Keenan, 1977; Newport et a l , , 1977). A n o t h e r common c o n v e r s a t i o n a l r e p a i r , m a t e r n a l s e l f -r e p e t i t i o n s , t e n d t o be i m p e r a t i v e s o r q u e s t i o n s which r e q u i r e a c h i l d ' s r e s p o n s e . These u s u a l l y o c c u r when a c h i l d f a i l s t o respond o r appears t o have m i s i n t e r p r e t t e d the o r i g i n a l : u t t e r -ance ( C r o s s , 1975). F u r t h e r c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f t h e s e d i v e r s e f u n c t i o n s of mothers' q u e s t i o n s i s e s s e n t i a l because some i s s u e s remain unanswered. One such i s s u e i s whether t h e f u n c t i o n s o f mothers' i n t e r r o g a t i v e s change i n a p r e d i c t a b l e manner which can be r e l a t e d t o the c h i l d ' s comprehension l e v e l . H y p o t h e s i s D: I n t e r r o g a t i v e s a d d r e s s e d t o younger c h i l d r e n a r e r a r e l y " r e a l q u e s t i o n s " where t h e sp e a k e r does not have i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t she e x p e c t s t h e l i s t e n e r t o p r o v i d e . T h i s h y p o t h e s i s can be i n f e r r e d from H y p o t h e s i s C. The l i t e r a t u r e c o n c e r n i n g m o t h e r - c h i l d i n t e r a c t i o n r e s e a r c h c o n s i s -t e n t l y r e p o r t s t h a t mothers use i n t e r r o g a t i v e forms when a d d r e s s i n g p r e l i n g u i s t i c c h i l d r e n even though t h e i r a b i l i t y as c o n v e r s a t i o n a l p a r t n e r s i s o b v i o u s l y l i m i t e d . Snow (1978) s u g g e s t s t h a t t h i s o c c u r r e n c e i s due t o t h e mother's d e s i r e t o i n v o l v e h er i n f a n t i n c o n v e r s a t i o n , and t h a t t h e s e e a r l y q u e s t i o n s p r o v i d e t h e mother w i t h an o p p o r t u n i t y t o i n t e r p r e t h e r i n f a n t ' s b e h a v i o u r as a r e s p o n s e . Those i n t e r r o g a t i v e s t h a t sound most l i k e r e a l q u e s t i o n s i n c l u d e t e s t q u e s t i o n s , r h e t o r i c a l q u e s t i o n s and a c t i o n and v e r b a l r e f l e c t i v e s . There i s a h i g h i n c i d e n c e o f t e s t q u e s t i o n s r e p o r t e d i n t h o s e few s t u d i e s t h a t a d d r e s s t h e communicative use o f i n t e r r o g a t i v e forms. These, by d e f i n i t i o n , a r e not r e a l q u e s t i o n s , but forms which p r o v i d e t h e c h i l d w i t h an o p p o r t u n i t y t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n the c o n v e r s a t i o n a l t u r n - t a k i n g and t o ^ s u c c e e d i n r e s p o n d i n g . Mothers' i n t e r r o g a t i v e s t o young c h i l d r e n a r e a l s o commonly r h e t o r i c a l / c o n v e r s a t i o n a l (Oh r e a l l y ? ) o r a c t i o n / v e r b a l r e f l e c t i v e q u e s t i o n s t h a t p r o v i d e a n a r r a t i o n o f ongoing a c t i v i t i e s and t h u s r e q u i r e no response from the c h i l d (You're a b i g boy, a r e n ' t y o u ? ) . As the c h i l d grows o l d e r , t h e s e q u e s t i o n s become fewer and a r e r e p l a c e d by q u e s t i o n s t h a t r e q u i r e a more d e t a i l e d r e s p o n s e ( N i n i o & B r u n e r , 1978; Snow, 1978; S h a t z , 1979). Holzman (1972) a l s o r e p o r t s an i n c r e a s e i n r e a l q u e s t i o n s and a d e c l i n e i n t e s t q u e s t i o n s as t h e c h i l d ' s l i n g u i s t i c knowledge becomes more mature. S h a t z (1979)» however, found t h a t t h e mothers i n b o t h t h e low (MLU = 1 - 2 ) and h i g h (MLU = 3 - 2 + ) groups used t h e same p r o p o r t i o n o f t e s t q u e s t i o n s but o t h e r f u n c t i o n s f o l l o w e d a g e n e r a l - t o - s p e c i f i c d i r e c t i o n as the c h i l d r e n got o l d e r . T h i s t r e n d i n v o l v e s a change from q u e s t i o n s t h a t can be answered by t h e c h i l d ' s a c t i o n - r e s p o n s e s t r a t e g y ( S h a t z , 1975, 1978) ( e . g . Can you c l o s e t h e door?) t o tho s e q u e s t i o n s r e q u i r i n g a more s p e c i f i c l i n g u i s t i c r e s p o n s e ( e . g . Why are you s a d ? ) . T h i s i s s u e o f " r e a l q u e s t i o n " a s k i n g i s i m p o r t a n t , s i n c e i t f o l l o w s t h a t i f mothers do not use r e a l q u e s t i o n s u n t i l c h i l d r e n a r e o l d e r , t h e n t h e s e s h o u l d be among t h e l a t e r f u n c -t i o n s o f i n t e r r o g a t i v e s e n t e n c e s i n t h e c h i l d ' s development. T h i s a s s u m p t i o n i s s u b s t a n t i a t e d by r e c e n t q u e s t i o n a c q u i s i t i o n -14-d a t a ( e . g . Johnson, 1981). What i s not known, however, i s a t what age o r s t a g e t h e s e q u e s t i o n s b e g i n t o appear and what forms t h e y i n i t i a l l y t a k e . H y p o t h e s i s E: The f r e q u e n c y o f i n t e r r o g a t i v e forms and f u n c t i o n s t h a t mothers ask i s t i e d t o t h e s u c c e s s r a t e o f t h e c h i l d ' s r e s p o n s e . T h i s h y p o t h e s i s i s a s p e c i a l i n s t a n c e o f t h e c l a i m t h a t t h e m a t e r n a l i n p u t i s f i n e l y t u n e d t o t h e c h i l d ' s l e v e l o f comprehension ( e . g . C r o s s , 1977). C l a i m s r e g a r d i n g t h e r e l a t i o n o f i n p u t f r e q u e n c y t o t h e c h i l d ' s language development have, t o d a t e , been made w i t h r e f e r e n c e t o t h e c h i l d ' s language produc-t i o n (an e x c e p t i o n t o t h i s i s t h e s t u d y by E r v i n - T r i p p and M i l l e r , 1977» which w i l l be d i s c u s s e d b e l o w ) . Thus, the c i r c u -l a r q u e s t i o n t h a t r e m a i n s unanswered w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h i s hypo-t h e s i s i s whether t h e mother a s k s more q u e s t i o n s o f the type t o which t h e c h i l d can and w i l l r e s p o n d , o r the c h i l d l e a r n s t o respond t o t h o s e q u e s t i o n s asked more f r e q u e n t l y . I n any c a s e , Answering q u e s t i o n s i s among t h e f i r s t c l e a r l y d i s c o u r s e - b o u n d o b l i g a t i o n s t o which c h i l d r e n a r e s e n s i t i v e . I n f a c t , so s t r o n g i s t h e i r r e s p o n s i v e n e s s t o q u e s t i o n s t h a t a d u l t s o f t e n frame q u e s t i o n s , as B l o u t ( i n p r e s s ) has n o t e d , s i m p l y t o occupy a t u r n o r keep c o n v e r s a t i o n g o i n g , when nobody c a r e s about t h e i n f o r m a t i o n o f f e r e d or r e c e i v e d . ( E r v i n - T r i p p & M i l l e r , 1977:14) E r v i n - T r i p p (1977"b) c o n t i n u e s t o r e p o r t t h a t a n s w e r i n g i s l a r g e l y due t o a d u l t s a s k i n g t h o s e q u e s t i o n s t h a t c h i l d r e n a r e a b l e and l i k e l y t o answer. She adds t h a t " a d u l t s s t r a t e -g i c a l l y produce q u e s t i o n s a t p o i n t s where c h i l d r e n would n o r m a l l y g i v e answers anyway", (p. 21) I n t h e i r s t u d y , E r v i n - T r i p p and M i l l e r found t h a t c h i l d r e n 21 t o 41 months o l d were s u r p r i s i n g l y more s u c c e s s f u l a t ques--15-t i o n a n s w e r i n g t h a n t h e y had e x p e c t e d . They found t h a t t h e s e c h i l d r e n made few c a t e g o r y e r r o r s ; t h i s r e s u l t was p a r t i c u l a r l y i n t e r e s t i n g because t h e y a l s o found t h a t c h i l d r e n got b e t t e r a t an s w e r i n g as they got o l d e r . From t h e s e r e s u l t s , E r v i n - T r i p p and M i l l e r c o n c l u d e d t h a t perhaps i t i s t h e f r e q u e n c y o f t h e question." which l e a d s i t t o be u n d e r s t o o d and t h a t a d u l t s a d j u s t t h e i r a s k i n g s t r a t e g i e s and time the q u e s t i o n t o o c c u r j u s t when the c h i l d r e n know t h e answer. A l t h o u g h t h i s i s an i n t e r e s t i n g n o t i o n , t h i s s t u d y has a l i m i t e d d a t a base i n t h a t t h e s i n g l e a d u l t p a r t i c i p a n t was one o f t h e e x p e r i m e n t e r s , not t h e s u b j e c t s ' mothers. A n o t h e r f e a t u r e o f a d u l t q u e s t i o n s i s t h e g e n e r a l i t y o f th e r e s p o n s e e x p e c t e d . E a r l y q u e s t i o n s seem t o r e q u i r e no response and i n c r e a s e i n e x p e c t a t i o n s as the c h i l d r e n grow o l d e r ( A t k i n s o n & Keenan, 1978; Snow, 1978). F o r example, Chapman ( i n p r e p a r a t i o n ) n o t e d t h a t r e q u e s t s f o r a c t i o n and a t t e n t i o n a r e f r e q u e n t l y made f o r a c t i v i t i e s t h e c h i l d i s a l r e a d y c a r r y i n g o u t . A d d i t i o n a l l y , B e r k o - G l e a s o n (1977) p o i n t s out t h a t c h i l d r e n a r e a b l e t o shape t h e language b e h a v i o u r o f t h o s e who speak t o them by the k i n d o f feedback t h e y produce. I f her c o n v e r s a t i o n a l c o n t r i b u t i o n i s t o o com-p l e x , the speake r may f i n d h e r s e l f i g n o r e d o r d e s e r t e d . Thus, w i t h r e s p e c t t o i n t e r r o g a t i v e s , by t u n i n g i n t o t h e c h i l d ' s immediate feedback, a d u l t s a l s o tune i n t o the c h i l d ' s l e v e l and t a i l o r t h e i r speech l e v e l s a p p r o p r i a t e l y . More s p e c i f i c a l l y , S h a t z (1979) l o o k e d a t low group (MLU = 1 - 2) and h i g h group MLU = 3 - 4 ) c h i l d r e n ' s a b i l i t y t o r e s -pong a p p r o p r i a t e l y t o m a t e r n a l q u e s t i o n s s e r v i n g d i f f e r e n t f u n c t i o n s . She found t h a t t e s t q u e s t i o n s , i n f o r m a t i o n a l ques--16-t i o n s ( e . g . Do vou l i k e t h e wagon?) and. f l o o r o f f e r s ( e . g . C: Have l u n c h ! M: v W e l l , who's gonna make t h e l u n c h ? ) d i r e c t e d t o h i g h - g r o u p c h i l d r e n were answered a p p r o p r i a t e l y more o f t e n t h a n t h o s e t o low-group c h i l d r e n . D i r e c t i v e s ( i . e . r e q u e s t s f o r a c t i o n ) were answered e q u a l l y w e l l by b o t h groups and, moreover, low group c h i l d r e n responded a p p r o p r i a t e l y more o f t e n t o d i r e c t i v e s t h a n t o o t h e r k i n d s o f q u e s t i o n s (see a l s o S h a t z , 1978). However, t h e r e d i d not seem t o be a r e l a t i o n between t h e mothers' p a t t e r n s o f p r o d u c t i o n o f c h a r a c t e r i s t i c p a i r s and the c h i l d r e n ' s r e s p o n s e b e h a v i o u r s . " C h i l d r e n ' s p r e f e r -ences f o r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o r n o n - c h a r a c t e r i s t i c p a i r s r e g u l a r l y matched t h e i r mothers' p r e f e r e n c e s o n l y f o r the t e s t q u e s t i o n s t o the low group." I t i s u n c l e a r whether changes i n m a t e r n a l speech c o n s t i -t u t e a t e a c h i n g o r s i m p l i f i c a t i o n s t r a t e g y on the mothers' p a r t . Y e t , mothers must be somewhat s e n s i t i v e t o t h e i r c h i l d -r e n ' s r e p e r t o i r e of r e s p o n s e s i n o r d e r t o c a r r y on a r e c i p r o c a l i n t e r a c t i o n . I f mothers have a sense o f t h e i r c h i l d r e n ' s a b i l i t i e s , t hen i t i s l i k e l y t h a t t h e y a l t e r the f u n c t i o n s o f t h e i r q u e s t i o n s t o c o r r e s p o n d t o t h e i r c h i l d r e n ' s r e s ponse t e n d e n c i e s . I n a d d i t i o n , the e f f e c t o f m a t e r n a l b e h a v i o u r on r e s p o n s e b e h a v i o u r seems t o depend on b o t h the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f m a t e r n a l speech, and t h e c h i l d ' s d i f f e r e n t i a l u t i l i z a t i o n o f t h e i n f o r m a t i o n i n m a t e r n a l q u e s t i o n s f o r some f u n c t i o n s but not o t h e r s . Thus, what needs t o be examined more f u l l y i s t h e e x t e n t o f the a d j u s t i v e r o l e o f m a t e r n a l q u e s t i o n s as a c o n t r i b u t o r t o the development of c h i l d r e n ' s r e s p o n s e s k i l l s . H y p o t h e s i s F: I n t e r r o g a t i v e s a d d r e s s e d t o c h i l d r e n w i l l become -17-l e s s c o n t e x t u a l l y p r e d i c t a b l e as the c h i l d becomes o l d e r and/ o r more l i n g u i s t i c a l l y competent. The most s t r i k i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f c o n v e r s a t i o n s w i t h young c h i l d r e n i s i t s "here-and-nowness" and " e v e r y d a y n e s s " . Mothers' speech seems e f f e c t i v e l y l i m i t e d t o d i s c u s s i o n s o f what the c h i l d can see and h e a r ; what he has j u s t e x p e r i e n c e d , o r i s j u s t about t o e x p e r i e n c e ; or what he might p o s s i b l y want t o know about the c u r r e n t s i t u a t i o n ( e . g . P h i l l i p s , 1970; Moerk, 1972). I n t h i s way, m a t e r n a l speech i s o r g a n i z e d t o p r o v i d e a h i g h degree of redundancy between the s i t u a t i o n and the r e f e r e n -t i a l component o f speech i n a manner t h a t i n c r e a s e s t h e p r e d i c -t a b i l i t y i n t h e c h i l d ' s language environment (Messer, 1980). Chapman (1981) comments t h a t words used by mothers i n speech t o t w o - y e a r - o l d s a r e l e s s d i v e r s e t h a n t h o s e t o o l d e r c h i l d r e n o r a d u l t s . That i s , speech t o c h i l d r e n i s more c o n c r e t e , more c o n t e x t bound. She c o n t i n u e s t h a t t h e m o t h e r - c h i l d j o i n t i n t e r a c t i o n s p r o v i d e a s p e c i f i c c o n t e x t i n which l e a r n i n g and language can be used (see a l s o , N i n i o & B r u n e r , 1978). L i k e w i s e , i t was found t h a t accompanying g e s t u r a l cues reduce comprehension r e q u i r e m e n t s f u r t h e r . M a t e r n a l hand g e s t u r e s accompanying speech t o c h i l d r e n a r e f r e q u e n t ( G a r n i c a , 1978; S h a t z , 1978), and c h i l d r e n as young as 12 months n o t i c e and respond a p p r o p r i a t e l y t o a t l e a s t one g e s t u r e , t h a t o f o f f e r i n g (Macnamara, 1977). From a s s o r t e d c l u e s i n the l i t e r a t u r e i t seems, however, t h a t t h e r e i s no e v i d e n c e t h a t mothers f i n e l y pace t h e i r p r o d u c t i o n o f g e s t u r e s t o t h e l e v e l o f t h e c h i l d r e n ' s u n d e r s t a n d i n g . A l s o , i t seems t h a t t h e f r e q u e n c y of m a t e r n a l g e s t u r e s c o r r e l a t e d b e t t e r w i t h c h i l d r e n ' s age t h a n w i t h MLU. These f i n d i n g s suggest t h a t maternal gestural behaviour depends more on a b e l i e f that ges-tures are generally h e l p f u l to the young c h i l d than to a sensi-t i v i t y to those s p e c i f i c needs and a b i l i t i e s of a c h i l d i n a given conversation (Shatz, 1982; Shatz & Schnur, i n press). Thus, there i s a lack of evidence as to the extent of "context boundness" i n mother-child conversation, s p e c i f i c a l l y with reference to maternal questions, and the chil d ' s age or l i n g u i s t i c stage at which these contextual and/or gestural cues tend to drop o f f . CHAPTER I I DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY The d a t a used i n t h i s s t u d y were c o l l e c t e d by C. Johnson (1981) f o r her d o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n , C h i l d r e n ' s Q u e s t i o n s and  the D i s c o v e r y o f I n t e r r o g a t i v e S y n t a x . The f o l l o w i n g i s a b r i e f summary o f t h i s d a t a c o l l e c t i o n ( f o r a more complete d e s c r i p t i o n , p l e a s e see Johnson, 1 981 , p p . 2 1 1 - 2 2 3 ) and a des-c r i p t i o n o f t h e a n a l y s e s used i n t h i s s t u d y . S u b j e c t s E i g h t c h i l d r e n , four' boys and f o u r g i r l s , r a n g i n g i n age from 1;6 - 3 ; 0 , p a r t i c i p a t e d i n t h i s s t u d y . The c h i l d r e n came from m i d d l e - c l a s s f a m i l i e s l i v i n g i n t h e v i c i n i t y o f t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f B.C. i n Vancouver. A l t h o u g h the f i r s t , and o n l y , language spoken i n t h e s e homes was E n g l i s h , d i a l e c t ranged from Western t o E a s t e r n Canada, t o B r i t i s h and S c o t t i s h E n g l i s h . Two o f t h e g i r l s (aged 2;6 and 3 ; 0 ) and one o f t h e boys (aged 2;0) had younger s i b l i n g s w h i l e the o t h e r s were o n l y c h i l d r e n t h roughout t h e s t u d y p e r i o d . The mothers o f two g i r l s (aged 1;6 and 2;0) worked p a r t - t i m e ; one o f t h e s e g i r l s accompanied h e r mother t o work. The r e m a i n i n g mothers d i d not work o u t s i d e t h e i r homes. The c h i l d r e n were r e c r u i t e d from v a r i o u s community f a c i l i t i e s and dit'Ojp~'±n c e n t r e s . -20-B o y - g i r l p a i r s were matched f o r age a t the b e g i n n i n g o f t h e s t u d y . A boy and a g i r l were chosen f o r each six - m o n t h age l e v e l due t o e v i d e n c e t h a t language i n p u t may v a r y a c c o r -d i n g t o t h e c h i l d ' s sex ( e . g . B e r k o - G l e a s o n , 1973; C h e r r y & L e w i s , 1976). The c h i l d r e n were v i s i t e d i n t h e i r homes and i t was noted t h r o u g h o b s e r v a t i o n and p a r e n t a l r e p o r t t h a t each c h i l d was d e v e l o p i n g n o r m a l l y and had normal h e a r i n g . Data C o l l e c t i o n Time P e r i o d A l l s u b j e c t s were a u d i o - and v i d e o - t a p e d f o r s i x h a l f -hour s e s s i o n s . Due t o f a m i l y v a c a t i o n s and s c h e d u l i n g d i f f i -c u l t i e s , t h e time range spanned from t h r e e weeks t o t h r e e months f o r i n d i v i d u a l c h i l d r e n . Type of A c t i v i t y and P a r t i c i p a n t s T a p i n g s e s s i o n s c o n s i s t e d o f m o t h e r - c h i l d f r e e - p l a y w i t h t o y s p r o v i d e d by t h e e x p e r i m e n t e r . B e s i d e s the mother and c h i l d , two cameramen and t h e e x p e r i m e n t e r were i n the room. These peopl e d i d not p a r t i c i p a t e i n t h e c o n v e r s a t i o n u n l e s s d i r e c t l y a d d r e s s e d . V i r t u a l l y a l l i n t e r a c t i o n was between mother and c h i l d . S e t t i n g S e s s i o n s were t a p e d i n a l i v i n g r o o m s e t t i n g i n a T.V. s t u d i o w i t h low ambient n o i s e . S t u d i o l i g h t i n g was used. None o f the c h i l d r e n seemed d i s t r e s s e d " b y t h e s i t u a t i o n a l f a c t o r s -sometimes observed i n an u n f a m i l i a r s e t t i n g . On o c c a s i o n t h e y showed i n t e r e s t i n t h e camera o r t h e l i g h t s ; o t h e r w i s e they -21-ignored the cameramen, who were outside the boundaries of the "livingroom". Equipment Each play session was videotaped on Sony Video Tape V-30H with two Ampex CC220 1" black and white plumbicon cameras and a Sony 8650 i " Editing Video-recorder. The cameras, equipped with zoom lenses, were mounted on heavy r o l l i n g tripods. Two Sony ECM 16 omnidirectional neck microphones were sus-pended over the play area and two more pinned to the 'walls' of the play area provided the sound on the videotape. In addition, an independent high f i d e l i t y sound recording was made on Ampex 611 Professional magnetic tape with an Ampex 600 h a l f -track monaural recorder and an AKG-D190E cardioid microphone i n a parabolic r e f l e c t o r . . . Videotapes were played back for analysis on a Sony AV 3600 Videorecorder with a Sony monitor. Magnetic tapes were played back on a Revon A77 recorder with a Sennheiser HD414 stereo headphone. (Johnson, 1981:217) Data A n a l y s i s T r a n s c r i p t i o n A l l c h i l d and a d u l t u t t e r a n c e s were t r a n s c r i b e d from the magnetic tapes i n E n g l i s h orthography. T h i s was m o d i f i e d by Johnson and a r e s e a r c h a s s i s t a n t to a l l o w r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of c o n v e r s a t i o n a l forms l i k e "D'ya wanna S e l e c t i o n of U t t e r a n c e s to be Analysed A l l mothers' i n t e r r o g a t i v e forms addressed to the c h i l d r e n were i s o l a t e d from the t r a n s c r i p t s and d i v i d e d a c c o r d i n g to i n t e r r o g a t i v e type (e.g. yes/no; tag; what, e t c . ) . These were checked f o r c o n f i r m a t i o n of addressee and s y n t a c t i c type a g a i n s t the v i d e o t a p e . A l l s e l e c t e d u t t e r a n c e s were then num-bered f o r coding. I n t h i s study, four of each c h i l d ' s s i x s e s s i o n s (3> k> 5> 6) were analysed, thus e l i m i n a t i n g p o t e n t i a l e f f e c t s o f u n f a m i l i a r i t y w i t h t h e s e t t i n g . T a b l e 1 s u m m a r i z e s t h e c h i l d r e n ' s a g e s a n d l i n g u i s t i c s t a g e s f o r t h e s e s s i o n s a n a l y s e d . T A B L E 1 AND S T A E A C H C H I L D I N EACH S E S S I O N A N A L Y S E D AGE ( Y E A R S ; M O N T H S . D A Y S ) AND S T A G E 2 OF S Y N T A C T I C DEVELOPMENT FOR S e s s i o n S u b j e c t •= ^ ;= g -B e n j a m i n 1;6.8 1;6.22 1;6.29 1;8.17 p r e - I p r e - I p r e - I p r e - I P i e t a 1;8.5 1;8.12 1;8.19 1;8.26 p r e - I p r e - I p r e - I p r e - I C h l o e 2;3.5 2;3.15 2;3.29 2;5.13 I I I I G r a h a m 2;3.15 2;3.23 2;4.13 2;i+. 20 I I I I I I I I I D a r c y 2 ;6.18 2;7.1 2;7.15 2;7.29 I I I I I I I I I I I I J a n e 2;8.2 2 ;8.16 2;8.23 2;8.30 I I I I V I V I V A n t h o n y 3;2.6 3;2.20 3;2.27 3;3.4 I I I I V I V V L i n d s a y 3;1.10 3;1.22+ 3;2.1 3;2.8 I V I V I V V S t a g e s a r e d e t e r m i n e d b y MLU a n d u p p e r b o u n d , a s d e f i n e d b y B r o w n (1973). C o d i n g a n d A n a l y s i s M o t h e r s ' i n t e r r o g a t i v e s w e r e c o d e d i n t o f i v e s e p a r a t e c o m m u n i c a t i v e c a t e g o r i e s : 1. u t t e r a n c e f u n c t i o n : T h i s c a t e g o r y c o d e s t h e r e ? s e a r c h e r ' s p e r c e p t i o n o f t h e m o t h e r ' s c o m m u n i c a t i v e i n t e n t i o n i n u t t e r i n g a p a r t i c u l a r i n t e r r o g a t i v e . 2. d i s c o u r s e f u n c t i o n : T h i s c o d e s t h e u t t e r a n c e - 2 3 -f o r what i t does i n the c o n v e r s a t i o n and how i t r e l a t e s t o o t h e r u t t e r a n c e s o f t h e c h i l d o r a d u l t . 3 . c h i l d ' s r e s p o n s e : T h i s codes how the c h i l d r e s ponds t o t h e mother's i n t e r r o g a t i v e . 4. c o n t e x t u a l cue: T h i s codes whether the mother's u t t e r a n c e r e f e r s ( i m p l i c i t l y o r e x p l i c i t l y ) t o a s p e c i f i c o b j e c t , p e r s o n or a c t i v i t y i n t h e immediate environment. 5 . g e s t u r a l s u p p o r t : T h i s codes th e mother's hand movement r e l e v a n t t o t h e u t t e r a n c e . T h i s c o d i n g scheme was d e s i g n e d t o account f o r r e s e a r c h and d a t a m o t i v a t e d f e a t u r e s . A l a r g e number of c a t e g o r y f e a t u r e s were d e r i v e d from Johnson (1981) , who coded c h i l d r e n ' s i n t e r r o -g a t i v e s . T h i s a l l o w s f o r a c o r r e l a t i o n s t u d y a t a l a t e r d a t e . However, as t h e s e c a t e g o r i e s were i n s u f f i c i e n t t o d e a l w i t h a l l mothers' i n t e r r o g a t i v e s , a d d i t i o n a l c a t e g o r i e s were adopted and m o d i f i e d from work by McDonald and P i e n (1982). I d e f i n e d d a t a -m o t i v a t e d c a t e g o r i e s i n c o n s u l t a t i o n w i t h C. Johnson. The c a t e -g o r i e s and o p e r a t i o n a l d e f i n i t i o n s o f c o d i n g p o s s i b i l i t i e s a r e o u t l i n e d i n d e t a i l i n Appendix A. Subsequent a n a l y s e s c o n s i s t e d o f c o u n t i n g and t a b u l a t i n g c a t e g o r y f e a t u r e s . Comparisons made a c c o r d i n g t o i n d i v i d u a l mother d i f f e r e n c e s , i n t e r r o g a t i v e t y p e , c h i l d ' s c h r o n o l o g i c a l age, and c h i l d ' s l e v e l o f l i n g u i s t i c m a t u r i t y a r e r e p o r t e d i n t h e next c h a p t e r . -2k-CHAPTER I I I A DISCUSSION OF THE RESULTS G e n e r a l D e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e Data I n o r d e r t o d e s c r i b e t h e d a t a i n terms o f l i n g u i s t i c m a t u r i t y , and t o f a c i l i t a t e comparison w i t h t h e r e s u l t s o f o t h e r s t u d i e s , each s e s s i o n f o r each s u b j e c t was a s s i g n e d t o one o f Brown's (1973) d e v e l o p m e n t a l s t a g e s . T a b l e 1 (p. 22) shows t h a t s t a g e s I t h r o u g h V a r e a l l r e p r e s e n t e d . I t s h o u l d be n o t e d , however, t h a t t h e s e s t a g e s a r e not r e p r e s e n t e d e q u a l l y . Stage p r e - I i s comprised o f e i g h t s e s s i o n s and two s u b j e c t s (Ben and P i e t a ) ; s t a g e I i s made up o f f o u r s e s s i o n s and one s u b j e c t ( C h l o e ) ; s t a g e I I has o n l y t h r e e s e s s i o n s and one s u b j e c t (Graham); s t a g e I I I i n c l u d e s seven s e s s i o n s and f o u r s u b j e c t s (Graham, D a r c y , Jane and A n t h o n y ) ; s t a g e IV c o n t a i n s e i g h t s e s s i o n s and t h r e e s u b j e c t s ( J a n e , L i n d s a y and A n t h o n y ) ; and s t a g e V i s com-p r i s e d o f two s e s s i o n s and two s u b j e c t s ( L i n d s a y and A n t h o n y ) . Thus, some r e s u l t s p r e s e n t e d a c c o r d i n g t o l i n g u i s t i c s t a g e w i l l m e r ely r e f l e c t i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s among mothers. N e v e r t h e -l e s s , t h e s e i n d i v i d u a l i t i e s a r e r e l e v a n t t o the problem a t hand. Throughout the re m a i n d e r o f t h i s d i s c u s s i o n , r e s u l t s p r e -s e n t e d a c c o r d i n g t o s u b j e c t w i l l l i s t t h e c h i l d r e n i n o r d e r o f i n c r e a s i n g l i n g u i s t i c development. When r e s u l t s a r e r e p o r t e d by l i n g u i s t i c s t a g e , t h e s e s s i o n s c o m p r i s i n g each s t a g e a r e t h o s e - 2 5 -p r e s e n t e d i n T a b l e 1. The q u a n t i t y o f d a t a under a n a l y s i s i s d e s c r i b e d i n T a b l e 2. E i g h t t h o u s a n d , two hundred and seven (8,207) m a t e r n a l u t t e r -ances were d i r e c t e d t o the c h i l d r e n . Of t h i s t o t a l , 2,790 were coded as i n t e r r o g a t i v e s . These i n t e r r o g a t i v e s a r e t h e f o c u s o f the p r e s e n t s t u d y . They r e p r e s e n t 34% o f t h e t o t a l number o f u t t e r a n c e s , a f i g u r e which i s comparable t o thos e d i s c u s s e d i n t h e f i r s t c h a p t e r (see pp. 4 ) . The f o l l o w i n g d i s c u s s i o n w i l l r e v i e w t h e s e d a t a more c l o s e l y i n t h e l i g h t o f hypotheses A - F. TABLE 2 TOTAL NUMBER OF MATERNAL UTTERANCES IN ALL SESSIONS AND NUMBER (AND PERCENTAGE OF THE TOTAL) OF INTERROGATIVES, FOR EACH SUBJECT S u b j e c t T o t a l Number o f U t t e r a n c e s T o t a l Number o f I n t e r r o g a t i v e s Benjamin 1 ,223 425 (35%) P i e t a 1,213 449 (37%) Chloe 803 376 (48%) Graham 1 ,000 305 (31%) Darcy 1 ,440 586 (41%) Jane 764 251 (33%) Anthony 1,137 246 (22%) L i n d s a y 633 152 (24%) T o t a l 8,207 2,790 (34%) The Frequency o f M a t e r n a l I n t e r r o g a t i v e s A c c o r d i n g t o h y p o t h e s i s A, m a t e r n a l i n t e r r o g a t i v e s s h o u l d decrease i n f r e q u e n c y as the c h i l d d e v e l o p s . To l o o k a t t h i s q u e s t i o n t h e d a t a was f i r s t a r r a n g e d t o show the d i s t r i b u t i o n o f i n t e r r o g a t i v e s a d d r e s s e d t o each c h i l d d u r i n g each p l a y s e s s i o n a n a l y s e d ( T a b l e 3 ) , t h e n f u r t h e r d i v i d e d a c c o r d i n g t o the c h i l d ' s age and l i n g u i s t i c s t a g e ( T a b l e 4). - 2 6 -TABLE 3 NUMBER OF INTERROGATIVES (AND INTERROGATIVES EXPRESSED AS PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL UTTERANCES) ADDRESSED TO EACH SUBJECT IN EACH SESSION S e s s i o n s S u b j e c t s 3 4 5 6 Benjamin 85 93 101 146 (40%) (37%) (31%) (44%) P i e t a 147 133 71 98 (39%) (37%) (37%) (34%) Chloe 123 37 126 90 (42%) (42%) (55%) (47%) Graham 54 91 81 79 (31%) (35%) (25%) (33%) Darcy 134 160 145 147 (45%) (45%) (36%) (38%) Jane 60 72 58 61 (37%) (34%) (34%) (28%) Anthony 95 60 38 53 (26%) (25%) (13%) (21%) L i n d s a y 27 45 28 52 (20%) (25%) (22%) (27%) R e v i e w i n g T a b l e 3> i t seems t h a t t h e p r o p o r t i o n o f i n t e r r o -g a t i v e s d e c r e a s e d s l i g h t l y o v e r the f o u r s e s s i o n s f o r P i e t a , D arcy and Jane w h i l e t h e y remained f a i r l y c o n s t a n t f o r the o t h e r f i v e s u b j e c t s . I n t e r e s t i n g l y , Jane i s t h e o n l y c h i l d o f t h e t h r e e who showed a change i n f r e q u e n c y o f m a t e r n a l i n t e r r o g a t i v e who a l s o i n c r e a s e d i n l i n g u i s t i c m a t u r i t y ( f rom s t a g e I I I t o IV between s e s s i o n s 3 and 4) but t h i s does not seem t o be t h e p o i n t o f maximum change. Other c h i l d r e n showing l i n g u i s t i c m a t u r a t i o n (Graham, Anthony and L i n d s a y ) showed no r e a l change i n the p r o -- 2 7 -p o r t i o n o f i n t e r r o g a t i v e s a d d r e s s e d t o them. V a r i a t i o n s t h r o u g h -out t h i s d i s t r i b u t i o n , t h e r e f o r e , are p r o b a b l y due t o i n d i v i d u a l s t y l e d i f f e r e n c e s o f t h e mother or d i f f e r e n c e s i n t h e a c t u a l s e s s i o n s t h a n t o any a c q u i s i t i o n phenomenon. To l o o k a t changes which might r e f l e c t t h o s e due t o t h e q u e s t i o n - a c q u i s i t i o n p r o c e s s , l e t us c o n s i d e r the r e s u l t s as p r e s e n t e d i n T a b l e k* TABLE k MEAN NUMBER OF INTERROGATIVES, EXPRESSED AS PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL NUMBER OF UTTERANCES, ADDRESSED TO CHILDREN AT EACH AGE AND LINGUISTIC STAGE a Age L i n g u i s t i c Stage 1 ;6 36% ' p r e - I 36% 2;0 38% I Wl% 2;6 38% I I 30% 3 ; 0 22% I I I 37% IV 25% V Zif/o a S t a g e s r e f e r t o Brown's s t a g e s I - V (1973). R e v i e w i n g t h o s e changes over t h e age r a n g e , a d e c r e a s e i n t h e p r o p o r t i o n o f m a t e r n a l i n t e r r o g a t i v e s i s seen between 2;6 and 3 ; 0 . A c c o r d i n g t o l i n g u i s t i c development t h e r e i s a d e c r e a s e i n t h e p r o p o r t i o n o f i n t e r r o g a t i v e s between s t a g e s I I I and I V . However, t h e r e are c o n s i d e r a b l e f l u c t u a t i o n s i n t h i s d a t a . As mentioned p r e v i o u s l y , a major s h o r t c o m i n g o f the d a t a p r e s e n t e d by l i n g u i s -t i c s t age i s t h a t i t p r i m a r i l y r e f l e c t s i n d i v i d u a l , r a t h e r t h a n a c t u a l d e v e l o p m e n t a l , d i f f e r e n c e s . I n l i g h t o f t h e s e r e s u l t s , i t s h o u l d be n o t e d t h a t C h l o e ' s - 2 8 -TABLE 5 INTERROGATIVE TYPES, EXPRESSED AS PERCENTAGE OF ALL INTERROGATIVES, ADDRESSED TO EACH CHILD I n t e r r o g a t i v e t y p e C h i l d Yes/no Tag What Where Who Why How Which Benjamin 63 7 21 5 0 .2 1 1 0.4 P i e t a 74 6 14 2 1 - 3 1 Chloe 60 18 17 1 3 1 1 -Graham 64 11 13 6 1 2 3 -Darcy 49 14 19 9 5 1 2 -Jane 41 34 16 1 2 : 1 2 2 Anthony 44 8 25 9 3 8 1 2 L i n d s a y 57 20 13 4 - 4 1 -Average 58 14 17 5 2 2 2 1 TABLE 6 PERCENTAGE ; OF TOTAL INTERROGATIVES, : IN EACH TYPE CATEGORY, ACCORDING TO THE CHILD 'S AGE AND LINGUISTIC STAGE a Age I n t e r r o g a t i v e t y p e Yes/no Tag What Where Who Why How Which 1;6 69 6.4 17 3 0.6 0 .5 2 0 . 9 2;0 62 15 15 3.5 2 1 3 -2; 6 47 20 18 6 4 1 2 0.5 3 ; 0 49 13 20 7 2 6 1 1 Stage p r e - I 69 6.4 17 3 0.6 0 .5 2 0 . 9 I 60 18 17 1 3 1 1 • • • I I 62 12 13 7 1 2 2 • mm I I I 49 15 19 7 4 2 2 1 IV 48 22 17 4 2 3 2 2 V 48 19 13 9 • • • 8 • • • 1 mother c o n s i s t e n t l y asked more q u e s t i o n s t h a n Graham's ( C h l o e ' s age match) mother. T h i s i n c r e a s e d r e s u l t s f o r 2;0 y e a r s and f o r s t a g e I . A l s o , D a r c y ' s mother asked more q u e s t i o n s t h a n any o t h e r mother i n the s t u d y f o r each s e s s i o n . I t was noted t h a t w h i l e a l l mothers " n a r r a t e d " the p l a y s e s s i o n t o some e x t e n t , D a r c y ' s mother d i d so u s i n g i n t e r r o g a t i v e s ( e . g . Are you gonna  p l a y w i t h t h o s e ? o r A r e you gonna put t h o s e on the table? - b o t h i n i n s t a n c e s where Darcy had t h e t o y and was b e g i n n i n g t h e a c t i o n . ) A l s o , s h e - t e n d e d t o r e p e a t D a r c y ' s u t t e r a n c e s as i n t e r r o g a t i v e s t h a t a r e not t r u e r e q u e s t s f o r c o n f i r m a t i o n o r c l a r i f i c a t i o n , s i n c e b o t h D a r c y ' s speech and the c o n t e x t were c l e a r ( e . g . D: I t ' s h o t . M: I s i t hot? o r D: I t ' s a bee. M: I s t h a t a b e e ? ) . These s t y l e d i f f e r e n c e s pushed t h e p r o p o r t i o n s up bo t h f o r age 2; 6 and sta g e I I I . R e g a r d l e s s o f t h e s e problems, t h e r e i s a c l e a r d e c l i n e i n t h e p r o p o r t i o n o f m a t e r n a l i n t e r r o g a t i v e s between ages 2;6 and 3 ; 0 y e a r s , and between s t a g e s I I I and IV. The Form o f M a t e r n a l I n t e r r o g a t i v e s I t i s r e p o r t e d i n the c h i l d - l a n g u a g e l i t e r a t u r e t h a t t h e most common i n t e r r o g a t i v e type a d d r e s s e d t o young c h i l d r e n i s t h e yes/no q u e s t i o n . T h i s view i s r e f l e c t e d i n my r e s u l t s as d i s p l a y e d i n T a b l e 5J where yes/no q u e s t i o n s a r e seen t o comprise 58% o f the t o t a l number o f i n t e r r o g a t i v e s addressed t o thes e c h i l d r e n . A l s o n o t i c e a b l e i s t h e p r o p o r t i o n o f what q u e s t i o n , w h i c h , a l t h o u g h s u b s t a n t i a l l y l o w e r t h a n the yes/no f i g u r e , i s t h e second most f r e -quest q u e s t i o n type i n t h i s s t u d y . T h i s f i n d i n g i s i m p l i e d i n the l i t e r a t u r e o f such p e o p l e as E r v i n - T r i p p (1970), Buium, (1976) and S h a t z (1979). At a g l a n c e , i t a l s o appears t h a t o t h e r wh- i n t e r r o g a t i v e s undergo a f r e q u e n c y change a c r o s s s u b j e c t s . T a b l e 6 i s d e s i g n e d t o i n v e s t i g a t e t h i s change i n more d e t a i l by r e v i e w i n g the d a t a a c c o r d i n g t o age and l i n g u i s t i c s t a g e . -30-I n v e s t i g a t i o n o f t h e s e r e s u l t s shows a d e f i n i t e d e c r ease i n yes/no q u e s t i o n s between ages 2;0 and 2;6 and between s t a g e s I I and I I I . The s i m i l a r i t y between the age range and t h e s e l i n g u i s t i c s t a g e s a r e not s u r p r i s i n g s i n c e Graham i s b o t h age 2;0 and s t a g e I I w h i l e D a r c y ' s age i s 2;6 and c o n t r i b u t e s most t o s t a g e I I I . Tag c o n s t r u c t i o n s show a s u b s t a n t i a l i n c r e a s e between ages 1;6 and 2;0 y e a r s and between s t a g e s p r e - I and I . A g a i n t h e changes and t h o s e found between s t a g e s a r e p a r a l l e l s i n c e Ben and P i e t a a r e b o t h 1 ;6 y e a r s and a t a p r e - I s t a g e , w h i l e Chloe i s 2;0 and a t s t a g e I ; t h u s i t i s not p o s s i b l e t o d i s t i n -g u i s h between t h e i n f l u e n c e o f age and s t a g e . W i t h r e g a r d t o t h e wh- q u e s t i o n s : what q u e s t i o n s seem t o remain f a i r l y con-s t a n t a c r o s s both age and l i n g u i s t i c s t a g e ; where q u e s t i o n s show a g e n e r a l i n c r e a s e , most n o t i c e a b l e between ages 2;0 and 2 ; 6 , but between s t a g e s I and I I ; who q u e s t i o n s show a d e f i n i t e i n c -r e a s e between ages 1;6 and 2;0 and p r e - I and s t a g e I ; why ques-t i o n s show t h e g r e a t e s t change between ages 2;6 and 3;0 and between s t a g e s IV and V; and how and which q u e s t i o n s seem t o remain f a i r l y c o n s t a n t f o r b o t h age and l i n g u i s t i c development. W h i l e some o f t h e s e r e s u l t s seem t o f o l l o w t h o s e found i n "the l i t e r a t u r e , o t h e r s appear r a t h e r p a r a d o x i c a l . The f i n d i n g h ere t h a t yes/no q u e s t i o n s d e c r e a s e w i t h b o t h age and l i n g u i s t i c s t a g e does not s u p p o r t C r o s s (1977)> who suggested t h a t f u l l y e s / no q u e s t i o n s showed no s e n s i t i v i t y t o l i n g u i s t i c m a t u r i t y ; o r Lon g h u r s t & S t e p a n i c h (1975)> who r e p o r t e d t h a t t h e k i n d o f q u e s t i o n a d d r e s s e d t o c h i l d r e n s h i f t s from p r e d o m i n a n t l y yes/no to'-.an e q u a l number o f yes/no and wh- q u e s t i o n s when t h e c h i l d i s between two and t h r e e y e a r s o l d . R e g a r d i n g t h e s e r e s u l t s , a l t h o u g h we see a d e c r e a s e i n yes/no q u e s t i o n s and a g r a d u a l - 3 1 -i n c r e a s e i n some wh- q u e s t i o n s , yes/no q u e s t i o n s r e m a i n predomi-nant (49% yes/no compared t o 37% wh- i n t e r r o g a t i v e s a t 3 ; 0 ) . I f we i n c l u d e t a g c o n s t r u c t i o n s i n t h e yes/no f i g u r e s - as t a g s resemble yes/no q u e s t i o n s more t h a n any o t h e r , we see an even g r e a t e r predominance o f t h e s e over wh- q u e s t i o n s ( 6 2 % v s . 37% a t 3 ; 0 ) . Comparing t h e s e r e s u l t s t o C r o s s ' (1977) f i n d i n g s , t h e d i f f e r e n c e may l i e i n t h e c r i t e r i a f o r c a yes/no q u e s t i o n . I n t h i s s t u d y , any q u e s t i o n which c o u l d he answered by a yes/no re s p o n s e was counted, i n c l u d i n g mothers' r e p e t i t i o n s o f t h e c h i l d ' s u t t e r a n c e . These may not have been i n c l u d e d by C r o s s , as she r e f e r s t o " f u l l yes/no" q u e s t i o n s . C r o s s (1977) a l s o r e p o r t s a s i g n i f i c a n t d e c r e a s e i n wh-q u e s t i o n s w i t h b o t h age and MLU, a f i n d i n g not s u p p o r t e d by t h e p r e s e n t d a t a . These d a t a show t h a t i f any fr e q u e n c y change i n wh- q u e s t i o n s o c c u r s , i t i s an i n c r e a s e , and t h a t t h i s i s seen b o t h w i t h r e s p e c t t o age and MLU. T h i s i n c r e a s e i n wh- q u e s t i o n s i s a l s o r e p o r t e d by Long h u r s t & S t e p a n i c h (1975) "but, as d i s -c u ssed e a r l i e r , t h e p r o p o r t i o n o f wh- q u e s t i o n s does not i n c r e a s e t o t h e l e v e l o f yes/no q u e s t i o n s i n t h i s c o r p u s . Somewhat s u r p r i s i n g i s t h e l a c k o f change i n what and how q u e s t i o n f r e q u e n c y . T h i s l a c k o f change seems t o agree w i t h g e n e r a l p r o p o s a l t h a t t h e a c t u a l p r o p o r t i o n o f q u e s t i o n s r e m a i n s c o n s t a n t o v e r t h e age range from one t o t h r e e , and t h a t the change i s one o f q u a l i t y , not q u a n t i t y o f i n t e r r o g a t i v e s ( e . g . L o n g h u r s t & S t e p a n i c h , 1975; Newport et a l , 1977). F o r example, perhaps w h i l e the number o f what q u e s t i o h e doesn't change p e r s e , t h e f u n c t i o n may be p r o g r e s s i n g from t e s t q u e s t i o n s t o r e a l r e q u e s t s f o r i n f o r m a t i o n , w h i l e how q u e s t i o n s may r e f l e c t r e q u e s t s f o r - 3 2 ^ i n f o r m a t i o n r a t h e r t h a n r e q u e s t s f o r a c t i o n o r a t t e n t i o n as t h e c h i l d d e v e l o p s . T h e r e f o r e , i n sum, i t seems t h a t t h e r e s u l t s p r o v i d e g e n e r a l s u p p o r t f o r h y p o t h e s i s A. But perhaps the i s s u e i s not one o f i n t e r r o g a t i v e form a l o n e . I t may he t h a t an i n t r i c a t e i n t e r a c t i o n between form and f u n c t i o n d e t e r m i n e s t h e t y p e o f q u e s t i o n s mothers ask. T h i s p o s s i b i l i t y w i l l be d i s c u s s e d i n t h e subsequent s e c t i o n s . -33-The Communicative F u n c t i o n s o f M a t e r n a l I n t e r r o g a t i v e s There a r e r e l a t i v e l y few s t u d i e s t h a t d i s c u s s i n d e t a i l t h e s p e c i f i c communicative purpose f o r which mothers a d d r e s s i n t e r r o g a t i v e s t o t h e i r c h i l d r e n . I n t h e p r e s e n t s t u d y , i t was proposed t h a t mothers use i n t e r r o g a t i v e s t o convey v a r i o u s commu-n i c a t i v e i n t e n t i o n s and t h a t t h e s e i n t e n t i o n s i n c r e a s e i n d i v e r -s i t y as c h i l d r e n d e v e l o p . I n o r d e r t o l o o k a t t h i s h y p o t h e s i s more c l o s e l y , the f a c t i o n s have been d i v i d e d i n t o u t t e r a n c e f u n c t i o n ( i . e . t h e communicative i n t e n t o f the u t t e r a n c e per se) and d i s c o u r s e f u n c t i o n ; s ( i . e . t h e r o l e o f t h e u t t e r a n c e w i t h i n t h e c o n v e r s a t i o n ) . These w i l l be d i s c u s s e d s e p a r a t e l y , each i n terms o f an o v e r a l l d i s t r i b u t i o n a c c o r d i n g t o i n d i v i d u a l c h i l d , age and l i n g u i s t i c s t a g e . U t t e r a n c e F u n c t i o n W i t h i n the u t t e r a n c e f u n c t i o n c a t e g o r y , i t i s g e n e r a l l y a g r e e d t h a t r e q u e s t s f o r i n f o r m a t i o n comprise t h e m a j o r i t y o f mothers' r e q u e s t s t o c h i l d r e n 1 ;6 t o 3 ; 0 ( e . g . 31 .4-44.2% -F o l g e r and Chapman, 1978) and t h a t these a r e f o l l o w e d by r e q u e s t s f o r a c t i o n ( e . g . 10.1-17.4% - F o l g e r and Chapman, 1978; 10-19% -R o n d a l , 1978). These v i e w s a r e l a r g e l y s u b s t a n t i a t e d by my d a t a d i s p l a y e d i n T a b l e 7. Here i t can be-seen t h a t t r u e r e q u e s t s f o r a c t i o n a r e t h e most common c a t e g o r y (14-30%, * = 21%). T h i s i s lo w e r t h a n t h e f i g u r e r e p o r t e d by F o l g e r and Chapman, p r o b a b l y because t h e i r i n f o r m a t i o n c a t e g o r y l i k e l y i n c l u d e d t e s t q u e s t i o n s and r e q u e s t s f o r c o n f i r m a t i o n and c l a r i f i c a t i o n , s p e c i a l sub-c a t e g o r i e s o f i n f o r m a t i o n which have been s e p a r a t e d i n t h i s s t u d y . I f we c o n s i d e r a l l o f t h e s e f e a t u r e s t o g e t h e r t h e p r o p o r t i o n o f r e q u e s t s f o r i n f o r m a t i o n r i s e s t o an average o f 50%. I n c l u d i n g o n l y r e q u e s t s f o r i n f o r m a t i o n and t e s t q u e s t i o n s y i e l d s a p r o p o r -t i o n o f 36%, a f i g u r e comparable t o t h a t o f F o l g e r & Chapman (1978). TABLE 7 PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL INTERROGATIVES ADDRESSED TO EACH SUBJECT SERVING EACH UTTERANCE FUNCTION U t t e r a n c e £hild F u n c t i o n — Ben P i e t a Chloe Graham Darcy Jaae Anthony L i n d s a y Avg. Request f o r 8 21 8 26 11 11 17 14 13 a c t i o n Request f o r 1 0.2 2 1 • • • 0.4 • • • • mm 1 o b j e c t Request f o r 25 16 30 14 17 21 29 17 21 i n f o r m a t i o n T e s t 21 14 8 15 24 9 8 7 15 q u e s t i o n 26 8 14 14 Request f o r 9 12 9 20 14 c o n f i r m a t i o n Request f o r 2 1 13 5 6 12 10 4 6 c l a r i f i c a t i o n R o u t i n e 2 • • * 3 2 • • • • • • • mm 1 1 Ambiguous: 1 I n f o vs.. 4 0.2 2 1 4 0.4 3 2 a c t i o n Request f o r • mm • • • 1 • mm m m m • • • 1 1 0.3 p e r m i s s i o n 16 Request f o r 1 3 2 7 5 3 3 4 a t t e n t i o n O f f e r 4 4 3 2 1 1 2 3 3 R h e t o r i c a l 1 1 3 2 1 2 1 3 1 V e r b a l 5 4 8 8 16 14 7 13 9 r e f l e c t i v e A c t i o n 12 7 4 1 5 1 1 • • • ' 5 r e f l e c t i v e E x p a n s i o n 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 4 1 Request about 0.5 0.2 1 1 1 • • • 1 1 1 i n t e r n a l s t a t e Request t o 4 0.2 1 5 1 2 1 1 2 r e c a l l F o l l o w i n g i n f r e q u e n c y a f t e r r e q u e s t s f o r i n f o r m a t i o n a r e t e s t q u e s t i o n s , r e q u e s t s f o r c o n f i r m a t i o n , and r e q u e s t s f o r a c t i o n (15, 14 and 13%, r e s p e c t i v e l y ) . I f we assume t e s t q u e s t i o n s and r e q u e s t s f o r c o n f i r m a t i o n t o be p a r t of r e q u e s t f o r i n f o r m a -t i o n , t h e n - l i k e F o l g e r & Chapman (1978) and Ro n d a l (1978) -r e q u e s t s f o r a c t i o n comprise t h e second most f r e q u e n t u t t e r a n c e i n t e n t . A l s o n o t i c e a b l e from T a b l e 7 i s t h e f a c t t h a t almost t h e f u l l range o f u t t e r a n c e f u n c t i o n s was coded f o r each c h i l d , r e g a r d l e s s o f age o r l i n g u i s t i c m a t u r i t y . To l o o k a t p o s s i b l e changes a c c o r d i n g t o age and l i n g u i s t i c development, l e t us t u r n t o T a b l e 8 and r e v i e w each f u n c t i o n s e p a r a t e l y . R o n d a l ' s (1978) d a t a on r e q u e s t s f o r a c t i o n suggest t h a t the p r o p o r t i o n i n t h e mother's speech drops as t h e c h i l d moves from two t o t h r e e y e a r s o l d . T h i s c o n c l u s i o n i s not s u p p o r t e d by t h e d a t a i n the p r e s e n t s t u d y . Here i t seems t h a t t h e r e i s no s u b s t a n t i a l s h i f t i n t h e f r e q u e n c y o f r e q u e s t s f o r a c t i o n a c c o r -d i n g t o age o r l i n g u i s t i c s t a g e . As mentioned b e f o r e , t h e apparent changes i n l i n g u i s t i c s t a g e r e f l e c t i n d i v i d u a l v a r i a -t i o n s . F o r example, Ch l o e ' s ( S t a g e I ) mother uses v e r y few a c t i o n r e q u e s t s , whereas Graham's (Stage I I ) uses i n t e r r o g a t i v e s more as r e q u e s t s f o r a c t i o n t h a n any o t h e r f u n c t i o n . R e q u e s t s f o r o b j e c t s were used s p a r i n g l y . I n t h e s e s e s s i o n s mothers r a r e l y asked f o r an o b j e c t f o r t h e m s e l v e s , but more o f t e n r e f e r r e d t o o r p o i n t e d out an o b j e c t t h a t t h e c h i l d might l i k e . These were coded as r e q u e s t s f o r a c t i o n ( e . g . Why don't  you go get t h a t b i g book?) o r a t t e n t i o n ( e . g . Look, can you  see t h a t b i g book up t h e r e ? ) r a t h e r t h a n r e q u e s t f o r o b j e c t where the a c t i o n would be ' g i v e me'. T h i s d i f f e r e n c e i n d i s t r i -b u t i o n o f u t t e r a n c e f u n c t i o n ( c h i l d r e n ' s i n t e r r o g a t i v e s a r e f r e q u e n t l y used t o r e q u e s t o b j e c t s ) r e f l e c t s the more g e n e r a l -3/6 ~ d i f f e r e n c e between t h e r o l e s p l a y e d by mother and c h i l d TABLE 8 PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL INTERROGATIVES, SERVING EACH UTTERANCE FUNCTION, ACCORDING TO AGE AND LINGUISTIC STAGE U t t e r a n c e Age Stage F u n c t i o n . 1;6 2;0 2;6 3;0 p r e - I : : i I I I I I IV V Request f o r 15 17 11 16 15 8 26 15 11 16 a c t i o n Request f o r 0.6 1 0 . 2 0 0 0 0.6 2 1 0 . 1 • • • • • • o b j e c t Request f o r 21 222 19 23 21 30 14 18 23 16 i n f o r m a t i o n T e s t q u e s t i o n 18 12 17 8 18 8 14 21 9 2 Request f o r 18 16 14 14 18 12 9 9 16 21 c o n f i r m a t i o n Request f o r 2 9 8 7 2 13 6 6 10 11 c l a r i f i c a t i o n R o u t i n e 1 3 • • * 0.5 i 1 3 3 # • # 1 ... Ambiguous: I n f o 0 . 2 2 0 . 2 2 0 . 2 2 1 3 1 3 v s . a c t i o n Request f o r 0.1 0 . 5 • • • 1 0.1 1 • • • • • • 1 1 p e r m i s s i o n Request f o r 2 5 4 10 2 2 8 4 6 13 a t t e n t i o n O f f e r 4 3 1 3 4 3 2 1 1 4 R h e t o r i c a l 1 3 2 2 1 3 1 1 2 3 V e r b a l 5 8 15 10 5 8 7 14 14 6 r e f l e c t i v e A c t i o n 10 3 3 0 . 5 10 4 0 . 4 4 1 • • • r e f l e c t i v e E x p a n s i o n 1 2 1 3 1 1 2 1 2 2 Request - 3 . 5 1 0 . 5 1 3 . 5 1 0 . 4 1 1 • • • i n t e r n a l s t a t e Request t o 2.1 3 2 1 2.1 1 6 1 1 1 r e c a l l R e quests f o r i n f o r m a t i o n remain f a i r l y c o n s t a n t over age and l i n g u i s t i c s t a g e and remain t h e most f r e q u e n t u t t e r a n c e f u n c t i o n o f i n t e r r o g a t i v e s t h r o u g h o u t t h e age range and t h e m a j o r i t y o f -37-l i n g u i s t i c s t a g e s ( e x c e p t s t a g e s I I I and V ) . T e s t q u e s t i o n s a r e a l s o a v e r y common u t t e r a n c e i n t e n t w h i c h , a c c o r d i n g t o the r e l e v a n t l i t e r a t u r e , s h o u l d decrease as th e c h i l d ' s l i n g u i s t i c knowledge becomes more mature ( e . g . Holzman, 1972). A dec r e a s e i n t e s t q u e s t i o n s i s seen between 2;6 arid 3 ;0 and between s t a g e s IV and V. T h i s i m p l i e s t h a t i f t h e r e i s a dec r e a s e i n t e s t q u e s t i o n s , t h e y a r e b e i n g r e p l a c e d by r e a l questions t h a t r e q u i r e a more d e t a i l e d r e s p o n s e ( c f . N i n i o & B r u n e r , 1978; Snow, 1978; S h a t z , 1979). T h i s l e n d s s u p p o r t t o h y p o t h e s i s D (p. 12) . R e q u e s t s f o r c o n f i r m a t i o n and c l a r i f i c a t i o n r e m a i n f a i r l y -c o n s t a n t o v e r d e v e l o p m e n t a l t i m e a l t h o u g h t h e r e seems t o be an i n c r e a s e i n r e q u e s t s f o r c l a r i f i c a t i o n between 1;6 and 2;0 y e a r s o r t h e l i n g u i s t i c s t a g e s p r e - I and stage I . I n the l i t e r a t u r e t h e s e two f u n c t i o n s have been c o n s i d e r e d t o g e t h e r and r e p o r t e d t o account f o r 5 - 25% o f u t t e r a n c e s a d d r e s s e d t o c h i l d r e n between 2;3 and 2;8 ( C o r s a r o , 1977; H e a t h , 1981). A c c o r d i n g t o p r e s e n t d a t a , they account f o r 22% o f i n t e r r o g a t i v e s a d d r e s s e d t o c h i l d r e n w i t h i n the same age range. Requests f o r a t t e n t i o n appear t o i n c r e a s e i n fr e q u e n c y between ages 2;6 and 3 ; 0 and between s t a g e s IV and V. The r e s u l t s f o r v e r b a l and a c t i o n r e f l e c t i v e s h o l d i n t e r e s t i n g p o s s i b i l i t i e s . W h i l e v e r b a l r e f l e c t i v e s i n c r e a s e w i t h age and l i n g u i s t i c s t a g e , a c t i o n r e f l e c t i v e s d e c r e a s e . I t appears t h a t when c h i l d r e n a r e v e r y young mothers comment on what t h e y do and, as the c h i l d r e n d e velop language s k i l l s , t h e i r mothers b e g i n t o comment more on what t h e i r c h i l d r e n say t h a n what they do. Other u t t e r a n c e f u n c t i o n c a t e g o r i e s appear not £ 0 undergo -38-any s u b s t a n t i a l change a c c o r d i n g t o age o r l i n g u i s t i c development. O v e r a l l , t h e n , i t seems t h a t mothers e x p r e s s a d i v e r s i t y o f u t t e r a n c e f u n c t i o n s w i t h t h e i n t e r r o g a t i v e s t h e y a d d r e s s t o t h e i r c h i l d r e n o f a l l ages under i n v e s t i g a t i o n . I t does seem, however, t h a t t h e r e i s an i n c r e a s e i n t h e p r o p o r t i o n o f r e a l q u e s t i o n s and a de c r e a s e i n t e s t q u e s t i o n s as t h e c h i l d d e v e l o p s from 2; 6 t o 3 ; 0 and from Brown's (1973) l e v e l I I I t o IV. A l s o i n t e r e s t i n g i s the f i n d i n g t h a t mothers f i r s t comment on c h i l d r e n ' s a c t i o n s and, as t h e c h i l d r e n become more e f f i c i e n t c o n v e r s a t i o n a l p a r t n e r s , use more v e r b a l t h a n a c t i o n r e f l e c t i v e s . D i s c o u r s e F u n c t i o n A d i s t r i b u t i o n o f t h e d i s c o u r s e f u n c t i o n s o f m a t e r n a l i n t e r r o g a t i v e s a d d r e s s e d t o each c h i l d i s d i s p l a y e d i n T a b l e 9 . O v e r a l l , i t shows t h a t the most common c a t e g o r y i s ' c o n t i n u e t o p i c - independent speech a c t ' (55%) f o l l o w e d - by a s u b s t a n t i a l margin - by m a t e r n a l e x p a n s i o n s o f c h i l d r e n ' s u t t e r a n c e s (9%). Some d e f i n i t i o n s o f e x p a n s i o n s a l s o i n c l u d e m a t e r n a l r e p e t i t i o n s o f t h e c h i l d r e n ' s u t t e r a n c e ( e . g . Cazden, 1965; F o l g e r & Chapman, 1978). I f t h i s i s c o n s i d e r e d h e r e , the average p r o p o r t i o n o f ex p a n s i o n s i s 17%> a f i g u r e c l o s e r t o t h e 20% r e p o r t e d by F o l g e r & Chapman (1978). An i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e which i s p a r t i c u l a r l y n o t i c e a b l e i s P i e t a ' s mother's use o f e x p a n s i o n s , which i s much h i g h e r t h a n any o t h e r c h i l d , i n c l u d i n g h e r age-match, Benjamin. T a b l e 10 shows t h e r e s u l t s a c c o r d i n g t o age and l i n g u i s t i c s t a g e . A g a i n , the f u n c t i o n s w i l l be d i s c u s s e d s e p a r a t e l y . There seems t o be a s l i g h t i n c r e a s e i n the use o f i n t e r r o -g a t i v e s t o i n t r o d u c e a new t o p i c as the c h i l d i s 2;0 and 3 ; 0 and i n s t a g e s I I and V. T h i s i s most l i k e l y due t o Graham's (age 2;0 TABLE 9 PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL INTERROGATIVES ADDRESSED TO EACH CHILD USED TO FULFILL EACH DISCOURSE FUNCTION C h i l d I n t r o - C o n t i n u e C o n t i n - R e p e t i -duce new t o p i c t o p i c gent speech a c t t i o n a f t e r pause Benjamin 5 68 3 5 P i e t a 2 55 2 2 Chloe 2 48 13 5 Graham 8 57 7 5 Darcy 2 51 5 5 Jane 4 51 16 4 Anthony 8 59 10 1 L i n d s a y 4 45 8 1 D i s c o u r s e F u n c t i o n R e p e t i - E l l i p t i - R e p e t i - Expan- Expan-t i o n c a l r e - t i o n o f s i o n o f s i o n o f w i t h o u t p e t i t i o n o t h e r ' s own o t h e r ' s pause u t t e r a n c e 0.5 1 6 4 8 0.2 6 5 4 24 1 12 12 5 3 1 5 6 8 4 2 9 8 8 10 1 4- 8 6 6 • • • 7 8 4 3 • • • 22 9 7 11 Average 4 55 7 4 1 7 8 5 9 TABLE 10 PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL INTERROGATIVES USED TO FULFILL EACH DISCOURSE FUNCTION, ACCORDING TO AGE AND LINGUISTIC STAGE D i s c o u r s e F u n c t i o n Age Expan-I n t r o - C o n t i n u e C o n t i n - R e p e t i - R e p e t i - E l l i p t i - R e p e t i - Expan-duce new t o p i c gent t i o n t i o n c a l r e - t i o n o f s i o n o f s i o n o f t o p i c speech a f t e r w i t h o u t p e t i t i o n o t h e r ' s own o t h e r ' s u t t e r a n c e 1;6 3 . 5 61.5 2 3 . 5 0.3 3 . 5 6 4 16 2;0 5 52.5 10 5 0.7 9 9 6 3 2;6 3 51 8.5 4 .5 1.6 7 8 7 9 3 ; 0 6 54 9 1 • • • 11 8.5 5 6 Stage P r e - I 3 . 5 61 . 5 2 3 . 5 0.3 3 .5 6 4 16 I 2 48 13 5 1 12 12 5 3 I I 9 54 7 5 1 6 5 8 4 I I I 3 53 6 4 1 8 7 7 8 IV 4 53 12 1 1 7 11 5 8 V 9 45 1 1 2 • # • 21 5 3 3 ^ 1 -s t a g e I I ) and Anthony's (age 3 ; 0 , s t a g e V) mothers who changed t h e t o p i c c o n s i s t e n t l y more o f t e n t h a n any o t h e r mother. There appears t o be a d e c r e a s e i n t h e f r e q u e n c y w i t h which mothers c o n t i n u e d t h e t o p i c , e s p e c i a l l y between ages 1,;'6 and 2;0 and s t a g e s p r e - I and I . T h i s c o u l d be due t o t h e i n c r e a s i n g c o m p l e x i t y o f th e c o n v e r s a t i o n as th e c h i l d d e v e l o p s . C o n t i n g e n t speech a c t s seem t o i n c r e a s e , t h e n remain c o n s t a n t a f t e r 1;6 and st a g e p r e - I . T h i s i s not s u r p r i s i n g , s i n c e a f t e r t h i s time t h e c h i l d i s more a b l e t o make s t a t e m e n t s t h a t t h e mother's speech a c t s can be c o n t i n g e n t upon. The l i t e r a t u r e r e p o r t s t h a t m a t e r n a l s e l - f - r e p e t i t i o n s a r e f r e q u e n t i n speech a d d r e s s e d t o young c h i l d r e n . F o r example, Newport .et a l . (1977) r e p o r t e d an average o f 23% f o r speech t o 12- t o 27- month-olds, and Cross (1977) r e p o r t s an average o f 28% f o r 19- t o 3 2 - month-olds. I n t h i s s t u d y , t h e r e I s a n o t i c e a b l e r e d u c t i o n i n t h e number o f f u l l , p a r t i a l and semantic r e p e t i t i o n s , b o t h w i t h and w i t h o u t a pause, between 2;6 and 3 ;0 (and s t a g e s I I I and IV f o r r e p e t i t i o n s a f t e r w a i t i n g f o r a r e s p o n s e ) . The d i f f e r e n c e i n t t h e average p e r c e n t a g e between t h i s and o t h e r s t u d i e s may be due t o my c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f o n l y i n t e r r o g a t i v e s i n c o n t r a s t t o range o f s e n t e n c e t y p e s i n c l u d e d i n o t h e r s t u d i e s . S h a t z (1979) r e p o r t s t h a t e l l i p t i c a l u t t e r a n c e s were a d d r e s s e d more o f t e n t o t h e h i g h group c h i l d r e n (MLU = 3 - k). T h i s o b s e r v a t i o n i s s u p p o r t e d by my d a t a , which shows a d e f i n i t e i n c r e a s e i n e l l i p t i c a l r e p e t i t i o n s between 1;6 and 2;0 y e a r s and b o t h between s t a g e s p r e - I and I and IV and V. Only t h e l a t t e r i s comparable t o S h a t z ' s r e s u l t . W h i l e e x p a n s i o n s o f t h e i r own u t t e r a n c e s r e m a i n f a i r l y --42-c o n s t a n t , mothers' e x p a n s i o n s o f t h e i r c h i l d r e n ' s u t t e r a n c e s d e c r e a s e n o t i c e a b l y between 1;6 and 2;0 and s t a g e s p r e - I and I . Cro s s (1977) r e p o r t s t h a t t h e s e expansions a r e most f r e q u e n t i n mothers' speech t o c h i l d r e n aged 19 t o 36 months, and i n Brown's S t a g e s I t h r o u g h I I I . F o l g e r and Chapman (1978) f i n d t h a t t h i s e x p a n s i o n i s f r e q u e n t i n e a r l y Stage I , about 21 months, and drops o f f a f t e r w a r d . The r e s u l t s p r e s e n t e d i n T a b l e 10 are c l o s e r t o t h o s e r e p o r t e d by F o l g e r & Chapman (1978) t h a n C r o s s ( 1 9 7 7 ) 9 t u t C r o s s i s l o o k i n g a t a l l u t t e r a n c e s , not o n l y i n t e r r o -g a t i v e s w h i c h , n a t u r a l l y , i n c r e a s e s the f i g u r e s . I n g e n e r a l , t h e n , i t appears t h a t as t h e c h i l d d e v e l o p s , mothers d e c r e a s e the use o f i n t e r r o g a t i v e s t o c o n t i n u e the t o p i c w i t h an independent speech a c t ; i n c r e a s e t h e i r use o f c o n t i n g e n t q u e r i e s and e l l i p t i c a l r e p e t i t i o n s ; and de c r e a s e t h e i r use o f i n t e r r o g a t i v e s as f u l l , p a r t i a l and semantic r e p e t i t i o n , and ex p a n s i o n o f t h e i r c h i l d r e n ' s u t t e r a n c e s . F o r m : F u n c t i o n R e l a t i o n s h i p s i n M a t e r n a l I n t e r r o g a t i v e s The l i t e r a t u r e r e g a r d i n g t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f i n t e r r o g a -t i v e f o r m : f u n c t i o n p a i r i n g s i s s c a n t y . As i n d i c a t e d e a r l i e r , r e s e a r c h has r e v e a l e d t h a t i n t e r r o g a t i v e forms a r e f r e q u e n t i n speech t o c h i l d r e n and t h a t t h e y e x p r e s s a range o f communicative f u n c t i o n s ( e . g . Holzman, 1972; S h a t z , 1978). However, t h e r e i s l i t t l e e v i d e n c e o f how thes e forms and f u n c t i o n s i n t e r r e l a t e , o r how t h e s e p a i r i n g s change w i t h t h e c h i l d ' s i n c r e a s i n g l i n g u i s t i c a b i l i t i e s . T h i s i n f o r m a t i o n i s p e r t i n e n t t o a g r e a t e r u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t h e r o l e o f m a t e r n a l i n t e r r o g a t i v e s i n t h e development o f t h e c h i l d ' s l a nguage. I n o r d e r t o l o o k a t t h i s correspondence between form and -43-f u n c t i o n o f i n t e r r o g a t i v e s , the d a t a was t a b u l a t e d a c c o r d i n g t o u t t e r a n c e and d i s c o u r s e f u n c t i o n and i n t e r r o g a t i v e t y p e a c r o s s i n d i v i d u a l c h i l d r e n , age and l i n g u i s t i c development. To a s s e s s t h e s e more c l o s e l y , u t t e r a n c e and d i s c o u r s e f u n c t i o n : f o r m p a i r i n g s w i l l be d i s c u s s e d s e p a r a t e l y . U t t e r a n c e F u n c t i o n T a b l e 11 shows the t o t a l number, and p e r c e n t a g e of i n t e r r o -g a t i v e t y p e s a c c o r d i n g t o u t t e r a n c e f u n c t i o n . I t s h o u l d be noted t h a t , i n o r d e r t o l o o k a t i n t e r r o g a t i v e t y p e s i n more d e t a i l , p r o p o r t i o n s were c a l c u l a t e d a c c o r d i n g t o t h e t o t a l number of each i n t e r r o g a t i v e t y p e , NOT a c c o r d i n g t o the t o t a l number o f i n t e r r o g a -t i v e s . Thus, f o r example, th e 17% i n t h e f i r s t c e l l i n d i c a t e s t h a t 17% o f a l l yes/no q u e s t i o n s were r e q u e s t s f o r a c t i o n . A l o o k a t T a b l e 11 shows t h a t , o v e r a l l , yes/no q u e s t i o n s e x h i b i t e d t h e w i d e s t range o f u t t e r a n c e f u n c t i o n . These were f o l l o w e d c l o s e l y by t a g c o n s t r u c t i o n s t h a t d i d not appear as • r o u t i n e s ' o r ' e l a b o r a t i o n s ' . Of the wh- words, what had t h e g r e a t e s t d i s t r i b u t i o n o f f u n c t i o n s , f o l l o w e d i n range by where. Why q u e s t i o n s were used p r i m a r i l y as r e q u e s t s f o r a c t i o n i n such u t t e r a n c e s as Why don't you come over here? or Why don't you get  t h e book? The m a j o r i t y o f how q u e s t i o n s i n t h i s s t u d y t o o k the form how about and, as s u c h , were most commonly used as r e q u e s t s f o r a c t i o n , e.g. How about coming h e r e ? , and t e s t o r r o u t i n e q u e s t i o n s , e.g. How about t h i s one? ( i . e . What i s t h i s ? ) I n terms o f u t t e r a n c e i n t e n t , r e q u e s t s f o r i n f o r m a t i o n show t h e g r e a t e s t e l a b o r a t i o n o f form u s i n g t h e f u l l range o f t y p e s coded. T e s t q u e s t i o n s f o l l o w i n o v e r a l l number and range w i t h why t h e o n l y form not r e p r e s e n t e d i n t h i s sample. Requests f o r TABLE 11 TOTAL NUMBER (AND PERCENTAGE OF THE TOTAL*) OF INTERROGATIVE TYPES USED FOR EACH UTTERANCE FUNCTION ACROSS ALL SUBJECTS AND STAGES Interrogative type Request f o r Yes/No Tag What Where Who Why How T o t a l # % # % # % # % # % # % # % A c t i o n 279 (17) 39 (10) 8 (2) 25 (19) * • • 35 (70) 13 (24) 399 Object 13 (1) 1 ( .3) 1 ( .2) • • • • • • • • • • • • 15 Information 318 (20) 23 (6) 163 (34) 38 (29) 21 (37) 11 (22) 6 (11) 580 Confirmation 281 (17) 91 (24) 3 ( D 3 (2) • • • m • • « • • 378 C l a r i f i c a t i o n 22 (1) 63 (17) 54 (11) 13 (10) 3 (5) • • m 1 (2) 156 Routine 11 (1) • • • 3 (2) 6 (10) • * * 7 (13) 27 Ambiguous-Info vs A c t i o n 27 (2) 1 ( .3) 9 (2) 23 (18) 2 (4) • • • 1 (2) 63 Permission 6 ( .4) 1 (.3) • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 7 A t t e n t i o n 68 (4) 28 (7) 5 ( D 1 (1) • • • 1 (2) 12 (22) 115 0 f f e r / I n v i t at i on 6if (4) 4 (1) • • • • • • • • • . • « • 2 (4) 70 R h e t o r i c a l 19 (1) 14 (4) 1 ( .2) 3 (2) m m 9 1 (2) • • • 38 E l a b o r a t i o n 32 (2) • • • 1 ( .2) • • • 3 (5) • * • • • • 36 Test 115 (7) 10 (3) 236 (49) 18 (14) 22 (39) • • • 12 (22) 413 I n t e r n a l s t a t e 13 (1) 1 (1) 2 ( .4) • • • • • • • • • • • • 17 R e c a l l 32 (2) 12 (3) 2 (.<+) 2 (2) • • • • • • • • • 48 Verbal r e f l e c t i v e 230 0 4 ) 27 (7) 1 ( .2) 1 (1) • • • 1 (2) • • • \ 260 A c t i o n 76 (5) 61 (16) • • • • • • • • * • * • 137 T o t a l 1606 377 486 130 57 49 54 2759 •percentages are c a l c u l a t e d according to the t o t a l of each i n t e r r o g a t i v e , NOT'according to t o t a l i n t e r r o g a t i v e s c l a r i f i c a t i o n show the same range o f form as t e s t q u e s t i o n s , but a r e l e s s f r e q u e n t i n number. To f u r t h e r comment upon t h e s e c o r r e s p o n d e n c e s , d a t a was o r g a n i z e d a c c o r d i n g t o i n d i v i d u a l c h i l d r e n , age range s and l i n g u i s -t i c s t a g e s . T h i s d a t a i s d i s p l a y e d i n T a b l e s A and B i n Appendix B. L o o k i n g a t t h e r e s u l t s a c c o r d i n g t o age shows t h a t r e q u e s t s f o r i n f o r m a t i o n r e m a i n t h e most e l a b o r a t e d f u n c t i o n a c r o s s t h e range. T h i s does not seem t o r e s p e c t t h e o r d e r o f a c q u i s i t i o n d a t a , where i t i s r e p o r t e d t h a t e a r l y i n t e r r o g a t i v e s a r e what, where and who f o l l o w e d l a t e r by why and how ( s e e , e.g. E r v i n -T r i p p , 1970; Johnson, 1981). W i t h r e s p e c t t o r e f l e c t i v e q u e s t i o n s , we see the e a r l i e r mentioned i n c r e a s e i n v e r b a l r e f l e c t i v e s and decrease i n a c t i o n r e f l e c t i v e s w i t h age, which s u g g e s t s mothers comment on what t h e i r c h i l d i s p r i m a r i l y d o i n g . I t i s I n t e r e s t i n g t o note t h a t t h e most common form o f a c t i o n r e f l e c t i v e s i s t h e ta g q u e s t i o n s ( e . g . You're v e r y busy, a r e n ' t you?) w h i c h may o r may not r e q u i r e a response and, I f i t does, t h e response e x p e c t e d i s v e r y g e n e r a l . On t h e o t h e r hand, t h e most common form f o r v e r b a l r e f l e c t i v e s i s the yes/no i n t e r r o g a t i v e , w hich i s o f t e n r e a l i z e d as an e l l i p t i c a l u t t e r a n c e ( e . g . C: I can b u i l d a b i g one. M: Can y o u ? ) . S h a t z (1979) found t h a t e l l i p t i c a l u t t e r a n c e s such as t h e s e were a d d r e s s e d more o f t e n t o more l i n g u i s t i c a l l y mature c h i l d r e n t h a n t o h e r l o w e r group. A f t e r s t a g e p r e - I , t h e r e seems t o be an i n c r e a s e i n t h e e l a b o r a t i o n o f r e q u e s t s f o r c l a r i f i c a t i o n . T h i s c o r r e s p o n d s t o th e i n c r e a s e i n t h i s f u n c t i o n p e r s e , d i s c u s s e d e a r l i e r . C o n c e r n i n g t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n o f i n t e r r o g a t i v e t y p e s , y e s / . -46-no and what seem t o s e r v e t h e w i d e s t range o f u t t e r a n c e f u n c t i o n s , r e g a r d l e s s o f age or s t a g e . T h i s follows from the knowledge t h a t t h e s e q u e s t i o n s a r e t h e most f r e q u e n t i n mothers' speech t o t h e i r c h i l d r e n and t h a t t h e s e a r e t h e e a r l i e s t q u e s t i o n s c h i l d r e n b e g i n t o use on t h e i r own, and seems t o s u p p o r t a f i n e - t u n i n g view. However, the wide d i s t r i b u t i o n o f f o r m : f u n c t i o n c o r r e s p o n d e n c e s , even at the e a r l i e s t s t a g e s , does not s u b s t a n t i a t e t h i s view. An example o f f u r t h e r c o u n t e r e v i d e n c e i s t h e i d i o s y n c r a t i c use o f how f o r a a number o f f u n c t i o n s , o r a s i n g l e f u n c t i o n , depending on t h e mother. A c c o r d i n g t h e p r e s e n t c h i l d language r e s e a r c h , how i s one o f t h e l a t e s t q u e s t i o n words l e a r n e d . Note t h a t the how i n t e r r o g a t i v e s r e p o r t e d here ( e . g . How about ...) a r e not t r u e how i n t e r r o g a t i v e s . O v e r a l l , t h e n , t h e r e s u l t s p r e s e n t e d here seem t o s u p p o r t S h a t z (1979)» who a l s o found t h a t mothers of b o t h l i n g u i s t i c a l l y low (MLU = 1 - 2 ) and h i g h MLU = 3 - 4 ) group c h i l d r e n d i d not d i f f e r s u b s t a n t i a l l y i n t h e number of f u n c t i o n s e x p r e s s e d by i n t e r r o g a t i v e t y p e s o r i n the number o f forms e x p r e s s i n g each f u n c t i o n . There i s s t i l l a p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t t h e r e a r e c h a r a c t e r i s -t i c p a i r s as d e s c r i b e d by S h a t z , but t h i s was not i n v e s t i g a t e d i n the p r e s e n t s t u d y . A d d i t i o n a l l y , i t seems t h a t , not o n l y don't we have a c l e a r p r i n c i p l e d , g r a d u a l e m e r s i o n o f f o r m : f u n c t i o n p a i r s , we a l s o see a mismatch between what t h e c h i l d and the mother do w i t h I n t e r r o g a t i v e s . F o r example, a c c o r d i n g t o t h e c h i l d language l i t e r a t u r e , c h i l d r e n use many r e q u e s t s f o r p e r m i s s i o n , w h i l e t h e s e a r e v i r t u a l l y n o n e x i s t e n t i n m a t e r n a l i n t e r r o g a t i v e s . T h i s f i n d i n g r e f l e c t s the s o c i a l r o l e s i n m o t h e r - c h i l d r e l a t i o n s . A -47-s i m i l a r o b s e r v a t i o n was made c o n c e r n i n g t h e c h i l d ' s r e c e p t i v e and a c t i v e v o c a b u l a r y a t t h e one-word s t a g e ( B e n e d i c t , 1979). The i m p l i c a t i o n h e r e i s t h a t t h e c h i l d cannot d i r e c t l y l e a r n a l l form: f u n c t i o n c o r r e s p o n d e n c e s from h i s mother. Summing t h i s up, i t a p p e a r s t h a t t h e r e i s an e x t e n s i v e range o f f o r m : f u n c t i o n r e l a t i o n s h i p s a c r o s s a l l ages and s t a g e s r e g a r d l e s s o f d e v e l o p m e n t a l t i m e . The most common forms (yes/no and what) and f u n c t i o n s ( r e q u e s t f o r i n f o r m a t i o n ) a l s o seem t o r e m a i n c o n s t a n t over t h i s p e r i o d . T h i s f i n d i n g seems t o r e f u t e c l a i m s t h a t c h i l d r e n l e a r n a l l f o r m : f u n c t i o n p a i r i n g s from t h e i r immediate l i n g u i s t i c environment. I t does not e x c l u d e , however, the p o s s i b l e e x i s t e n c e and c o n t r i b u t i o n o f c h a r a c t e r i s t i c p a i r s ; t h e s e were not examined h e r e . What i t does Imply i s t h a t t h e r e i s a c e r t a i n s o c i a l l y and l i n g u i s t i c a l l y c o n s t r a i n e d r o l e t h a t mother and c h i l d p l a y i n c o n v e n t i o n . D i s c o u r s e F u n c t i o n T a b l e 12 shows the a b s o l u t e number and t o t a l p r o p o r t i o n s o f p o s s i b l e f o r m : d i s c o u r s e f u n c t i o n p a i r i n g s a c r o s s a l l s u b j e c t s and s e s s i o n s i n t h i s s t u d y . A l o o k a t t h i s t a b l e shows t h a t , i n g e n e r a l , yes/no q u e s t i o n s show t h e h i g h e s t number and g r e a t e s t range o f d i s c o u r s e f u n c t i o n s . These a r e f o l l o w e d c l o s e l y by t a g c o n s t r u c t i o n s and t h e wh- i n t e r r o g a t i v e , what. A l a r g e p r o p o r t i o n o f why q u e s t i o n s a r e used t o i n t r o d u c e a new t o p i c and, i n d o i n g s o , t a k e t h e form, e.g. Why don't you get t h e book?, when the c h i l d has j u s t f i n i s h e d p l a y i n g w i t h one t o y and i s not y e t i n v o l v e d w i t h a n o t h e r . W ith r e g a r d t o d i s c o u r s e f u n c t i o n , a w i d e r range and h i g h e r number of i n t e r r o g a t i v e forms a r e used t o c o n t i n u e a t o p i c TABLE 12 TOTAL NUMBER (AND PERCENTAGE OF THE TOTAL*) OF INTERROGATIVE TYPES USED FOR EACH DISCOURSE FUNCTION ACROSS ALL SUBJECTS AND STAGES I n t e r r o g a t i v e t ype D i s c o u r s e f u n c t i o n Yes/No Tag What Where Who Why How 1. I n t r o d u c e new t o p i c 54 (3) 5 (1) 21 (4) 4 (3) 2 (4) 17 (35) 2 (4) 2. C o n t i n u e t o p i c -i n d e p e n d e n t s s p . a c t 834 (52) 131 (35) 356 (73) 96 (74) 37 (65) 26 (53) 41 (76) 3 . C o n t i n g e n t query 59 (4) 59 (16) 48 (10) 8 (6) 1 (2) 1 (2) 1 (2) 4. R e p e t i t i o n - a f t e r w a i t i n g f o r r e p l y 50 (3) • • • 36 (7) 7 (5) 6 (11) 1 (2) 3 (6) 5. R e p e t i t i o n - w i t h o u t w a i t i n g f o r r e p l y 14 (1) • • • 4 (1) 1 (D 1 (2) • • • 1 (2) 6. E l l i p t i c a l r e p e t i t i o n o f own u t t e r a n c e 55 (3) 141 (37) 1 ( .2) # • • • • • 1 (2) • • • 7. R e p e t i t i o n o f o t h e r ' s u t t e r a n c e 203 (13) 5 (1) 4 (1) 4 (3) • • • • • • • • • 8. C o n t i n u a t i o n o r e l a -b o r a t i o n o f own p r i o r u t t e r a n c e 118 (7) 7 (2) 11 (2) 4 (3) 8 (14) 1 (2) 2 (4) 9- C o n t i n u a t i o n o r e l a -b o r a t i o n o f o t h e r ' s p r i o r u t t e r a n c e 212 (13) 24 (6) 5 (1) 7 (5) 2 (4) 2 (4) 1 (2) * p e r c e n t a g e s a r e c a l c u l a t e d a c c o r d i n g t o the t o t a l o f each i n t e r r o g a t i v e t y p e , NOT a c c o r d i n g t o t o t a l i n t e r r o g a t i v e s . t h e c h i l d has a l r e a d y i n t r o d u c e d . T h i s f i n d i n g l e a d s us t o wonder whether, once t h e t o p i c i s e s t a b l i s h e d , t h i s l i m i t a t i o n o f p o s s i b l e answers h e l p s t h e c h i l d answer a w i d e r range o f q u e s t i o n s . To examine t h e s e f i n d i n g s more c l o s e l y , t h e d a t a was a n a l y s e d a c c o r d i n g t o age and s t a g e as w e l l as a c c o r d i n g t o i n d i -v i d u a l c h i l d r e n . These r e s u l t s can be found i n Appendix B, t a b l e s C and D. F i g u r e s f o r s t a g e p r e - I are; the t o t a l o f Ben and P i e t a 1 s d a t a ; and Chloe i s t h e o n l y c h i l d a t s t a g e I . P r o b a b l y th e most s t r i k i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f t h e s e r e s u l t s i s t h e range o f i n d i v i d u a l v a r i a t i o n . F o r example, l o o k i n g a t t h e r e s u l t s o f Ben's and P i e t a ' s mothers, t h e r e seem t o be d i f f e r e n c e s t h a t a r e not r e l a t e d t o age o r s t a g e . I t was con-s i d e r e d p o s s i b l e t h a t some of t h i s v a r i a t i o n was due t o the mothers' r a t e s o f a s k i n g , i . e . t h e p r o p o r t i o n o f i n t e r r o g a t i v e s i n t h e i r s peech. However, a l o o k back a t T a b l e 2 ( p . 25) shows t h a t t h i s i s not l i k e l y the'icase. A n o t h e r d i f f e r e n c e t h a t seems t o be i n d i v i d u a l l y , r a t h e r t h a n l i n g u i s t i c a l l y , based i s o b s e r v e d between Darcy and J a n e . D a r c y ' s mother uses f i v e i n t e r r o g a t i v e t y p e s t o e x p r e s s f i v e o r more f u n c t i o n s , whereas Jane's mother uses o n l y two i n t e r r o g a t i v e t y p e s f o r t h e same number o f f u n c t i o n s . I n a d d i t i o n , by l o o k i n g a t T a b l e 2 we see t h a t , i n p r o p o r t i o n , as w e l l as a b s o l u t e numbers, J a n e ' s mother t a l k s l e s s t h a n D a r c y ' s . T h i s f i n d i n g cannot be r e l a t e d t o t h e c h i l d ' s s t a g e s i n c e Jane i s more l i n g u i s -t i c a l l y advanced t h a n Darcy. Compared t o t h e o t h e r mothers, Anthony's and Graham's mothers more f r e q u e n t l y use i n t e r r o g a t i v e s t o i n t r o d u c e a new t o p i c ( c f . T a b l e 9 ) ; however, n e i t h e r one uses t h e g r e a t e s t v a r i e t y -50-o f i n t e r r o g a t i v e t y p e s t o do so. F o r example, D a r c y ' s and J a n e ' s mothers use t h e same number o f i n t e r r o g a t i v e forms f o r t h i s p u r -pose as Graham's:/mother, but D a r c y ' s mother i n t r o d u c e s a new t o p i c l e s s o f t e n t h a n any o t h e r mother. Thus, t h e r e doesn't seem t o be a r e l a t i o n s h i p between t h e d i v e r s i t y o f i n t e r r o g a t i v e t y p e s used f o r a p a r t i c u l a r f u n c t i o n , and the f r e q u e n c y o f t h e use o f t h a t f u n c t i o n i n m o t h e r - c h i l d c o n v e r s a t i o n . JL. . A n o t h e r i n t e r e s t i n g f i n d i n g c o n cerns the g e n e r a l d i s t r i b u -t i o n o f the d a t a . R e s u l t s shown a c c o r d i n g t o Stage I I I may l o o k l i k e a complete p r o l i f e r a t i o n o f f o r m : f u n c t i o n c o r r e s p o n d e n c e s , but t h i s i s l i k e l y an a d d i t i v e e f f e c t o f t h e i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s o f the f o u r mothers whose c h i l d r e n a r e a t t h i s l i n g u i s t i c l e v e l . T h i s i s one o f t h e o b v i o u s problems of group d a t a from s m a l l samples. O v e r a l l , t h e n , i t a ppears t h a t t h e s e f o r m : f u n c t i o n c o r r e s p o n d e n c e s a r e not r e l a t e d i n any p r e d i c t a b l e way over d e v e l o p m e n t a l t i m e . A change i s seem,with the t h r e e - y e a r - o l d s , but t h i s i s u n o t s u r p r i s i n g s i n c e fewer i n t e r r o g a t i v e s a r e a d d r e s s e d t o t h i s group. G e n e r a l l y , t h r o u g h a l l of the t a b l e s , i t i s seen t h a t , a c r o s s a l l c h i l d r e n , ages and s t a g e s , yes/no q u e s t i o n s c o n s i s t e n t l y have the l a r g e s t range o f f u n c t i o n s . T h i s i s r e a l l y not s u r p r i s i n g s i n c e yes/no q u e s t i o n s compose t h e m a j o r i t y o f i n t e r r o g a t i v e s a d d r e s s e d t o t h e s e c h i l d r e n . Perhaps the most f a s c i n a t i n g r e s u l t concerns the e l a b o r a t i o n o f q u e s t i o n t y p e s t h a t a r e independent speech a c t s used t o con-t i n u e the t o p i c . These r e s u l t s suggest t h a t mothers do not use new q u e s t i o n words ( i . e . q u e s t i o n words t h a t a r e c o n s i d e r e d more c o g n i t i v e l y more complex o r t h e c h i l d may not have y e t i n c o r p o r a t e d - 5 1 -i n h i s r e p e r t o i r e ) t o i n t r o d u c e a t o p i c . I n t h i s way she l i m i t s t h e new i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t a c h i l d has t o d e a l w i t h . F o r example, i f t he mother a s k s Where i s the horse going? when the t o p i c has not been e s t a b l i s h e d , t h e n the c h i l d must f i g u r e out b o t h the t o p i c and t h e i n f o r m a t i o n r e q u i r e d by the q u e s t i o n word, b u t , i f t h e c h i l d s a y s horse and the mother t h e n a s k s Where's the h o r s e  g o i n g ? , t h e t o p i c has been e s t a b l i s h e d and t h e c h i l d has a f u r t h e r c l u e as t o how t o d e a l w i t h theq:question word. Examples of t h i s o c c u r r e n c e a r e seen t h r o u g h o u t t h e sample. The f o l l o w i n g a r e from Ben and P i e t a , b o t h age 1;6, s t a g e p r e - I , who do not use q u e s t i o n words i n t h e i r own speech. Benjamin: s n a i l t o p Mother: yeah P i e t a : (no r e s p o n s e ) I s the s n a i l g o i n g t o r i d e on t o p o f the t u r t l e ? Where's he going? Mother: Who e l s e would l i k e some t e a ? Would the a n i m a l s l i k e some tea ? a n i m a l s d r i n k Who e l s e would l i k e a d r i n k ? Baby T h i s phenomenon i s seen t o o c c u r a c r o s s the age range; -52-t h u s , even when c h i l d r e n a r e u s i n g q u e s t i o n words t h e m s e l v e s , t h e i r mothers seem t o be f i v i n g them th e maximum o p p o r t u n i t y t o succeed i n r e s p o n d i n g . A l t h o u g h t h i s approach does not change over t i m e , i t i s p r o b a b l y m a x i m a l l y u s e f u l t o those c h i l d r e n j u s t d i s c o v e r i n g i n t e r r o g a t i v e words and s y n t a x . I n summary, t h r e e p o i n t s s h o u l d be made r e g a r d i n g t h e s e d i s c o u r s e f u n c t i o n : f o r m c o r r e s p o n d e n c e s . F i r s t , a c r o s s a l l c h i l d r e n , age and s t a g e ranges s t u d i e d , yes/no q u e s t i o n s have t h e l a r g e s t range o f f u n c t i o n s . Second, th e f o r m : f u n c t i o n r e l a t i o n -s h i p s don't seem t o be r e l a t e d i n any p r e d i c t a b l e way t o t h e c h i l d r e n ' s development. F i n a l l y , stemming from the f i n d i n g t h a t most m a t e r n a l q u e s t i o n s a r e used t o c o n t i n u e t h e t o p i c , i t appears t h a t mothers do not use new or more complex q u e s t i o n words t o i n t r o d u c e a t o p i c . I n s t e a d t h e y p r e s e n t t h e s e forms at j u s t t h a t p o i n t i n the c o n v e r s a t i o n (when the r e l e v a n t r e f e r e n t i s the f o c u s o f j o i n t a t t e n t i o n ) when the c h i l d has t h e b e s t chance t o respond a p p r o p r i a t e l y . C h i l d r e n ' s Responses t o M a t e r n a l I n t e r r o g a t i v e s I n l o o k i n g a t c h i l d r e n ' s r e s p o n s e s t o t h e i r mothers' ques-t i o n s , two major i s s u e s must be c o n s i d e r e d : 1. whether mothers f i n e - t u n e t h e i r q u e s t i o n s t o t h e i r c h i l d r e n ' s q u e s t i o n - a n s w e r i n g a b i l i t i e s , and 2. whether c h i l d r e n change t h e i r response s t r a t e g i e s o r mode as they d e v e l o p . T a b l e 13 shows the d i s t r i b u t i o n o f response t y p e s used by eachffisubject. G e n e r a l l y , c o r r e c t v e r b a l answers and no r e s p o n s e comprise t h e m a j o r i t y o f r e s p o n s e s i n t h i s sample. A l s o seen i n t h i s t a b l e a r e i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s . F o r example, P i e t a shows TABLE 13 CHILDREN'S RESPONSES TO MATERNAL INTERROGATIVES EXPRESSED AS PERCENTAGE OF INTERROGATIVES ADDRESSED TO EACH CHILD C h i l d ' s response A c t i o n G e s t u r e Answer S e l f No o n l y o n l y + A c t i o n answer response Benjamin 25 7 7 10 6 • • • 2 40 P i e t a 9 1 13 24 2 0 . 4 1 49 Chloe 54 • • • 19 1 1 • • • • • • 34 Graham 36 6 9 7 3 1 6 35 Darcy 54 1 7 4 1 1 2 30 Jane 36 4 19 10 3 2 2 24 Anthony 61 4 8 1 2 2 4 15 L i n d s a y 59 1 1 11 4 3 7 20 Average 40 3 11 9 3 1 2 32 C h i l d V e r b a l V e r b a l V e r b a l Answer Answer r e p l y c o r r e c t i n c o r r e c t -54-a v e r y l a r g e p r o p o r t i o n o f no r e s p o n s e s (49%) and a c o m p a r a t i v e l y s m a l l number of c o r r e c t v e r b a l answers (9%). T h i s c o u l d be due t o the many, r e q u e s t s f o r a c t i o n o r a t t e n t i o n h e r mother makes w h i l e P i e t a i s a l r e a d y a t t e n d i n g t o , or i n v o l v e d i n t h e a c t i v i t y ; t h u s , h e r a c t i o n s a r e not counted as r e s p o n s e s . T h i s phenomenon i s a l s o n o t e d by Chapman ( i n p r e p a r a t i o n ) . A n o t h e r v a r i a t i o n t h a t can be seen i s the r e l a t i v e f r e -quency of v e r b a l r e p l i e s f o r Chloe and Jane ( 1 9 % )each). Both o f t h e s e g i r l s responded t o q u e s t i o n s which t h e y s e e m i n g l y e i t h e r d i d n ' t hear o r weren't a t t e n d i n g t o ; a v e r b a l r e p l y o f hm? f o r Jane and uh-uh f o r Chloe was a u t o m a t i c . R e g a r d l e s s o f t h e r e a s o n s f o r t h i s r e s p o n s e b e h a v i o u r , i t was v e r y n o t i c e a b l e t h r o u g h o u t t h e s t u d y . A g a i n , r e s u l t s were a n a l y s e d i n terms of age and l i n g u i s -t i c s t a g e , and t h e s e a r e found i n T a b l e 14. The two i s s u e s i d e n t i f i e d a t the s t a r t o f the s e c t i o n w i l l be d i s c u s s e d i n l i g h t o f the r e s u l t s p r e s e n t e d h e r e . I f mothers f i n e - t u n e t h e i r q u e s t i o n s t o t h e i r c h i l d r e n ' s a n s w e r i n g a b i l i t i e s , as proposed by C r o s s (1977)» t h e n we s h o u l d f i n d no d i f f e r e n c e s i n t h e f r e q u e n c y of c o r r e c t answers, f a i l u r e t o respond o r any o t h e r response t y p e s c h i l d r e n g i v e as t h e y d e v e l o p . A c c o r d i n g t o t h e r e s u l t s o f t h e p r e s e n t s t u d y , t h i s does not seem t o be the c a s e . There i s a d e f i n i t e g r a d u a l i n c r e a s e i n the p r o p o r t i o n o f c o r r e c t v e r b a l answers as t h e c h i l d r e n get o l d e r , e s p e c i a l l y n o t i c e a b l e between t h e ages of 1;6 and 2;0. A l t h o u g h t h e r e a r e f l u c t u a t i o n s i n the numbers a c c o r d i n g t o l i n g u i s t i c m a t u r i t y , t h e y a l s o seem t o show a g e n e r a l i n c r e a s e due t o d e v e l o p -ment, p a r t i c u l a r l y between s t a g e s p r e - I and I . These r e s u l t s RESPONSE TYPES CALCULATED AS PERCENTAGE OF INTERROGATIVES ADDRESSED TO CHILDREN AT EACH AGE AND LINGUISTIC STAGE Age V e r b a l Answer C o r r e c t V e r b a l Answer I n c o r r e c t V e r b a l R e p l y A c t i o n Only C h i l d ' s G e s t u r e Only Response Answer + A c t i o n S e l f Answer No Response i;6 17 4 10 18 4 0 . 2 1 44 2;0 46 2 15 4 2 1 3 40 2;6 49 2 10 6 1 1 2 28 3 ; 0 60 3 5 5 3 3 6 17 Stage p r e - I 17 4 10 18 4 0 . 2 1 44 I 54 • • • 19 1 1 • • • • • • 34 I I 32 7 7 7 4 2 6 36 I I I 52 2 9 5 1 0 . 5 3 29 IV 50 4 10 8 3 4 3 19 V 62 • • • 6 4 3 1 9 20 -56-suggest t h a t as a c h i l d becomes o l d e r and more l i n g u i s t i c a l l y com-p e t e n t , h i s s u c c e s s w i t h q u e s t i o n a n s w e r i n g a l s o i n c r e a s e s . T h i s i n c r e a s e i n c o r r e c t answers was observed by Tyack & Ingram (1977). A s i m i l a r t r e n d i s seen when the f r e q u e n c y o f 'no r e s p o n s e ' i s examined. Here, t h e r e appears t o be a d e f i n i t e d e c r e a s e i n th e p r o p o r t i o n o f 'no r e s p o n s e ' as t h e c h i l d r e n get o l d e r and more l i n g u i s t i c a l l y mature. T h i s f i n d i n g i s a l s o e v i d e n c e a g a i n s t the f i n e - t u n i n g h y p o t h e s i s , a view which i s s h a r e d i n t h e l i t e r a t u r e by Newport e t a l . , 1977 and R u t h e r f o r d , Schwartz & Chapman, 1981. The second i s s u e , stemming from t h e f i n e - t u n i n g one, i s whether c h i l d r e n ' s r e s p o n s e t y p e s change as th e y d e v e l o p . A c c o r -d i n g t o T a b l e 12, t h i s change seems t o o c c u r . F o r example, v e r b a l r e p l i e s seem t o d e c r e a s e , d e s p i t e the i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s d i s c u s s e d e a r l i e r . A l s o , answer + a c t i o n r e s p o n s e s seem t o i n c r e a s e i n r e l a t i o n t o an age i n c r e a s e . An i n t e r e s t i n g r e s u l t I s seen w i t h • a c t i o n o n l y ' r e s p o n s e s . These show a s u b s t a n t i a l d e c r ease as the c h i l d goes from age 1;6 t o 2;0 y e a r s and from s t a g e p r e - I t o I . These r e s u l t s a r e c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h o s e found by S h a t z (1978), who proposed t h a t v e r y young c h i l d r e n r e s p o n d t o a v a r i e t y o f u t t e r a n c e s w i t h a c t i o n . However, u n l i k e a c t i o n r e s p o n s e s , t h o s e comprised o f 'g e s t u r e o n l y ' seemed t o remain c o n s t a n t over b o t h age and l i n g u i s t i c development. The p r o p o r t i o n o f m a t e r n a l s e l f - a n s w e r s seems t o be con-s t a n t u n t i l age 3;0» s t a g e V, where i s shows a s l i g h t i n c r e a s e . T h i s c o u l d be due t o t h e i n c r e a s i n g c o m p l e x i t y o f t h e c o n v e r s a t i o n a l s i t u a t i o n o r perhaps t h e mother's d e s i r e t o complete q u e s t i o n s asked i f the c h i l d i s no l o n g e r a t t e n d i n g , o r to"-teach the c h i l d new answers t o o l d q u e s t i o n s . T h i s i s s u e i s not r e a l l y d e a l t w i t h - 5 7 -i n t h e l i t e r a t u r e t o d a t e . C o n s i d e r i n g a l l o f t h e s e a s p e c t s , i t seems t h a t c h i l d r e n do show an i n c r e a s e i n c o r r e c t v e r b a l answers and answer + a c t i o n r e s p o n s e s and a d e c r e a s e i n the number o f 'no r e s p o n s e ' and ' v e r b a l r e p l y ' r e s p o n s e t y p e s . T h i s s u g g e s t s t h a t mothers do not f i n e -tune t h e i r q u e s t i o n s t o t h e i r c h i l d r e n ' s response a b i l i t i e s . A n o t h e r f i n d i n g appears t o be t h a t young c h i l d r e n r e s p o n d t o q u e s t i o n s w i t h a c t i o n s , and t h a t t h i s i r e s p o n s e h e u r i s t i c d e c r e a s e s as t h e c h i l d g e t s o l d e r and more l i n g u i s t i c a l l y competent. Context and G e s t u r e i n M a t e r n a l I n t e r r o g a t i v e s Much o f t h e c h i l d language l i t e r a t u r e h o l d s t h a t mother-c h i l d i n t e r a c t i o n p r o v i d e s a s p e c i f i c c o n t e x t i n which language form and language use can be l e a r n e d . Messer (1980) observes t h a t m a t e r n a l speech t o young c h i l d r e n i s o r g a n i z e d t o i n c r e a s e p r e d i c -t a b i l i t y . I f t h i s i s t h e case, t h e r e s h o u l d be a decrease i n t h e f r e q u e n c y o f c o n t e x t u a l cues - i n c l u d i n g g e s t u r e - as c h i l d r e n d e v e l o p . R e s u l t s f o r c o n t e x t and g e s t u r e w i l l be d i s c u s s e d s e p a r -a t e l y . C o n t e x t u a l Cues The d i s t r i b u t i o n o f c o n t e x t u a l cues i n the i n t e r r o g a t i v e s a d d r e s s e d t o the c h i l d r e n i s shown i n T a b l e 15. O v e r a l l , i n t e r r o -g a t i v e s were s u p p o r t e d w i t h c o n t e x t u a l cues 60% o f t h e t i m e , f o l l o w e d i n f r e q u e n c y ( 2 0 % by u t t e r a n c e s where c o n t e x t was not a p p l i c a b l e ( e . g . .-Hm?)). The r e s u l t s i n T a b l e 16 show the d a t a i n terms of age and l i n g u i s t i c s t a g e . There i s an i n c r e a s e i n the f r e q u e n c y o f i n t e r r o -g a t i v e s where c o n t e x t i s not a p p l i c a b l e b o t h w i t h age and l i n g u i s t i c -5'8-TABLE 15 PRESENCE OF CONTEXTUAL CUES, EXPRESSED AS PERCENTAGE OF INTERRO-GATIVES ADDRESSED TO EACH CHILD C o n t e x t u a l Cue S u b j e c t Not Not Not p r e s e n t P r e s e n t Nmeraonic a p p l i c a b l e p r e s e n t but e x p e c t e d Benjamin 10 9 2 76 2 P i e t a 5 3 2 92 1 Chloe 33 26 1 39 1 Graham 15 15 13 55 1 Darcy 22 20 5 52 Jane 32 9 2 56 1 Anthony 26 1M; 4 57 2 L i n d s a y 28 9 4 58 1 Average 20 14 6 62 1 TABLE 16 PRESENCE OF CONTEXTUAL CUES, EXPRESSED AS PERCENTAGE OF INTERRO-GATIVES ADDRESSED TO CHILDREN AT EACH AGE AND LINGUISTIC STAGE Age Not A p p l i c a b l e Not P r e s e n t C o n t e x t u a l Cue Not p r e s e n t P r e s e n t Mnemonic but e x p e c t e d 1;6 8 6 2 84 1 2;0 25 21 7 46 1 2;6 25 17 4 53 1 3 ; 0 27 10 4 57 1 Stage p r e - I 8 6 2 84 1 I 33 26 1 39 1 I I 15 !5 16 52 1 I I I 22 17 5 55 1 IV 30 11 2 55 1 V 30 11 5 52 1 -'5-9-development, e s p e c i a l l y pronounced between 1 ; 6 and 2;0, and s t a g e s p r e - I and I . T h i s change i s most l i k e l y due t o an i n c r e a s e i n t h e c o m p l e x i t y o f t h e c o n v e r s a t i o n . There i s a l s o an i n c r e a s e i n i t e r r o g a t i v e s where c o n t e x t i s not p r e s e n t , and not p r e s e n t but e x p e c t e d t o be near. T h i s change i s a l s o most n o t i c e a b l e between 1 ; 6 and 2;0 y e a r s and s t a g e s p r e - I and I . There i s a d e c r e a s e i n t h e p r o p o r t i o n o f q u e s t i o n s t h a t a r e c o n t e x t - b o u n d hiween 1 ; 6 and 2;0 and s t a g e s p r e - I and I ; however, the p r o p o r t i o n s t i l l r e m ains h i g h (about 50% f o r a l l a g e s / s t a g e s ) a f t e r t h i s change. T h i s g e n e r a l d e c r e a s e a g r e e s w i t h t h e l i t e r a t u r e ( e . g . P h i l l i p s , 1970; Moerk, 1972; Messer, 1980). Mnemonic cues docnot seem t o change f o r age o r l i n g u i s t i c development. G e s t u r e A s p e c i f i c t y p e o f c o n t e x t u a l s u p p o r t i s m a t e r n a l hand g e s t u r e accompanying speech t o c h i l d r e n . T a b l e 17 shows the d i s -t r i b u t i o n o f p o s s i b l e g e s t u r a l s u p p o r t f o r m a t e r n a l i n t e r r o g a t i v e s . These r e s u l t s show t h a t t h e m a j o r i t y o f i n t e r r o g a t i v e s (75%) were not accompanied by g e s t u r e ; 51% o f i n t e r r o g a t i v e s c o u l d have been but weren't a s s o c i a t e d w i t h a g e s t u r e , and 2i+% c o u l d not have a s u p p o r t i n g g e s t u r e . T a b l e 18 examines t h i s f i n d i n g a c c o r d i n g t o age and l i n g u i s t i c s t a g e and a l s o l o o k s a t those i n t e r r o g a t i v e s where g e s t u r e i s a p p l i c a b l e . There seems t o be an i n c r e a s e i n i n t e r r o g a t i v e s where g e s t u r e i s not a p p l i c a b l e between ages 1 ; 6 and 2;0 and s t a g e s p r e -I and I . T h i s i s comparable t o t h e r e s u l t s c o n c e r n i n g c o n t e x t u a l cue d i s c u s s e d e a r l i e r , and i s a l s o l i k e l y due t o an i n c r e a s e i n c o n v e r s a t i o n a l c o m p l e x i t y . There seems t o be an i n c r e a s e i n TABLE 1? PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL INTERROGATIVES SUPPORTED BY ACCOMPANYING GESTURE''', ADDRESSED TO EACH CHILD C h i l d G e s t u r e s Not Not A p p l i c a b l e P r e s e n t P o i n t i n g A c t i o n Benjamin 12 63 5 19 P i e t a 7 56 4 33 Chloe 44 42 4 13 Graham 17 54 9 19 Darcy 29 52 8 11 Jane 34 41 4 20 Anthony 29 46 9 15 L i n d s a y 27 39 12 2 Average 24 51 6 19 TABLE 18 P E R C E N T A G E OF TOTAL INTERROGATIVES SUPPORTED BY ACCOMPANYING GESTURE, ACCORDING TO AGE AND LINGUISTIC STAGE Age G e s t u r e A p p l i c a b l e 1 G e s t u r e Not Not A p p l i c a b l e P r e s e n t P o i n t i n g A c t i o n i Not P r e s e n t P r e s e n t 1;6 10 59 4 26 65 34 2;0 31 47 6 16 69 32 2;6 31 48 7 14 70 30 3 ; 0 28 43 10 17 61 38 Stage P r e - I 10 59 4 26 I 44 42 4 13 I I 17 51 10 21 I I I 28 52 8 13 IV 32 41 7 20 V 30 43 11 14 i n t e r r o g a t i v e s where g e s t u r e i s p r e s e n t as the c h i l d g e t s o l d e r . T h i s f i n d i n g i s i n o p p o s i t i o n t o the g e s t u r e - l i t e r a t u r e which r e p o r t s t h a t more g e s t u r e s accompany u t t e r a n c e s t o younger t h a n o l d e r c h i l d r e n ( e . g . S h a t z , 1982). A l s o i n t e r e s t i n g i s t h e f i n d i n g t h a t w h i l e p o i n t i n g g e s t u r e s i n c r e a s e , a c t i o n g e s t u r e s d e c rease w i t h age. T h i s c o u l d be due t o the r e l a t i v e p h y s i c a l l o c a t i o n o f t h e mother and c h i l d t h r o u g h o u t the c o n v e r s a t i o n . F o r example, the mothers of younger c h i l d r e n s a t on t h e f l o o r w i t h t h e i r c h i l d r e n and p a r t i c i p a t e d i n a l l the a c t i v i t i e s w i t h them; t h u s a c t i o n s were u s u a l l y demonstra-t i o n s or h o l d i n g an o b j e c t up f o r the c h i l d t o see. On t h e o t h e r hand, mothers of t h e o l d e s t c h i l d r e n tended t o s i t e i t h e r on the couch or f l o o r and s t a y t h e r e t h r o u g h o u t the s e s s i o n , w h i l e t h e c h i l d p l a y e d e i t h e r i n d e p e n d e n t l y away from t h e mother, or brought t o y s t o where the mother s a t . Hence, q u e s t i o n s a d d r e s s e d t o t h e s e c h i l d r e n were accompanied be p o i n t i n g t o a t o y the c h i l d was p l a y i n g w i t h away from t h e mother, a n d t t h e r e f o r e out o f her r e a c h . L o o k i n g a t u t t e r a n c e s where g e s t u r e was a p p l i c a b l e , shows t h a t g e n e r a l l y t h e r e was no change over age ( s a i d t o be a b e t t e r p r e d i c t i o n o f g e s t u r e by S h a t z , 1982, and S h a t z & Schnur ( i n press)). Thus, i t doesn't seem as i f g e s t u r e p l a y s an i m p o r t a n t r o l e i n i n c r e a s i n g t h e c h i l d ' s comprehension of t h e c o n t e x t o r o f i n t e r r o -g a t i v e s as a s y n t a c t i c c l a s s . Summary o f R e s u l t s A b r i e f r e c a p i t u l a t i o n o f the r e s u l t s found i n t h i s s t u d y f o l l o w s . I n g e n e r a l agreement w i t h the l i t e r a t u r e , i t appears t h a t the f r e q u e n c y o f m a t e r n a l i n t e r r o g a t i v e s t o t h e i r c h i l d r e n d e c r e a s e s w i t h both t h e c h i l d ' s age and l i n g u i s t i c s t a g e ; i . e . ^ 6 2 -h y p o t h e s i s A i s c o n f i r m e d . Thus, i t seems t h a t as c h i l d r e n s t a r t t o a sk q u e s t i o n s o f t h e i r own, t h e m o t h e r - c h i l d i n t e r a c t i o n d e v e l o p s i n t o a more e q u a l t u r n - t a k i n g c o n v e r s a t i o n . The most common e a r l y i n t e r r o g a t i v e a d d r e s s e d t o c h i l d r e n a r e yes/no q u e s t i o n s , f o l l o w e d c l o s e l y by t a g c o n s t r u c t i o n s . The most f r e q u e n t wh- v/ord i s what. As t h e c h i l d d e v e l o p s , i n t e r r o g a -t i v e s expand t o i n c l u d e more o f o t h e r wh- words. However, t h e r e i s e v i d e n c e o f t t h e s e o t h e r wh- q u e s t i o n words i n t h e speech t o even the youngest c h i l d r e n . Thus, h y p o t h e s i s B i s o n l y p a r t i a l l y s u p p o r t e d . I n terms o f t h e i n t e n t o f m a t e r n a l i n t e r r o g a t i v e s , i t appears t h a t mothers use t h e s e forms f o r a number of u t t e r a n c e and d i s c o u r s e f u n c t i o n s w i t h t h e i r young, as w e l l as o l d e r , c h i l d r e n . More s p e c i f i c a l l y , t h e most common u t t e r a n c e f u n c t i o n , r e g a r d l e s s o f age o r s t a g e , i s t h e r e q u e s t f o r i n f o r m a t i o n . I t seems'".that t e s t q u e s t i o n s d e c r e a s e w i t h development, t h u s making way f o r ' r e a l ' q u e s t i o n s which r e q u i r e a more complex and s p e c i f i c r e s p onse from t h e c h i l d . The most common d i s c o u r s e f u n c t i o n a c r o s s a l l ages and s t a g e s i s t o c o n t i n u e t h e t o p i c a l r e a d y t h e f o c u s o f j o i n t a t t e n t i o n . A change t h a t does o c c u r i s t h e i n c r e a s e i n e l l i p t i c a l r e p e t i t i o n s , w i t h a decrease i n f u l l r e p e -t i t i o n s t h e mother uses - a r e s u l t s u b s t a n t i a t e d i n the l i t e r a t u r e . An a n a l y s i s o f f o r m : f u n c t i o n r e l a t i o n s h i p s shows t h a t mothers use a f u l l range o f i n t e r r o g a t i v e t y p e s f o r a number of f u n c t i o n s t h r o u g h o u t t h e age range . Thus, t h e mothers i n t h i s s t u d y d i d not i n t r o d u c e unique f o r m : f u n c t i o n p a i r i n g s f o r a l i m i t e d s e t o f f u n c t i o n s , e xpanding t h e range o f u t t e r a n c e f u n c t i o n s t h e i r i n t e r r o g a t i v e s e x p r e s s and the number o f forms e x p r e s s i n g them as -63-t h e i r c h i l d r e n ' s a b i l i t i e s d e v e l o p ( c f . S h a t z , 1979). H y p o t h e s i s C i s not c o n f i r m e d by t h e r e s u l t s o f t h i s s t u d y . However, t h e r e i s s u p p o r t f o r h y p o t h e s i s D. L o o k i n g a t d i s c o u r s e f u n c t i o n : f o r m p a i r i n g s , i t seems t h a t yes/no i n t e r r o g a t i v e s a r e t h e most common ty p e used, r e g a r d l e s s o f age o r s t a g e , t o e x p r e s s a v a r i e t y o f d i s c o u r s e f u n c t i o n s . A n o t h e r f i n d i n g i s t h a t mothers p r i m a r i l y use i n t e r r o g a t i v e s t o c o n t i n u e t h e t o p i c but do not seem t o i n t r o d u c e t o p i c s w i t h more 'complex' q u e s t i o n words. T h i s k i n d o f " s c a f f o l d i n g " or " b o o t s t r a p p i n g " a l l o w s t h e mother t o c r e a t e t h e o p t i m a l o p p o r t u n i t y f o r t h e c h i l d t o succeed i n a n s w e r i n g . A c l o s e r l o o k a t t h e c h i l d r e n ' s r e s p o n s e s show t h a t over age and l i n g u i s t i c m a t u r a t i o n , t h e r e i s a d e f i n i t e i n c r e a s e i n c o r r e c t v e r b a l answers and a d e c r e a s e i n t h e f r e q u e n c y o f no r e s p o n s e s . T h i s s u g g e s t s t h a t mothers do not " f i n e - t u n e " t h e i r q u e s t i o n s t o t h e i r c h i l d r e n ' s a b i l i t y t o r e s p o n d . H y p o t h e s i s E was not d i r e c t l y a d d r e s s e d w i t h t h e s e d a t a . L o o k i n g a t c o n t e x t u a l and g e s t u r a l s u p p o r t , t h e r e i s an i n c r e a s e i n t h e number of i n t e r r o g a t i v e s where c o n t e x t and g e s t u r e a r e not a p p l i c a b l e , e s p e c i a l l y between 1;6 and 3 ; 0 . There i s a d e c r e a s e i n q u e s t i o n s t h a t a r e c o n t e x t bound, but t h e p r o p o r t i o n o f t h e s e s t i l l remains h i g h - a p p r o x i m a t e l y 50%. T h i s g e n e r a l d e c r e a s e i s s u p p o r t e d by t h e c h i l d language l i t e r a t u r e . C o n c e r n i n g g e s t u r e , t h e r e seems t o be an i n c r e a s e i n mothers' p o i n t i n g and a d e c r e a s e i n a c t i o n g e s t u r e s over the c h i l d r e n ' s development, a change p o s s i b l y due t o t h e s p e c i a l r e l a t i o n s h i p between mother and c h i l d d u r i n g t h e p l a y s e s s i o n s . I n t h o s e I n t e r r o g a t i v e s where g e s t u r e i s a p p l i c a b l e , t h e r e seems t o be no change w i t h the c h i l d ' s age. Thus, h y p o t h e s i s F i s supported i n terms of c o n t e x t u a l c u e s , but not g e s t u r e . C o n s i d e r i n g t h e s e r e s u l t s , i t seems t h a t w h i l e mothers do not f i n e - t u n e t h e i r q u e s t i o n s t o t h e i r c h i l d r e n ' s response a b i l i t i e s , t h e y a r e s e n s i t i v e to-'.their c h i l d r e n ' s l i n g u i s t i c t e n d e n c i e s and t h u s p r o v i d e them w i t h the maximum o p p o r t u n i t y t o succeed. I n d o i n g s o , t h e y c o n t i n u e t o s c h o o l t h e i r c h i l d r e n t o t h e t u r n - t a k i n g n a t u r e o f c o n v e r s a t i o n so t h a t as the c h i l d r e n d i s c o v e r i n t e r r o g a t i v e s y n t a x , t h e m o t h e r - c h i l d i n t e r a c t i o n becomes more t w o - s i d e d t h a n a s i m p l e m a t e r n a l n a r r a t i o n o f t h e c h i l d ' s a c t i v i t i e s . APPENDIX A CODING CATEGORIES WITH EXPLICATION AND EXAMPLES 1. U t t e r a n c e f u n c t i o n : T h i s c a t e g o r y codes t h e r e s e a r c h e r ' s p e r c e p t i o n o f t h e mother's i n t e n t i o n i n u t t e r i n g a p a r t i c u l a r s e n t e n c e . 1.1 Request f o r a c t i o n : The mother wants the c h i l d t o do something o r h e l p h e r do something, except when t h e g o a l i s t o o b t a i n an o b j e c t . D'you wanna get t h e b i g book? Why don't you put them back i n t h e purse? 1.2 Request f o r o b j e c t : The mother wants something (a t o y , a d r i n k , e t c . ) . T h i s i s a s p e c i a l case o f 1.1, where t h e a c t i o n i s 'give me 1. D'you wanna g i v e Mommy the pegs?  Can I have a spoon? 1.3 Request f o r i n f o r m a t i o n : Used o n l y when the p r i m a r y purpose o f the u t t e r a n c e seems t o be t o o b t a i n new i n f o r m a t i o n . I f t h e r e i s any a m b i g u i t y , t h i s c a t e g o r y i s not coded. Can you see something?  What's y o u r s c a l l e d a g a i n ? 1.i+ Test q u e s t i o n : Used when t h e purpose of t h e u t t e r -ance seems t o be t o o b t a i n i n f o r m a t i o n known by t h e speaker and presumed t o be known by the c h i l d . What does a dog say?  What c o l o u r i s t h a t ? -66-1.5 Request f o r c o n f i r m a t i o n : The mother seems t o want the c h i l d t o a f f i r m o r approve something j u s t done o r s a i d . I n t h e r e ? C: Happy. M: I s he happy now? 1.6 Request f o r c l a r i f i c a t i o n , r e p e t i t i o n o r s p e c i f i -c a t i o n : Used when the mother appears to want the c h i l d t o r e p e a t , c l a r i f y o r f u r t h e r s p e c i f y some-t h i n g j u s t s a i d . Hm?  What? Note: 1.if, 1.5 and 1.6 are s p e c i a l cases o f 1 .3. 1.7 R o u t i n e : Used when th e u t t e r a n c e seems t o be p a r t o f a r o u t i n e or game, such as l o o k i n g a t p i c t u r e s i n a book. What's t h i s ? How about t h i s one? 1.8 Ambiguous - r e q u e s t f o r i n f o r m a t i o n vs r e q u e s t f o r a c t i o n o r o b j e c t : Coded when i t i s not c l e a r which o f t h e s e p o s s i b i l i t i e s i s t h e mother's p r i m a r y i n t e n t . Where's t h e book? ( I want t o know v s Get i t f o r me) 1.9 Request f o r p e r m i s s i o n , or p r e l i m i n a r y t o a c t i o n : Used when the mother wants t o ( o r i s about t o ) do o r have something t h a t i s w i t h i n r e a c h . Can I s t i r the c o f f e e ? 1.10 Request f o r a t t e n t i o n : Used when th e main p o i n t o f the u t t e r a n c e seems t o be t o get the c h i l d t o a t t e n d t o w hich he or she was not a t t e n d i n g p r i o r t o t h e u t t e r a n c e . See t h e beads? 1.11 O f f e r o r i n v i t a t i o n : Coded when the mother o f f e r s t o do something f o r the c h i l d . Want some h e l p ? 1.12 R h e t o r i c a l : Coded when t h e mother does not expect an answer, i s j u s t making c o n v e r s a t i o n o r accompany-i n g h e r own a c t i o n w i t h v e r b a l i z a t i o n . You're r e a l l y gonna have a b a t h t o n i g h t , huh? 1.13 V e r b a l r e f l e c t i v e : Used when the mother r e p e a t s , r e d u c e s , r e p r e s e n t s o r p a r a p h r a s e s t h e c h i l d ' s p r e v i o u s u t t e r a n c e w i t h o u t a d d i n g new i n f o r m a t i o n . He does? 1.1i+ A c t i o n R e f l e c t i v e : Coded when the mother d e s c r i b e s o r acknowledges' t h e a c t i v i t y o f the c h i l d . You a r e v e r y busy, a r e n ' t you? That s t u c k t o y o u r f i n g e r , d i d n ' t i t ? 1.15 C o n t i n u a t i o n o r e l a b o r a t i o n of own p r i o r u t t e r a n c e : Used when t h e purpose o f t h e u t t e r a n c e seems o n l y t o expand the mother's own p r e v i o u s u t t e r a n c e . You s i n g i n g ? (pause) Happy B i r t h d a y ? 1.16 Request about i n t e r n a l s t a t e : Coded when the mother wishes t o know about the c h i l d ' s f e e l i n g s . Are you t h i r s t y ?  What's t h e matt e r ? 1.17 Request t o r e c a l l : Used when t h e purpose o f t h e mother's u t t e r a n c e i s t o have the c h i l d remember some p a s t event o r a c t i v i t y . Remember t h e monkey i n t h e park?  We d i d t h a t l a s t t i m e , d i d n ' t we? 2. D i s c o u r s e f u n c t i o n : T h i s c a t e g o r y codes t h e u t t e r a n c e f o r what i t does i n t h e c o n v e r s a t i o n and how i t r e l a t e s t o o t h e r c h i l d o r a d u l t u t t e r a n c e s . 2.1 I n t r o d u c e new t o p i c : The mother uses th e u t t e r a n c e t o i n t r o d u c e a c o m p l e t e l y new t o p i c or a c t i v i t y , o r t o change t h e f o c u s o f an ongoing a c t i v i t y . Where's t h e beanbags? (C has f i n i s h e d p l a y i n g w i t h pegs and i s s i t t i n g on f l o o r d o i n g n o t h i n g . 2.2 Continue t o p i c , independent speech a c t : The mother's u t t e r a n c e does not change t h e f o c u s o f t h e ongoing a c t i v i t y o r c o n v e r s a t i o n , but i t i s not a c o n t i n -gent speech a c t ( i . e . i t i s not c o n t i n g e n t on some-t h i n g the mother has j u s t s a i d - a r e p e t i t i o n - or on something the c h i l d has j u s t s a i d - a r e p e t i t i o n , an answer o r a r e q u e s t f o r c l a r i f i c a t i o n ) . The p r e s e n t c o n v e r s a t i o n a l t o p i c may have been i d e n t i -f i e d by a p r i o r u t t e r a n c e o f e i t h e r mother or c h i l d , o r by an a c t i o n . What're you g o i n g t o b u i l d ? ( C h i l d has j u s t p i c k e d up P l a y d i s c s and i s b e g i n n i n g t o put them t o g e t h e r . ) 2.3 C o n t i n g e n t speech a c t : The mother's u t t e r a n c e i s c o n t i n g e t on e i t h e r her own p r e c e d i n g u t t e r a n c e , such as s e l f - a n s w e r i n g a q u e s t i o n , o r on t h e c h i l d ' s p r e c e d i n g u t t e r a n c e , such as a r e q u e s t f o r c l a r i f i -c a t i o n . Which? C: I t ' s a l l f i n i s h e d . M: I s i t ? 2.4 R e p e t i t i o n : * F u l l , p a r t i a l o r semantic r e p e t i t i o n o f the mother's own p r e c e d i n g u t t e r a n c e a f t e r w a i t i n g * Note t h a t c a t e g o r i e s 2.4 - 2.9 a r e a l l s p e c i a l t y p e s o f c o n t i n g e n t speech a c t s . f o r a r e s p o n s e ( i . e . a f t e r a pause of one second or more). f u l l : What's t h a t ? What's t h a t ? p a r t i a l : What would you l i k e me t o do? What would  you l i k e ? s e m a n t i c : Who was a t the b i r t h d a y p a r t y ? Who was  t h e r e ? 2.5 R e p e t i t i o n o f own p r e c e d i n g u t t e r a n c e w i t h o u t w a i t i n g f o r a r e s p o n s e : T h i s i s the same as Z.l\ except t h e pause, i f t h e r e i s one, i s l e s s t h a n ,8 second. 2.6 E l l i p t i c a l r e p e t i t i o n o f own u t t e r a n c e : The mother r e p e a t s h e r message by r e f e r r i n g t h e c h i l d ' s a t t e n t i o n back t o her p r i o r u t t e r a n c e . What's t h i s ? ... Hm? 2.7 R e p e t i t i o n o f o t h e r ' s u t t e r a n c e : f u l l y , p a r t i a l l y o r s e m a n t i c a l l y r e p e a t s (as above) the c h i l d ' s p r e -c e d i n g u t t e r a n c e . C: I t ' s a bee. M: T h a t ' s a bee? 2.8 C o n t i n u a t i o n o r e l a b o r a t i o n o f own p r i o r u t t e r a n c e : Used when the mother i s s i m p l y expanding on h e r own p r e v i o u s u t t e r a n c e . D i d you see a r a b b i t ? ... Qn t h e t r a i n ? 2.9 C o n t i n u a t i o n or e l a b o r a t i o n o f o t h e r ' s p r i o r u t t e r -ance: Used when the mother expands th e c h i l d ' s p r e v i o u s u t t e r a n c e . C: Watch? M: I s he w a t c h i n g you? 2.10 Other: A d i s c o u r s e f u n c t i o n not o t h e r w i s e coded. C h i l d ' s r e s p o n s e : T h i s c a t e g o r y codes how t h e c h i l d r e s p o n d s t o t h e mother's u t t e r a n c e . 3.1 V e r b a l answer: The r e sponse i s v e r b a l o n l y , i . e . not accompanied by an a c t i o n o r g e s t u r e . -70-a) C o r r e c t answer: The answer i s c a t e g o r i c a l l y c o r r e c t . M: What c o l o u r i s t h a t ? C: Red. B l u e . (even i f o b j e c t i s r e d , s i n c e b l u e i s c a t e -g o r i c a l l y c o r r e c t . ) b) I n c o r r e c t answer: The c h i l d seems t o be a t t e n -d i n g and a t t e m p t i n g t o respond but t h e answer i s c a t e g o r i c a l l y i n c o r r e c t . M: What shape i s t h a t ? C: Red. 3 . 2 V e r b a l r e p l y : The response i s v e r b a l o n l y . The c h i l d r e sponds t o t h e q u e s t i o n per s e , but not t o t h e e x p l i c i t message. M: Where i s the purse? C: Don!t want pu r s e . 3 . 3 Ambiguous v e r b a l - i n c o r r e c t answer v s r e p l y : Coded when i t i s u n c l e a r which o f t h e s e p o s s i b i l i t i e s t h e r e s p o n s e b e s t f i t s . M: Where a r e the pegs? C: No. 3 . 4 A c t i o n o n l y : There i s no v e r b a l r e s p o n s e . The c h i l d r e s ponds w i t h a g e s t u r e , u s u a l l y p o i n t i n g or demon-s t r a t i n g . M: Where's the purse? ( C h i l d p o i n t s t o the purse.) 3.6 Answer + g e s t u r e : T h i s i s a c o m b i n a t i o n of 3.1 and 3 . 5 . Over t h e r e . ( C h i l d p o i n t s ) 3 . 7 R e p l y + g e s t u r e : T h i s combines 3 . 2 and 3 . 5 . Don't want p u r s e . ( C h i l d shakes head) 3 . 8 Ambiguous v e r b a l + g e s t u r e : T h i s combines 3 . 3 and 3 . 5 . M: Where a r e t h e pegs? C: I have pegs a t my house. ( C h i l d p o i n t s t o pegs) 3.9 Answer + a c t i o n : T h i s combines 3.1 and 3 . 4 . M: Can you get t h e book? C: Yes ( C h i l d g e t s t h e book) 3.10 R e p l y + a c t i o n : T h i s combines 3 . 2 and 3 . 4 . M: Can you put t h e pegs i n t h e h o l e s ? C: Don't  want pegs. ( C h i l d pushes pegboard away) 3.11 Ambiguous v e r b a l + a c t i o n : T h i s combines 3*3 and 3 . 4 . M: Where a r e the pegs? C: I have pegs at my house. ( C h i l d p i c k s up t h e can o f pegs) 3.12 S e l f - a n s w e r : The mother answers her own q u e s t i o n w i t h o r w i t h o u t a pause between q u e s t i o n and answer. What i s i t ? I t ' s a c a t . 3.13 No r e s p o n s e : The mother's u t t e r a n c e i s not acknow-l e d g e d i n any way. The c h i l d may o r may not be a t t e n d i n g . C o n t e x t u a l Cue: T h i s codes whether the mother's u t t e r a n c e r e f e r s ( i m p l i c i t ^ o r e x p l i c i t l y ) t o a s p e c i f i c o b j e c t , p e r s o n , o r a c t i v i t y i n t h e immediate environment. 4.1 Not a p p l i c a b l e : T h i s r e f e r s t o t h o s e u t t e r a n c e s f o r which a c o n t e x t u a l c c u e cannot e x i s t , such as when the i n t e r r o g a t i v e r e f e r s back t o a n o t h e r u t t e r a n c e . Hm? Pardon? 4 . 2 Not p r e s e n t : T h i s r e f e r s t o t h o s e u t t e r a n c e s which can have a c o n t e x t u a l cue, but such a cue i s not p r e s e n t i n the immediate environment. D i d you t e l l C a r o l y n you went on a t r i p ? 4 . 3 Not p r e s e n t but e x p e c t e d t o be a v a i l a b l e : T h i s c a t e -gory i s used when a p o t e n t i a l cue i s somewhere i n t h e immediate environment but out o f s i g h t . -7 2-Where i s the purse? (not i n s i g h t , but u s u a l l y i n the room) 4.4 P r e s e n t : An o b j e c t , a c t i o n o r person t h a t i s t h e f o c u s o f t h e u t t e r a n c e i s p r e s e n t i n t h e immediate environment. What's t h i s ? What a r e you doing? 4 . 5 Mnemonic: An o b j e c t , p e r s o n o r a c t i v i t y p r e s e n t i n the environment i s used t o remind t h e c h i l d of a p r e v i o u s a c t i v i t y o r event. Remember when we went t o the zoo? ( l o o k i n g a t a p i c t u r e o f a zoo i n a book) 5. G e s t u r e : T h i s c a t e g o r y codes t h e mother's hand movement r e l e v a n t t o t h e u t t e r a n c e . 5.1 Not a p p l i c a b l e : Used t o code t h o s e u t t e r a n c e s which cannot be s u p p o r t e d by a g e s t u r e t h a t supplements o r r e d u n d a n t l y i n d i c a t e s t h e meaning of t h e u t t e r a n c e . No? 5.2 Not p r e s e n t : Used t o code t h o s e u t t e r a n c e s which c o u l d be accompanied by g e s t u r e but a r e n o t . Are you gonna p l a y w i t h t h a t ? ( r e f e r r i n g t o t o y c h i l d i s h o l d i n g but w i t h no g e s t u r e towards c h i l d or t o y ) 5.3 P o i n t i n g : Used t o code t h o s e u t t e r a n c e s which a r e accompanied by p o i n t i n g . What c o l o u r ' s t h a t one? ( p o i n t i n g t o a b l o c k on the t a b l e ) 5.4 A c t i o n : Used t o code t h o s e u t t e r a n c e s which a r e accompanied by a c t i o n s , d e m o n s t r a t i o n s o r h o l d i n g the o b j e c t s out t o be examined by the c h i l d . Does i t go l i k e t h i s ? ( d e m o n s t r a t i n g how t o y works) 5.5 O f f camera: Used when t h e mother o r h e r hands -73-cannot be seen due to camera p o s i t i o n . Note: Not a l l of the c a t e g o r i e s d e f i n e d above were found i n the data from t h i s study. - 7 4 -APPENDIX B FORM:: FUNCTION DATA TABLE A TOTAL NUMBER (AND PERCENTAGE OF THE TOTAL) OF INTERROGATIVE TYPES USED FOR EACH UTTERANCE FUNCTION ACCORDING TO INDIVIDUAL CHILDREN BENJAMIN Interrogative type Request type Yes/N o Tag What Where Who Why # % # % # % # % # % # % Action 32 (12) 2 (2) 1 (5) k (80) Object Information 5 73 (2) (27) 18 (20) 14 (64) 1 (100) 1 (20) Confirmation 37 (14) C l a r i f i c a t i o n 1 (3) 6 (7) Routine 2 (1) Ambiguous-Info vs. Action 10 (4) 2 (2) 5 (23) Permission Attention 5 (2) 1 (1) Offer/Invitation lit (5) Rhetorical 2 (1) 1 (3) Elaboration 3 (1) 1 (1) I Test 21 (8) 1 (3) 58 (66) 2 (9) \ Internal state 2 (1) Recall 10 (4) 5 (16) Verbal r e f l e c -tive 21 (8) 1 (3) i Action re f l e c - 32 (12) 22 (71) tive TABLE A ( c o n t i n u e d ) PIETA I n t e r r o g a t i v e t y p e Request t y p e Yes/No Tag What Where Who Why How # % # % # % # % # % # % # % A c t i o n 77 (23) 7 (28) J (2) 3 (43) 6 (46) O b j e c t 1 (.3) I n f o r m a t i o n 49 (15) 12 (19) 3 (43) 2 (50) 1 (8) C o n f i r m a t i o n 110 (33) 5 (20) C l a r i f i c a t i o n 3 (12) R o u t i n e Ambiguous-Info v s . A c t i o n 1 (.3) 1 (2) P e r m i s s i o n 1 (4) A t t e n t i o n 7 (2) 2 (3) 4 (3D O f f e r / I n v i t a t i o n 18 (5) 1 (4) 1 (8) R h e t o r i c a l 4 (1) 1 (4) E l a b o r a t i o n 4 (1) T e s t 13 (4) 46 (74) 1 (14) 1 (8) I n t e r n a l s t a t e 1 (.3) R e c a l l 1 (.3) V e r b a l r e f l e c t i v e 20 (6) A c t i o n 25 (8) 7 (28) r e f l e c t i v e TABLE A ( c o n t i n u e d ) CHLOE I n t e r r o g a t i v e t y p e Request t y p e Yes/No Tag What Where Who Why # % # % # % # % # % # A c t i o n 20 (9) 8 (12) 1 O b j e c t 5 (2) 1 (2) I n f o r m a t i o n 71 (32) 13 (30) 22 (33) 12 (67) 3 (30) 1 C o n f i r m a t i o n 41 (18) 3 (5) 1 (33) C l a r i f i c a t i o n 3 (1) 16 (24) 26 (40) R o u t i n e 5 (2) 6 (60) Ambiguous-Info v s . A c t i o n 7 (3) 1 (2) P e r m i s s i o n 3 (1) A t t e n t i o n 7 (3) O f f e r / I n v i t a t i o n 11 (5) R h e t o r i c a l 5 (2) 5 (8) E l a b o r a t i o n 4 (2) T e s t 6 (3) 4 (6) 17 (27) 1 (10) I n t e r n a l s t a t e 1 (.4) 1 (2) R e c a l l 1 (.4) 2 (3) V e r b a l r e f l e c t i v e 29 (13) 1 (2) A c t i o n 5 (2) 11 (17) How # % (100) r e f l e c t i v e TABLE A (continued) GRAHAM Interrogative type Request type Yes/No Tag What Where Who Why How # % # # % # % # % # % # % Action 63 (32) 3 (9) 1 (3) 5 (29) 6 (86) 2 (22) Object 2 ( D Information 25 (13) 11 (28) 5 (24) 1 (14) Confirmation 16 (8) 12 (34) C l a r i f i c a t i o n 3 (2) 8 (23) 3 (8) 1 (11) Routine 4 (2) 3 (18) Ambiguous-Info vs. Action 2 (5) Permission Attention 12 (6) 4 (11) 1 (3) 1 (6) 5 (56) Offe r / I n v i t a t i o n 7 (4) Rhetorical 3 (2) 1 (3) 1 (6) Elaboration 5 (3) Test 17 (9) 2 (6) 21 (53) 2 (12) 2 (100) 1 (11) Internal state 1 (1) 1 (3) Recall 12 (6) 2 (6) Verbal r e f l e c t i v e 23 (12) 2 (6) Action 2 (1) 1 (3) r e f l e c t i v e TABLE A (Continued) DARCY I n t e r r o g a t i v e t ype Request t y p e Yes/No Tag What Where Who Why How # % # % # % # % # # % # % A c t i o n 38 (13) 9 (11) 12 (.24) 6 (86) 2 (14) O b j e c t I n f o r m a t i o n 39 (14) 3 (4) 38 (34) 6 (12) 8 (29) 1 (14) 1 (7) C o n f i r m a t i o n 26 (9) 17 (20) 1 (1) C l a r i f i c a t i o n 10 (3) 9 (11) 6 (5) 7 (14) 3 (11) R o u t i n e Ambiguous-Info 4 2 (2) 14 (28) 2 (7) P e r m i s s i o n A t t e n t i o n 11 (4) 14 (17) 2 (14) O f f e r / I n v i t a t i o n 6 (2) 1 (7) R h e t o r i c a l 1 ( .3) 2 (2) E l a b o r a t i o n 6 (2) 1 (4) T e s t 45 (16) 2 (2) 63 (56) 11 (22) 14 (50) 8 (57) I n t e r n a l s t a t e 5 (2) 1 (1) R e c a l l 3 (1) 2 (2) V e r b a l 82 (28) 9 (10) 1 (1) r e f l e c t i v e A c t i o n 12 (4) 15 (18) r e f l e c t i v e TABLE A (Continued.) JANE I n t e r r o g a t i v e t ype Request t y p e Yes/No Tag What Where Who Why How # % # % # % # # # % # % A c t i o n 18 (17) 8 (9) 2 (33) O b j e c t 1 (3) I n f o r m a t i o n 27 (26) 4 (5) 17 (43) 1 (20) 2 (67) 3 (50) C o n f i r m a t i o n 16 (15) 33 (39) 1 (3) 1 (50) C l a r i f i c a t i o n 20 (24) 3 (8) 1 (50) R o u t i n e Ambiguous-Info 'vs. A c t i o n 1 (1) P e r m i s s i o n A t t e n t i o n 7 (7) 1 (17) O f f e r / I n v i t a t i o n 1 (1) 1 (1) R h e t o r i c a l 2 (2) 2 (2) 1 (3) E l a b o r a t i o n 1 (1) 2 (40) T e s t 4 (4) 1 (1) 15 (35) 2 (40) I n t e r n a l s t a t e R e c a l l 3 (3) 1 (1) 2 (5) V e r b a l r e f l e c t i v e 2/+ (23) 1 1 (13) 1 (33) A c t i o n 3 (4) r e f l e c t i v e TABLE A (Continued) ANTHONY I n t e r r o g a t i v e type Request t y p e Yes/No Tag What Where Who Why How 21 19 23 5 A c t i o n O b j e c t I n f o r m a t i o n C o n f i r m a t i o n C l a r i f i c a t i o n R o u t i n e Ambiguous-Info 2 v s . A c t i o n P e r m i s s i o n 2 A t t e n t i o n 5 O f f e r / I n v i t a t i o n 4 R h e t o r i c a l E l a b o r a t i o n T e s t I n t e r n a l s t a t e R e c a l l V e r b a l r e f l e c t i v e A c t i o n r e f l e c t i v e 1 3 7 1 % (19) (18) (21) (5) (2) (2) (5) (4) (1) (3) (6) (1) # % 11 4 15 (14) 1 (3) (6) 2 (3) 1 (5) 1 (2) 8 (13) 1 (2) 2 (9) % # % # % 16 (84) 1 (33) 38 (62) 7 (30) 6 (86) 2 (11) 1 (33) 1 5: (22) 8 2 (3) 3 (14) 1 (4) 2 (9) 2 (9) 1 (4) 1 (5) 1 (14) 1 (33) TABLE A (Continued) LINDSAY I n t e r r o g a t i v e t ype Request t y p e Yes/No Tag What Where Who Why How # % # % # % # % # % # % # % A c t i o n 10 (11) 4 (13) 2 (11) 3 (50) 2 (33) O b j e c t I n f o r m a t i o n 15 (17) 7 (37) 1 (17) 3 (50) C o n f i r m a t i o n 12 (14) 10 (32) C l a r i f i c a t i o n 1 (1) 2 (6) 2 (11) R o u t i n e 2 (100) Ambiguous-Info 2 (2) v s . A c t i o n P e r m i s s i o n 1 (1) A t t e n t i o n 14 (16) 9 (29) 1 (17) O f f e r / I n v i t a t i o n 3 (3) 2 (6) R h e t o r i c a l 1 (1) 2 (6) 1 (17) E l a b o r a t i o n 6 (7) T e s t 2 (2) 8 (42) I n t e r n a l s t a t e 2 (2) R e c a l l 1 (1) V e r b a l 17 (20) 2 (6) r e f l e c t i v e A c t i o n r e f l e c t i v e TABLE B TOTAL NUMBER (AND PERCENTAGE OF THE TOTAL) OF INTERROGATIVE TYPES FOR EACH UTTERANCE FUNCTION ACCORDING TO LINGUISTIC STAGES III - V STAGE III Interrogative type Request type Yes/No Tag What Where Who Why How # % # % # % # # % # % # % Action 73 (18) 12 (10) 16 (1) 15 (25) 13 (87) 3 (16) Object 1 (1) Information 61 (15) k (3) 65 (41) 7 (12) 13 (39) 1 (7) 2 (11) Confirmation 40 (10) 33 (27) 2 (1) Cl a r i f i c a t i o n 8 (2) 15 (12) 10 (6) 7 (12) 3 (9) Routine Ambiguous-Info vs. Action 4 (1) 4 (7) 2 (6) 1 (5) Permission Attention 16 (4) 19 (15) 2 (11) Offer/Invitation 8 (2) 1 (1) 1 (5) Rhetorical k (1) 2 (2) 12 (2) Elaboration 8 (2) 1 (3) Test 57 (14) 2 (2) 76 (48) 11 (19) 14 (42) ; 9 (47) Internal state 4 (1) 1 (1) 1 (1) \ Recall 8 (2) 1 (1) 12 (2) Verbal reflective 89 (22) 11 (9) 1 (1) Action 12 (3) 14 (11) Note: Stage pre-I corresponds to Ben + Pieta; Stage I to Chloe; and Stage II to Graham. Stages are defined according to Brown's (1973) c r i t e r i a . TABLE B (Continued) STAGE IV I n t e r r o g a t i v e type Request t y p e Yes/No Tag What Where Who Why How i OO I # 21 43 28 6 2 19 A c t i o n Obj ect I n f o r m a t i o n C o n f i r m a t i o n C l a r i f i c a t i o n R o u t i n e Ambiguous-Info v s . A c t i o n P e r m i s s i o n A t t e n t i o n O f f e r / I n v i t a t i o n 4 R h e t o r i c a l 2 E l a b o r a t i o n 7 T e s t 8 I n t e r n a l s t a t e 4 R e c a l l 2 V e r b a l 41 r e f l e c t i v e A c t i o n r e f l e c t i v e % (11) (23) (15) (3) 4 (2) (1) (10) (2) (1) (4) (4) (2) (1) (22) # %• # % # % 8 (10) 2 (3) 3 (20) 7 (8) 30 (44) 6 (40) 35 (42) 1 (7) 17 (20) 8 (12) 3 (20) 1 (D 2 (2) 3 (4) 1 ( D 1 (7) 1 (1) 23 (34) 1 (7) 1 (D 1 (1) 2 (3) 10 (12) 1 (7) 3 (4) # % # % # % 7 (54) 2 (25) 2 (29) 4 ( 3 D 3 (38) 2 (25) 2 (29) 3 (43) 1 (8) 1 (8) 1 (13) TABLE B (Continued) STAGE V I n t e r r o g a t i v e t y p e Request t y p e Yes/No Tag What Where Who Why # % # # % % # % # % A c t i o n 11 (22) 1 (7) 5 (63) O b j e c t I n f o r m a t i o n 7 (14) 6 (43) 3 (33) 1 (13) C o n f i r m a t i o n (28) 7 (35) 1 (7) C l a r i f i c a t i o n 1 (2) 1 (5) 3 (21) 3 (33) R o u t i n e Ambiguous-Info 1 (2) 1 (7) 1 (11) P e r m i s s i o n 1 (2) A t t e n t i o n : 6 (12) 7 (35) 1 (7) O f f e r / I n v i t a t i o n 2 (4) 2 (10) R h e t o r i c a l 1 (5) 1 (11) 1 (13) E l a b o r a t i o n 2 (4) T e s t 1 (7) I n t e r n a l s t a t e R e c a l l 1 (11) V e r b a l 5 (10) 1 (13) r e f l e c t i v e A c t i o n r e f l e c t i v e TABLE C PERCENTAGE OF THE TOTAL INTERROGATIVE TYPES USED FOR EACH DISCOURSE FUNCTION ACCORDING TO INDIVIDUAL CHILDREN BENJAMIN I n t e r r o g a t i v e t y p e D i s c o u r s e f u n c t i o n Yes/No Tag What Where Who Why How 1. i n t r o d u c e new t o p i c k 3 8 20 2. C o n t i n u e t o p i c -independent s p . a c t 63 81 73 86 100 80 60 3. C o n t i n g e n t query 1 3 7 k. R e p e t i t i o n - a f t e r w a i t i n g f o r r e p l y h 9 9 20 5. R e p e i t i o n - w i t h o u t w a i t i n g f o r r e p l y .4 20 6. E l l i p t i c a l r e p e t i t i o n o f own u t t e r a n c e 1 3 1 7. R e p e t i t i o n o f o t h e r ' s u t t e r a n c e 10 8. C o n t i n u a t i o n o r e l a -b o r a t i o n of own p r i o r u t t e r a n c e k 6 2 9. C o n t i n u a t i o n o r e l a - 11 3 5 b o r a t i o n o f o t h e r ' s p r i o r u t t e r a n c e TABLE C (Continued) PIETA I n t e r r o g a t i v e t y p e D i s c o u r s e f u n c t i o n Yes/No Tag What Where Who Why How 1. I n t r o d u c e new t o p i c 1 2. c o n t i n u e t o p i c - 50 independent s p i a c t 3 . C o n t i n g e n t query 1 4# R e p e t i t i o n - a f t e r 2 w a i t i n g f o r r e p l y 5. R e p e t i t i o n - w i t h o u t . 3 w a i t i n g f o r r e p l y 6. E l l i p t i c a l r e p e t i t i o n 2 o f own u t t e r a n c e 7. R e p e t i t i o n o f o t h e r ' s 7 u t t e r a n c e 8. C o n t i n u a t i o n o r 5 e l a b o r a t i o n o f own p r i o r u t t e r a n c e 9. C o n t i n u a t i o n o r e l a - 32 b o r a t i o n of o t h e r ' s p r i o r u t t e r a n c e 12 12 68 3 87 71 100 85 29 TABLE C (Continued) CHLOE I n t e r r o g a t i v e t y p e D i s c o u r s e f u n c t i o n Yes/No Tag What Where Who Why How 1. I n t r o d u c e new t o p i c 3 2 2 2. C o n t i n u e t o p i c -independent s p . a c t 55 23 42 67 100 > 100 50 3 . C o n t i n g e n t query 3 24 37 k. R e p e t i t i o n - a f t e r w a i t i n g f o r r e p l y 3 17 50 5 . R e p e t i t i o n - w i t h o u t w a i t i n g f o r r e p l y 1 6. E l l i p t i c a l r e p e t i t i o n o f own u t t e r a n c e k 50 7. R e p e t i t i o n o f o t h e r ' s u t t e r a n c e 20 33 8. C o n t i n u a t i o n o r e l a b o r a t i o n o f own p r i o r u t t e r a n c e 8 2 9. C o n t i n u a t i o n o r k 2 e l a b o r a t i o n o f o t h e r ' s u t t e r a n c e TABLE C (Continued) GRAHAM I n t e r r o g a t i v e t y p e D i s c o u r s e f u n c t i o n Yes/No Tag What Where Who Why How 1 . I n t r o d u c e new t o p i c 7 3 10 57 11 2. C o n t i n u e t o p i c -independent s p . a c t 54 37 60 88 14 78 3 . C o n t i n g e n t query 6 8 14 4 . R e p e t i t i o n - a f t e r w a i t i n g f o r r e p l y 5 3 12 50 14 5 . R e p e t i t i o n - w i t h o u t w a i t i n g f o r r e p l y 2 6. E l l i p t i c a l r e p e t i t i o n o f own u t t e r a n c e 2 31 7. R e p e t i t i o n o f o t h e r ' s u t t e r a n c e 8 3 8. C o n t i n u a t i o n o r e l a b o r a t i o n o f own p r i o r u t t e r a n c e 10 6 50 14 9. C o n t i n u a t i o n o r 5 6 e l a b o r a t i o n o f o t h e r ' s p r i o r u t t e r a n c e TABLE C (Continued) DARCY Interrogative type Discourse function Yes/No Tag What Where Who Why How 1. Introduce new topic 2 1 2 4 29 2. Continue topic -independent sp.act 43 26 78 70 57 57 71 3 . Contingent query 5 10 4 6 /+. Repetition - af t e r waiting for reply 4 6 4 14 14 5. Repetition - without waiting for reply 2 2 2 6. E l l i p t i c a l r e p e t i t i o n of own utterance 3 51 7. Repetition of other's utterance 15 1 4 2 8. Continuation or elaboration of own prio r utterance 9 2 4 8 14 7 9. Continuation or e l a - 16 6 8 7 14 7 boration of other's p r i o r utterance TABLE C (Continued) JANE I n t e r r o g a t i v e t y p e D i s c o u r s e f u n c t i o n Yes/No Tag What Where Who Why How 1. I n t r o d u c e new t o p i c 5 2 20 33 17 2. C o n t i n u e t o p i c -independent s p . a c t 46 51 70 50 20 67 71 3 . C o n t i n g e n t query 9 24 8 50 4. R e p e t i t i o n - a f t e r w a i t i n g f o r r e p l y 6 13 5. R e p e t i t i o n - w i t h o u t w a i t i n g f o r r e p l y 5 20 6. E l l i p t i c a l r e p e t i t i o n o f own u t t e r a n c e 5 5 7. R e p e t i t i o n o f o t h e r ' s u t t e r a n c e 16 4 8. C o n t i n u a t i o n o r 9 1 5 40 e l a b o r a t i o n o f own p r i o r u t t e r a n c e 9. C o n t i n u a t i o n o r e l a - 4 14 b o r a t i o n o f o t h e r ' s p r i o r u t t e r a n c e TABLE C (Continued) ANTHONY I n t e r r o g a t i v e t ype D i s c o u r s e f u n c t i o n Yes/No Tag What Where Who Why How 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. I n t r o d u c e new t o p i c 5 Con t i n u e t o p i c - 54 independent s p . a c t C o n t i n g e n t query 5 R e p e t i t i o n - a f t e r w a i t i n g f o r r e p l y R e p e t i t i o n - w i t h o u t w a i t i n g f o r r e p l y E l l i p t i c a l r e p e t i t i o n 6 o f own u t t e r a n c e R e p e t i t i o n o f o t h e r ' s 18 u t t e r a n c e C o n t i n u a t i o n o r e l a b o r a t i o n o f own p r i o r u t t e r a n c e C o n t i n u a t i o n o r e l a -b o r a t i o n o f o t h e r ' s p r i o r u t t e r a n c e 8 25 20 50 7 79 11 9 65 17 4 71 14 40 50 100 14 TABLE C (Continued) LINDSAY Discourse function Yes/No Tag Interrogative type What Where Who Why How 1 . Introduce new topic 3 2 . Continue topic - 45 independent sp.act 3 . Contingent query 9 4 . Repetition - a f t e r 1 waiting for reply 5 . Repetition - without waiting for reply 6 . E l l i p t i c a l r e p e t i t i o n 10 of own utterance 7 . Repetition of other's 15 utterance 8. Continuation or 11 elaboration of own prior utterance 9 . Continuation or e l a - 6 boration of other's pr i o r utterance 16 6 71 10 80 67 17 5 0 50 5 0 17 17 17 TABLE D PERCENTAGE OF" THE TOTAL INTERROGATIVE TYPES USED FOR EACH DISCOURSE FUNCTION ACCORDING TO LINGUISTIC STAGES I I I - V* STAGE I I I I n t e r r o g a t i v e type Discourse f u n c t i o n Yes/No Tag What Where who Why How 1. i n t r o d u c e new t o p i c 3 2 2 5 3 33 5 2. Continue t o p i c -independent sp.act 47 29 79 73 58 60 68 3. Contingent query 6 11 6 5 3 • • • • • • 4. R e p e t i t i o n - a f t e r w a i t i n g f o r r e p l y 4 • # » 6 3 12 • * • 11 5. R e p e t i t i o n - without w a i t i n g f o r r e p l y 3 1 2 6. E l l i p t i c a l r e p e t i t i o n of own utterance 3 43 7. K e p e t i t i o n of oth e r ' s u t t e r a n c e 13 2 3 2 8. c o n t i n u a t i o n o r e l a b o r a t i o n of own p r i o r utterance 10 3 4 7 12 5 9. c o n t i n u a t i o n or e l a -b o r a t i o n of o t h e r ' s p r i o r u tterance 12 7 7 6 7 5 *Stage pre-I corresponds to Ben + P i e t a ; Stage I to C h l o e a n d Stage I I to Graham. As these r e s u l t s are given i n pre v i o u s t a b l e s , only Stages i l l - V are g i v e n here. Stages are d e f i n e d a c c o r d i n g to Brown (1973). TABLE D (Continued) STAGE IV I n t e r r o g a t i v e t y p e D i s c o u r s e f u n c t i o n Yes/No Tag What Where Who Why How 1. I n t r o d u c e new t o p i c 3 • • • 4 7 14 31 2. C o n t i n u e t o p i c -independent s p . a c t 46 48 76 40 43 62 88 3. C o n t i n g e n t query 7 21 9 27 13 4. R e p e t i t i o n - a f t e r w a i t i n g f o r r e p l y 2 3 5. R e p e t i t i o n - w i t h o u t w a i t i n g f o r r e p l y 3 14 6. E l l i p t i c a l r e p e t i t i o n o f own u t t e r a n c e 6 14 8 7. R e p e t i t i o n o f o t h e r ' s u t t e r a n c e 21 4 13 8. C o n t i n u a t i o n o r e l a b o r a t i o n o f own p r i o r u t t e r a n c e 10 29 9. C o n t i n u a t i o n o r e l a - 6 21 4 b o r a t i o n of o t h e r ' s p r i o r u t t e r a n c e TABLE D (Continued) STAGE V I n t e r r o g a t i v e t y p e D i s c o u r s e f u n c t i o n Yes/No Tag What Where Who Why 4 • # • 14 38 48 15 71 67 38 8 10 14 11 13 2 11 How 1. I n t r o d u c e new t o p i c 2. Continue t o p i c -independent s p . a c t 3 . C o n t i n g e n t query 4 . R e p e t i t i o n - a f t e r w a i t i n g f o r r e p l y 5. R e p e t i t i o n - w i t h o u t w a i t i n g f o r r e p l y 6 . E l l i p t i c a l r e p e t i t i o n o f own u t t e r a n c e 7. R e p e t i t i o n of o t h e r ' s u t t e r a n c e 8. C o n t i n u a t i o n o r e l a b o r a t i o n o f own p r i o r u t t e r a n c e 9. C o n t i n u a t i o n o r e l a -b o r a t i o n o f o t h e r ' s p r i o r u t t e r a n c e 14 10 6 75 13 -97-BIBLIOGRAPHY Be l l i n g e r , D. (1979) Changes i n the exp l i c i t n e s s of mothers' d i r e c t i v e s as children age. JChLang 6 :443-58. (1980) Consistency i n the pattern of change i n mothers' speech: some discriminant analyses. JChLang 2 : 4 6 9 - 8 7 . Benedict, H. (1979) Early l e x i c a l development: comprehension and production. JChLang 6:183-200. Bever, T. (1970) The cognitive basis for l i n g u i s t i c structures. In J. R. Hayes (ed.), Cognition and the Development of  Language. New York:Wiley. Broen, P. (1972) The verbal environment of the language-learning c h i l d . American Speech and Hearing Association  Monograph No. 17. Washington, D.C.:American Speech and Hearing Association. Brown, R. (1973) A F i r s t Language: The Early Stages. Cambridge Mass. -.Harvard University Press. Brown, R. & B e l l u g i , U. (1964) Three processes i n the child' s a c q u i s i t i o n of syntax. Harvard Educational Review 34: 133-51. Brown, R., Cazden, C. & B e l l u g i , U. (1968) The ch i l d ' s grammar from I to I I I . In C. Ferguson & D. Slobin (eds.), Studies  of Child Language Development. New York:Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1973. 295-333. Bruner, J . (1975) The ontogenesis of speech acts. JChLang 2 : 1 - 2 0 . Buium, N. (1976) Interrogative types i n parental speech to language learning children: A l i n g u i s t i c universal. J Psycholing Res 5:135-42. Cazden, C. (1965) Environmental assistance to the child's a c q u i s i t i o n of grammar. Doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n , Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass. Chapman, R. (1981) Mother-child i n t e r a c t i o n i n the second year of l i f e : i t s r o l e i n language development. In R. Schiefelbusch & D. Bricker (eds.), Early Language:  Ac q u i s i t i o n and Intervention. Baltimore:University Park Press. Cherry, L. & Lewis, M. (1976) Mothers and two-year-olds: a study of sex-differentiated aspects of verbal i n t e r a c t i o n . Developmental Psychology 12:278-82. Chomsky, N. (1965) Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, Mass.:M.I.T. Press. r-98.-. C o r s a r o , W. (1977) The c l a r i f i c a t i o n r e q u e s t as a f e a t u r e o f a d u l t i n t e r a c t i v e s t y l e s w i t h young c h i l d r e n . Language i n  S o c i e t y 6:183-207. C r o s s , T. (1977) Mothers' speech a d j u s t m e n t : t h e c o n t r i b u -t i o n o f s e l e c t e d c h i l d l i s t e n e r v a r i a b l e s . I n C. Snow & C. F e r g u s o n ( e d s . ) , T a l k i n g t o C h i l d r e n : Language Input and  A c q u i s i t i o n . Cambridge:Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s . 151-88. E r v i n - T r i p p , S. (1970) D i s c o u r s e agreement: how c h i l d r e n answer q u e s t i o n s . I n J . Hayes ( e d . ) , C o g n i t i o n and t h e  Development o f Language. New Y o r k : W i l e y 79-107. (1977a) From c o n v e r s a t i o n t o s y n t a x . Papers and R e p o r t s on C h i l d Language Development 13. S t a n f o r d U n i v e r s i t y . K1-21. (1977b) Wait f o r me, r o l l e r s k a t e ! I n S. E r v i n -T r i p p and C. M i t c h e l l Kernan ( e d s . ) , C h i l d D i s c o u r s e . New York:Academic P r e s s . 165-88. E r v i n - T r i p p , S. & M i l l e r , W. (1977) E a r l y d i s c o u r s e : some q u e s t i o n s about q u e s t i o n s . I n M. Lewis & L. Rosenblum f e d s . ) , I n t e r a c t i o n , C o n v e r s a t i o n and t h e Development o f  Language. New Y o r k : W i l e y 9-25. F e r g u s o n , C. (1964) Baby t a l k i n s i x languages. American  A n t h r o p o l o g i s t 66:103-114. F o r n e r , M. (1977) The mother as LAD: I n t e r a c t i o n between o r d e r and f r e q u e n c y o f p a r e n t a l i n p u t and c h i l d p r o d u c t i o n . I n F. Eckman & A. H a s t i n g s ( e d s . ) , S t u d i e s i n F i r s t and Second  Language A c q u i s i t i o n . Rowley, Mass.:Newbury House P u b l i s h e r s , I n c . 17-44. F o l g e r , J . & Chapman, R. (1978) A p r a g m a t i c a n a l y s i s o f spon-taneous i m i t a t i o n s . JChLang ^:25-38. G a r n i c a , 0. (1977) Some p r o s o d i c and p a r a l i n g u i s t i c f e a t u r e s o f speech t o young c h i l d r e n . I n C. Snow and C. Ferguson (eds.) T a l k i n g t o C h i l d r e n : Language Input and A c q u i s i t i o n . Cambridge:Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s . 63-8. G l e a s o n , J . Berko (1977) T a l k i n g t o c h i l d r e n : some n o t e s on feedback. I n C. Snow and C. F e r g u s o n ( e d s . ) , T a l k i n g t o  C h i l d r e n : Language I n p u t and A c q u i s i t i o n . Cambridge: Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s . 199-205. G l e i t m a n , L. & Wanner, E. (1982) Language a c q u i s i t i o n : The s t a t e o f t h e s t a t e o f t h e a r t . I n E. Wanner & L. G l e i t m a n ( e d s . ) , Language A c q u i s i t i o n : The S t a t e o f t h e A r t . Cambridge:Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s . 3-48. G r i f f i t h s , P. (1978) A s k i n g and An s w e r i n g . I n D. Ingram, F. Peng & P. Dale ( e d s . ) , P r o c e e d i n g s o f t h e F i r s t I n t e r - n a t i o n a l Congress f o r t h e Study o f C h i l d Language. Lanham, M d . : U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s o f A m e r i c a 95-120. H a r k n e s s , S. (1975) C u l t u r a l v a r i a t i o n i n mothers' language. Word 22=495-8. H e a t h , S. (1981) Q u e s t i o n i n g a t home and a t s c h o o l : A compara-t i v e s t u d y . I n G. S p i n d l e r ( e d . ) , Doing Ethnography:  e d u c a t i o n a l a n t h r o p o l o g y i n a c t i o n . New Y o r k : H o l t , R i n e -h a r t & Win s t o n . Hess, R. & Shipman, V. (1965) E a r l y e x p e r i e n c e and th e s o c i a -l i z a t i o n o f c o g n i t i v e modes i n c h i l d r e n . C h i l d D e v e l o p - ment ^6:869-86. Holzman, M. (1972) The use o f i n t e r r o g a t i v e forms i n the v e r b a l i n t e r a c t i o n o f t h r e e mothers and t h e i r c h i l d r e n . J P s y c h o l i n g R e s _1.:311-36 (197i+) The v e r b a l environment p r o v i d e d by mothers f o r t h e i r v e r y young c h i l d r e n . M e r r i l l - P a l m e r Q u a r t e r l y 20:31-42 Johnson, C. (1981) C h i l d r e n ' s q u e s t i o n s and th e d i s c o v e r y o f i n t e r r o g a t i v e s y n t a x . D o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n . S t a n f o r d U n i v e r s i t y . Keenan, E. Ochs (1974) C o n v e r s a t i o n a l competence i n c h i l d r e n . JChLang U163-83. (1977) Making i t l a s t : r e p e t i t i o n i n c h i l d r e n ' s d i s c o u r s e . I n S. E r v i n - T r i p p & C. M i t c h e l l - K e r n a n ( e d s . ) , C h i l d D i s c o u r s e . New York:Academic P r e s s . 125-38. L e v e l t , W. (1975) What became o f LAD? P e t e r de R i d d e r P u b l i - c a t i o n s i n C o g n i t i o n 1. L i s s e , N e t h e r l a n d s : P e t e r de R i d d e r P r e s s . L i e v e n , E. (1976) C o n v e r s a t i o n s between mothers and young c h i l d r e n : i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s and t h e i r p o s s i b l e i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r t h e s t u d y o f language l e a r n i n g . I n N. Waterson & C. Snow ( e d s . ) , The Development o f Communica- t i o n : S o c i a l and P r a g m a t i c F a c t o r s i n Language A c q u i s i - t i o n . New Y o r k : W i l e y . L o n g h u r s t , T. & S t e p a n i c h , L. (1975) Mothers' speech a d d r e s s e d t o one-, two-, and t h r e e - y e a r - o l d normal c h i l d r e n . C h i l d  Study J o u r n a l 5_:3-11. M a c N e i l l , D. (1966a) The c r e a t i o n o f language by c h i l d r e n . I n J . Lyons & R. Wales ( e d s . ) , P s y c h o l i n g u i s t i c P a p e r s . E d i n b u r g h : E d i n b u r g h U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s . McDonald, L. & P i e n , D. (1982) Mother c o n v e r s a t i o n a l b e h a v i o u r as a f u n c t i o n o f i n t e r a c t i o n a l i n t e n t . JChLang .2:337-58. Macnamara, J . (1972) C o g n i t i v e b a s i s o f language l e a r n i n g i n i n f a n t s . P s y c h o l o g i c a l Review 79:1-13. -1.00-Messer, D. (1980) The e p i s o d i c s t r u c t u r e of m a t e r n a l speech t o young c h i l d r e n . JChLang 2 : 2 9 - 4 0 . Moerk, E. (1980) R e l a t i o n s h i p s between p a r e n t a l i n p u t f r e q u e n -c i e s and c h i l d r e n ' s language a c q u i s i t i o n : A r e a n a l y s e s of Brown's d a t a . JChLang 2 : 1 ° 5 - 1 8 . N e l s o n , K. (1973) S t r u c t u r e and s t r a t e g y i n l e a r n i n g t o t a l k . Monographs o f the S o c i e t y f o r R e s e a r c h i n C h i l d D evelop- ment 38. (1980) I n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s i n language d e v e l o p -ment: i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r development and language. Paper p r e s e n t e d a t th e F i f t h A n n u a l B o s t o n U n i v e r s i t y Conference on Language Development. October. Newport, E. (1976) Motherese: the speech o f mothers t o young c h i l d r e n . I n N. C a s t e l l a n , D. P i s o n i & G. P o t t s ( e d s . ) , C o g n i t i v e Theory: V o l . I I . H i l l s i d e , New Jer s e y : L a w r e n c e Erlbaum A s s o c i a t e s . Newport, E., G l e i t m a n , H. & G l e i t m a n , L. (1977) Mother, I ' d r a t h e r do i t m y s e l f : some e f f e c t s and n o n - e f f e c t s o f m a t e r n a l speech s t y l e . I n C. Snow & C. Ferguson ( e d s . ) , T a l k i n g t o C h i l d r e n : Language I n p u t and A c q u i s i t i o n . Cambridge:Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s . 109-49. N i n i o , A. & B r u n e r , J . (1978) The achievements and a n t e c e d e n t s o f l a b e l l i n g . JChLang ^:1-15. P h i l l i p s , J . (1970) F o r m a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f speech which mothers a d d r e s s t o t h e i r young c h i l d r e n . D o c t o r a l d i s -s e r t a t i o n , John Hopkins U n i v e r s i t y . Remick, H. (1976) M a t e r n a l speech t o c h i l d r e n d u r i n g language a c q u i s i t i o n . In.W. von R a f f l e r - E n g e l & V. Lebrun ( e d s . ) , Baby t a l k and I n f a n t Speech. L i s s e , N e t h e r l a n d s : S w e t s & Z e i t l i n g e r B.V. 223-33. R e t h e r f o r d , K., S c h w a r t z , B. & Chapman, R. (1981) Semantic r o l e s and r e s i d u a l g r a m m a t i c a l c a t e g o r i e s i n m o t h e r - c h i l d speech: Who tu n e s i n t o whom? JChLang 8:583-608. R o n d a l , J . (1978) M a t e r n a l speech t o normal and Down's syndrome c h i l d r e n matched f o r mean u t t e r a n c e l e n g t h . I n C.E. Meyers ( e d . ) , Q.uality of L i f e i n S e v e r e l y and P r o f o u n d l y M e n t a l l y  R e t a r d e d P e o p l e : R e s e a r c h F o u n d a t i o n s f o r Improvement. Washington, D.C.:American A s s o c i a t i o n on M e n t a l D e f i c i e n c y . 193-165. S a v i c , S. (1975) A s p e c t s o f a d u l t - c h i l d communication: t h e problem o f q u e s t i o n a c q u i s i t i o n . JChLang 2:251-60. Schnur, E. and S h a t z , M. ( i n p r e s s ) The form and f u n c t i o n o f ma t e r n a l g e s t u r e s i n c o n v e r s a t i o n s w i t h young c h i l d r e n . I n H. Sypher & J . A p p l e g a t e ( e d s . ) , S o c i a l C o g n i t i o n  and Communication. -101--S h a t z , M. (1975) How young c h i l d r e n respond t o language: p r o c e d u r e s f o r a n s w e r i n g . Papers and R e p o r t s on C h i l d  Language Development 10. S t a n f o r d U n i v e r s i t y 97-110. - (1978) C h i l d r e n ' s comprehension o f t h e i r mothers' q u e s t i o n d i r e c t i v e s . JChLang ,5_:39-46. (1979) How t o do t h i n g s by a s k i n g : f o r m - f u n c t i o n p a i r i n g s i n mothers' q u e s t i o n s and t h e i r r e l a t i o n t o c h i l d r e n ' s r e s p o n s e s . C h i l d Development 50:1093-9. (1982) On mechanisms o f language a c q u i s i t i o n ; Can f e a t u r e s o f the communication environment account f o r development? I n E. Wanner & L. G l e i t m a n ( e d s . ) , Language  A c q u i s i t i o n : the S t a t e o f t h e A r t . Cambridge:Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s . 102-27. S h a t z , M. & Gelman, R. (1977) Beyond s y n t a x : t h e i n f l u e n c e o f c o n v e r s a t i o n a l c o n s t r a i n t s on speech m o d i f i c a t i o n s . I n C. Snow & C. Ferguson ( e d s . ) , T a l k i n g t o C h i l d r e n :  Language I n p u t and A c q u i s i t i o n . Cambridge:Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s . 189-98. S h i p l e y , E., S m i t h , C. & G l e i t m a n , L. (1969) A s t u d y on the a c q u i s i t i o n o f language: f r e e r e s p o n s e s t o commands. Language 45:322-42. S l o b i n , D. (1973) C o g n i t i v e p r e r e q u i s i t e s f o r t h e development o f grammar. I n C. Ferguson & D. S l o b i n ( e d s . ) , S t u d i e s of  C h i l d Language Development. New Y o r k : H o l t , R i n e h a r t & Win s t o n . 175-208. Snow, C. (1972) M o t h e r s ' speech t o c h i l d r e n l e a r n i n g language. C h i l d Development i^:4 9 - 5 6 5 . (1977a) Mothers' speech r e s e a r c h : from i n p u t t o i n t e r a c t i o n . I n C. Snow & C. Ferguson ( e d s . ) , T a l k i n g t o  C h i l d r e n : Language I n p u t and A c q u i s i t i o n . Cambridge: Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s . 31-51. (197713) The development o f c o n v e r s a t i o n between mothers and b a b i e s . JChLang if_:1-22. (1978) The c o n v e r s a t j m a l c o n t e x t o f language a c q u i -s i t i o n . I n R. Campbell & P. S m i t h ( e d s . ) , Recent Advances  i n the P s y c h o l o g y o f Language: Language Development and  M o t h e r - c h i l d I n t e r a c t i o n . New York:Plenum P r e s s . 253-69. S t e f f e n s e n , M. (1978) S a t i s f y i n g i n q u i s i t i v e a d u l t s : some s i m p l e methods o f an s w e r i n g yes/no q u e s t i o n s . JChLang 5: 221 - 3 6 . Tyack, D. & Ingram, D. (1977) C h i l d r e n ' s p r o d u c t i o n and compre-h e n s i o n o f q u e s t i o n s . JChLang j * : 211-24. van der G e e s t , T. (1977) Some i n t e r a c t i o n a l a s p e c t s o f language a c q u i s i t i o n . I n C. Snow & C. Fe r g u s o n ( e d s . ) , T a l k i n g t o - 1 0 2 -C h i l d r e n : Language I n p u t and A c q u i s i t i o n . Cambridge: Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s . 89-108. 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            data-media="{[{embed.selectedMedia}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0095714/manifest

Comment

Related Items