Education, Faculty of
Language and Literacy Education (LLED), Department of
DSpace
UBCV
Craig, Sydney G.
Doctor of Education - EdD
University of British Columbia
Despite the emphasis in current composition theory on the importance of the intended audience for written composition, there is little evidence of audience effects on written composition before students reach high-school. In contrast, there is considerable evidence of audience effects on children's oral language. The present study explores the possibility that the lack of evidence of audience effects on written composition is an artifact of the measures that have been used. Measures for this study were derived from studies of children's oral language in the hope that they might provide insight into the effects of audience on written composition. The purpose of this study was to examine the effect of audience on the use of five language functions (Controlling, Relational, Informing and Interpreting, Theorizing and Projecting) in written arguments by students in grades 6 and 11. Students wrote four compositions, one on each of two topics for each of two audiences, with presentation of audiences and topics counterbalanced. Audiences were teacher and best friend which are differentiated in terms of relative status. One hundred nine complete sets of four compositions were subjected to functional analysis. Statistical analysis revealed audience effects for three functions. Students at both grades used more of the Controlling function and the Relational function for the audience of best friend, and more of the Theorizing function for the audience of teacher. Compositions intended for the high-status audience were more objective, more impersonal, and contained less diversity of function. In contrast, compositions intended for the same-status audience were more conversational, more personal, and contained more diversity of function. Analysis also revealed grade and topic effects. Results of this study suggest that audience effects can be discerned in compositions by students in elementary school if appropriate measures are used. This study thus provides empirical support for the emphasis on audience in current composition theory. It also signals the need for new meaasures in further studies of audience effects on written composition.
THE EFFECT OF INTENDED AUDIENCE ON LANGUAGE FUNCTIONS IN WRITTEN ARGUMENT AT TWO GRADE LEVELS by SYDNEY G. CRAIG A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF EDUCATION (EDUCATION CURRICULUM AND INSTRUCTIONAL STUDIES) in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES Department of Language Education We accept t h i s t h e s i s as conforming to the r e q u i r e d standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA A p r i l 2, 1986 © Sydney G. C r a i g , 1986 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make i t freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department of cX^OsVL^j U Q L - ^ - CCK^^x^ The University of British Columbia 2075 Wesbrook Place Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5 7Q \ ABSTRACT Desp i t e the emphasis i n c u r r e n t composition theory on the importance of the intended audience f o r w r i t t e n composition, there i s l i t t l e evidence of audience e f f e c t s on w r i t t e n composition before students reach h i g h - s c h o o l . In c o n t r a s t , there i s c o n s i d e r a b l e evidence of audience e f f e c t s on c h i l d r e n ' s o r a l language. The present study e x p l o r e s the p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t the lac k of evidence of audience e f f e c t s on w r i t t e n composition i s an a r t i f a c t of the measures that have been used. Measures f o r t h i s study were d e r i v e d from s t u d i e s of c h i l d r e n ' s o r a l language i n the hope that they might p r o v i d e i n s i g h t i n t o the e f f e c t s of audience on w r i t t e n composition. The purpose of t h i s study was to examine the e f f e c t of audience on the use of f i v e language f u n c t i o n s ( C o n t r o l l i n g , R e l a t i o n a l , Informing and I n t e r p r e t i n g , - T h e o r i z i n g and P r o j e c t i n g ) i n w r i t t e n arguments by students in grades 6 and 1 1 . Students wrote four compositions, one on each of two t o p i c s f o r each of two audiences, with p r e s e n t a t i o n of audiences and t o p i c s counterbalanced. Audiences were teacher and best friend which are d i f f e r e n t i a t e d i n terms of r e l a t i v e s t a t u s . One hundred nine complete s e t s of four compositions were su b j e c t e d to f u n c t i o n a l a n a l y s i s . S t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s r e v e a l e d audience e f f e c t s f o r three f u n c t i o n s . Students at both grades used more of the C o n t r o l l i n g f u n c t i o n and the R e l a t i o n a l f u n c t i o n f o r the audience of best f r i e n d , and more of the T h e o r i z i n g f u n c t i o n i i f o r the audience of teacher. Compositions intended f o r the h i g h - s t a t u s audience were more o b j e c t i v e , more impersonal, and c o n t a i n e d l e s s d i v e r s i t y of f u n c t i o n . In c o n t r a s t , compositions intended f o r the same-status audience were more c o n v e r s a t i o n a l , more p e r s o n a l , and co n t a i n e d more d i v e r s i t y of f u n c t i o n . A n a l y s i s a l s o r e v e a l e d grade and t o p i c e f f e c t s . R e s u l t s of t h i s study suggest that audience e f f e c t s can be d i s c e r n e d i n compositions by students i n elementary school i f a p p r o p r i a t e measures are used. T h i s study thus p r o v i d e s e m p i r i c a l support f o r the emphasis on audience i n c u r r e n t composition theory. I t a l s o s i g n a l s the need f o r new meaasures i n f u r t h e r s t u d i e s of audience e f f e c t s on w r i t t e n composition. TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT i i LIST OF FIGURES v i i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS v i i i CHAPTER ONE: THE PROBLEM 1 Statement of the Problem 1 Background to the Problem 1 Need f o r the Study 7 D e f i n i t i o n of Terms 9 Research Hypotheses 11 CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE 13 The E f f e c t of Audience i n Wr i t t e n Composition 13 The Concept of Audience i n Current Composition Theory 14 St u d i e s of Audience E f f e c t on Wr i t t e n • Composition 19 The E f f e c t of Audience on O r a l Language 29 St u d i e s of C h i l d r e n ' s C o g n i t i v e E g o c e n t r i c i t y ....29 S t u d i e s of C h i l d r e n ' s S o c i o c e n t r i s m 35 St u d i e s of O r a l Language Functions i n School S e t t i n g s 41 Measuring Language Fu n c t i o n s i n Oral and Wr i t t e n Language 45 I m p l i c a t i o n s of O r a l Language Studi e s f o r Wr i t t e n Language S t u d i e s 45 The Functions of O r a l and Wri t t e n Language 47 Schemes d e s c r i b i n g the f u n c t i o n s of w r i t t e n language 50 Schemes d e s c r i b i n g the f u n c t i o n s of o r a l language 52 C o n s i d e r a t i o n s of the Present Study 56 CHAPTER THREE: DESIGN AND PROCEDURES 58 Subjects 58 M a t e r i a l s 60 Procedure 61 Sc o r i n g 63 The Taxonomy of Language Functions and Sub-Functions 63 M a t e r i a l f o r S c o r e r s 64 Sc o r i n g Procedure 65 Data 69 Experimental Design 69 A n a l y s i s of the Data 70 CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS OF THE STUDY 73 Audience E f f e c t ...76 Grade E f f e c t 80 Topic E f f e c t 82 Summary of Main F i n d i n g s 85 Audience E f f e c t 85 Grade E f f e c t 85 Topic E f f e c t 86 I n t e r a c t i o n s 87 v CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS 88 The E f f e c t of Audience on Use of Language Functions ...88 The E f f e c t of Grade on Use of Language Fu n c t i o n s 98 The E f f e c t of Topic on Use of Language Functions 102 Summary and I m p l i c a t i o n s f o r E d u c a t i o n a l P r a c t i c e ....104 I m p l i c a t i o n s for Furt h e r Research 107 REFERENCES 111 APPENDICES 127 APPENDIX A: WRITING ASSIGNMENTS 128 APPENDIX B: INSTRUCTIONS FOR DIVIDING COMPOSITIONS INTO IDEA UNITS 130 APPENDIX C: SAMPLE COMPOSITION DIVIDED INTO. IDEA-UNITS , 132 APPENDIX D: INSTRUCTIONS FOR IDENTIFYING LANGUAGE FUNCTIONS 133 APPENDIX E: EXAMPLES OF LANGUAGE FUNCTIONS AND SUB-FUNCTIONS 138 APPENDIX F: SAMPLE COMPOSITION SCORED FOR FUNCTION AND SUB-FUNCTION 143 APPENDIX G: STATISTICAL TABLES 144 v i LIST OF FIGURES Table 1: Means and Standard D e v i a t i o n s f o r Idea U n i t s i n Grade by Topic by Audience C e l l s Table 2: Means, Standard D e v i a t i o n s , and F S t a t i s t i c s f o r Use of Fu n c t i o n s f o r Two Audiences Table 3: Means, Standard D e v i a t i o n s and F S t a t i s t i c s f o r Use of Functions at Two Grades Table 4: Means, Standard D e v i a t i o n s and F S t a t i s t i c s f o r Use of Functions Across Audiences and Grades Table G1: R e s u l t s of MANOVA A n a l y s i n g P r o p o r t i o n a l Use of the F i v e Language Fu n c t i o n s Table G2: Summary of ANOVAs i n Follow-up A n a l y s i s of Sub-Functions Table G3: Means, Standard D e v i a t i o n s and F S t a t i s t i c s f o r Use of Sub-Functions of Fu n c t i o n 1 ( C o n t r o l l i n g ) f o r Two Audiences Table G4: Means, Standard D e v i a t i o n and F S t a t i s t i c s f o r Use of Sub-Functions of Fu n c t i o n s 2 ( R e l a t i o n a l ) f o r Two Audiences Table G5: Means, Standard D e v i a t i o n s and F S t a t i s t i c s f o r Use of Sub-Functions of Fu n c t i o n 4 ( T h e o r i z i n g ) f o r Two Two Audiences Table G6: Means, Standard D e v i a t i o n s and F S t a t i s t i c s f o r Use of Sub-Functions of Fu n c t i o n 2 ( R e l a t i o n a l ) at Two Grade L e v e l s Table G7: Means, Standard D e v i a t i o n s and F S t a t i s t i c s f o r Use of Sub-Functions of Fu n c t i o n 3 (Informing v i i and I n t e r p r e t i n g ) at Two Grade L e v e l s T a b l e G8: Means, S tandard D e v i a t i o n s and F S t a t i s t i c s for Use S u b - F u n c t i o n s of F u n c t i o n 4 ( T h e o r i z i n g ) at Two Grade L e v e l s T a b l e G9: Means, S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n s and F S t a t i s t i c s for Use of S u b - f u n c t i o n s of F 1 ( C o n t r o l l i n g ) for Two T o p i c s T a b l e G10: Means and S tandard D e v i a t i o n s and F S t a t i s t i c s for Use of S u b - F u n c t i o n s of F 3 ( In forming and I n t e r p r e t i n g ) for Two T o p i c s T a b l e G11: Means and S tandard D e v i a t i o n s and F S t a t i s t i c s for Use of S u b - F u n c t i o n s of F u n c t i o n 4 ( T h e o r i z i n g ) for Two T o p i c s v i i i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS In w r i t i n g t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n , I r e c e i v e d encouragement and support from my a d v i s o r and members of my committee, from members of the Language Education Department at the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, from my f e l l o w graduate students, and from my f a m i l y . S p e c i a l thanks are due to the f o l l o w i n g i n d i v i d u a l s : Marion Crowhurst, my a d v i s o r , who guided me through a l l stages of t h i s endeavour with p a t i e n c e , i n t e l l i g e n c e and humour. Ken Reeder, Jane C a t t e r s o n , and Vince D'Oyley, members of my committee, who, i n the face of o b s t a c l e s , provided advice and support. Bob Shutz, my s t a t i s t i c a l c o n s u l t a n t , who made data a n a l y s i s meaningful and e n j o y a b l e . S a l l y C l i n t o n , J u l i a Gibson, and Nancy Carlman, members of the Language Education Department, who, i n the process of s c o r i n g compositions, shared t h e i r i n s i g h t i n t o and enthusiasm f o r students' w r i t i n g . Ken C r a i g , my husband, whose unwavering support made the w r i t i n g of t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n p o s s i b l e . And Kenneth, Alexandra and D a n i e l , my c h i l d r e n , whose l i v e s have been touched by my involvement with t h i s p r o j e c t . ix 1 CHAPTER ONE THE PROBLEM Statement of the Problem The problem addressed i n t h i s study i s : what i s the e f f e c t of audience on use of language f u n c t i o n s i n w r i t t e n arguments by students at two grade l e v e l s ? Background to the Problem Current composition theory s t r e s s e s the importance of p r o v i d i n g c h i l d r e n i n s c h o o l s e t t i n g s with an audience f o r w r i t t e n compositions. However, there have been r e l a t i v e l y few e m p i r i c a l s t u d i e s of audience e f f e c t s on w r i t t e n composition: l i t t l e i s known about what kinds of d i f f e r e n c e s occur i n compositions w r i t t e n f o r d i f f e r e n t audiences, and at what age audience d i f f e r e n c e s , i f any, occur. The purpose of t h i s study was to shed some l i g h t on the e f f e c t of audience by examining the e f f e c t of intended audience on the use of language f u n c t i o n s i n w r i t t e n argument at two grade l e v e l s . S i nce c u r r e n t r e s e a r c h has shown that audience e f f e c t s are d i s c e r n i b l e i n o r a l language, i t was concluded t h a t measures adapted from o r a l language s t u d i e s might r e v e a l audience 2 e f f e c t s i n w r i t t e n language as w e l l . A focus on audience and i t s e f f e c t on composition i s not new. Both c l a s s i c a l and very recent r h e t o r i c a l theory s t r e s s the importance of audience. For the a n c i e n t s , the intended audience was as c r u c i a l f o r the r h e t o r d u r i n g the i n i t i a l h e u r i s t i c stages as i t was l a t e r i n d e l i v e r y (Young, 1976). For the b e t t e r part of the past century, however, audience was not s t r e s s e d in r h e t o r i c a l theory or i n composition t e x t s . While composition t e x t s a d v i s e d w r i t e r s to " c o n s i d e r the audience,"'the emphasis was on form and grammatical c o r r e c t n e s s ( B e r l i n , 1984). I t i s only i n the past f i f t e e n years that an emphasis on the r h e t o r i c a l s i t u a t i o n i n g e n e r a l , and on audience i n p a r t i c u l a r , has re-emerged i n t h e o r i e s about the t e a c h i n g of w r i t i n g ( O d e l l , Cooper & Courts, 1978; Young, 1976, 1978). Recently, r e s e a r c h e r s and t h e o r i z e r s i n the f i e l d of Language A r t s have advocated p r o v i d i n g beginning w r i t e r s with a v a r i e t y of audiences (Applebee, 1981; B e r e i t e r & Scardamalia, 1982; B r i t t o n , Burgess, M a r t i n , McLeod, & Rosen, 1975; Hayes & Flower, 1980; Judy & Judy, 1981; M o f f e t t , 1968; M o f f e t t & Wagner, 1976). A c c o r d i n g to recent composition t h e o r i s t s and r e s e a r c h e r s , both the w r i t i n g process and w r i t t e n t e x t s w i l l be a f f e c t e d by a w r i t e r ' s sense of audience. I t has been suggested t h a t intended audience may a f f e c t both a w r i t e r ' s purpose and d e c i s i o n s about content, s t r a t e g i e s , and d e s i r e d 3 e f f e c t (Hayes & Flower, 1980; King, 1978). Having an " a u t h e n t i c " audience i s claimed to produce w r i t i n g that i s a l i v e , p u r p o s e f u l , personal, and c r e a t i v e ( F l o r i o , 1978; Judy & Judy, 1981). In f a c t , the b e n e f i t s of p r o v i d i n g an a u t h e n t i c audience are b e l i e v e d to go beyond changing w r i t i n g processes and products to a l t e r i n g the nature of s u b j e c t area l e a r n i n g (Applebee, 1981, 1982). However, comparatively l i t t l e evidence i s a v a i l a b l e to support such c l a i m s . The Braddock Report (Braddock, Lloyd-Jones, & Schoer, 1963) c a l l e d f o r studies- of the r h e t o r i c a l a spects of composition, but audience e f f e c t s have seldom been examined d i r e c t l y . Evidence of audience e f f e c t s on w r i t t e n composition i s meagre ( B r a c e w e l l , Scardamalia & B e r e i t e r , 1978; K r o l l , 1985; Van de Veghe, 1978). R e l a t i v e l y l i t t l e i s known about whether sc h o o l c h i l d r e n do, i n f a c t , w r i t e d i f f e r e n t l y f o r d i f f e r e n t audiences and, i f so, what the d i f f e r e n c e s are. The l i t t l e that i s known has been found i n a h a l f dozen s t u d i e s . A few s t u d i e s have r e p o r t e d d i f f e r e n c e s i n s y n t a c t i c complexity (Crowhurst & Piche, 1979; Richardson, 1980; Rubin & P i c h e , 1979; Smith & Swan, 1978), and i n amount of i n f o r m a t i o n in r e v i s i o n s ( P r e n t i c e , 1980). The e f f e c t of audience on o r a l language, on the other hand, has r e c e i v e d more a t t e n t i o n . There i s r e s e a r c h evidence that young c h i l d r e n accommodate messages to l i s t e n e r s who do not share t h e i r p e r s p e c t i v e (Kossan & Markman, 1981; Maratsos, 4 1973; Meissner & Apthorp, 1976; Menig-Peterson, 1976). There i s a l s o evidence that c h i l d r e n ' s language i s i n f l u e n c e d by such s o c i a l f e a t u r e s as age, f a m i l i a r i t y , and s t a t u s of l i s t e n e r ( E r v i n - T r i p p , 1977; D e l i a , K l i n e & Burleson, 1979; F i n l e y & Humphries, 1974; M i t c h e l l - K e r n a n & Kernan, 1977; Olson & H i l d y a r d , 1981; Sachs & Devin, 1976; Shatz & Gelman, 1973). Recent s t u d i e s of o r a l language i n school s e t t i n g s have a l s o r e p o r t e d audience e f f e c t s on language f u n c t i o n s . Such d i f f e r e n c e s as the f o l l o w i n g have been found: more p e r s o n a l language, more r e g u l a t o r y language, more e x p r e s s i v e language, more q u e s t i o n s , and more d i v e r s i f i e d word c h o i c e f o r peers than f o r t e a c h e r s (Barnes, 1976; Fleming, 19J30; Jensen, 1973; P i n n e l l , 1975) Given the s u b s t a n t i a l evidence from o r a l language s t u d i e s that even young c h i l d r e n use language d i f f e r e n t l y f o r d i f f e r e n t audiences, and the s t r o n g t h e o r e t i c a l c l a i m s about the l i k e l i h o o d of audience e f f e c t s , f u r t h e r study of audience e f f e c t s i n w r i t t e n composition seemed warranted. Some w r i t e r s suggest that s t u d i e s of audience e f f e c t s have employed measures that are not s e n s i t i v e to a u d i e n c e - r e l a t e d d i f f e r e n c e s . Bracewell et a l . (1978), commenting on the meagre evidence f o r audience e f f e c t s i n s t u d i e s of w r i t t e n language, suggest the need f o r d i f f e r e n t measures and, i n p a r t i c u l a r , f o r measures that regard the tex t as a 5 communicative instrument (p. 3). Given t h i s suggestion, the f i n d i n g s of o r a l language s t u d i e s , and the hypothesis of B e r e i t e r and Scardamalia (1982) that c h i l d r e n adapt o r a l language schemata f o r purposes of w r i t t e n d i s c o u r s e , s t u d i e s of l i s t e n e r e f f e c t s on o r a l language were examined f o r measures that c o u l d be adapted f o r the study of w r i t t e n language. I t was concluded t h a t measures of o r a l language f u n c t i o n s would be p a r t i c u l a r l y a p p r o p r i a t e f o r the study of audience e f f e c t s i n school s e t t i n g s f o r two reasons. F i r s t , language f u n c t i o n i s g e n e r a l l y used to r e f e r to communicative i n t e n t i o n (Chapman, 1981; We l l s , 1981). Second, v i r t u a l l y a l l w r i t i n g i n school s e t t i n g s i s addressed to a teacher (Applebee, 1981; B r i t t o n et a l . , 1975), and there i s evidence that s t a t u s of audience a f f e c t s language f u n c t i o n . R e c e n t l y , numerous schemes have been d e v i s e d f o r d e s c r i b i n g the f u n c t i o n s of c h i l d r e n ' s o r a l language (Dore, 1979; H a l l i d a y , 1975; Tough, 1977, 1979; We l l s , 1975). Those schemes that have been a p p l i e d to c h i l d r e n ' s o r a l language i n school s e t t i n g s have i n c l u d e d : a directive or controlling f u n c t i o n , an expressive or personal f u n c t i o n , an imaginative f u n c t i o n , and an informative or representational f u n c t i o n ( H a l l i d a y , 1975; Tough, 1977, 1979; Wells, 1975). In a d d i t i o n , H a l l i d a y argues f o r a heuristic f u n c t i o n , Tough f o r a reasoning f u n c t i o n and a predicting f u n c t i o n , and Wells f o r a ritualizing f u n c t i o n . No s i m i l a r range of schemes e x i s t s 6 f o r c l a s s i f y i n g f u n c t i o n s i n w r i t t e n language. Conceptions of the f u n c t i o n s of w r i t t e n language are much broader than are conceptions of the f u n c t i o n s of o r a l language. B r i t t o n suggests only three main f u n c t i o n s f o r w r i t t e n language (expressive, poetic, and transactional), and Kinneavy suggests four (expressive, persuasive, informative, and literary). D i s c o u r s e t h e o r i s t s and r e s e a r c h e r s u s u a l l y argue that judgments about.the f u n c t i o n of w r i t t e n language should be made about whole p i e c e s of w r i t i n g r a t h e r than about s m a l l e r segments of w r i t t e n d i s c o u r s e . However, r e l i a b l e judgments about the f u n c t i o n of whole p i e c e s of d i s c o u r s e are d i f f i c u l t to achieve ( B r i t t o n , B a r r s , & Burgess, 1979). T h i s , i t would seem, i s probably because judgments about whole p i e c e s ignore the v a r i e t y i n the means by which w r i t e r s achieve a p a r t i c u l a r purpose f o r a p a r t i c u l a r audience. D i s c o u r s e t h e o r i s t s have observed that w r i t e r s can vary c o n s i d e r a b l y i n the means used to achieve a p a r t i c u l a r purpose. Kinneavy has argued that one aim or f u n c t i o n i s dominant while others are subordinate (1971, 1980), and that f u n c t i o n s i n w r i t i n g are achieved through v a r i o u s modes such as n a r r a t i o n , d e s c r i p t i o n , c l a s s i f i c a t i o n and e v a l u a t i o n . M a r t i n , Medway, Smith and D'Arcy (1973) observed t h a t young w r i t e r s f r e q u e n t l y c y c l e from one f u n c t i o n to another, i n c o r p o r a t i n g e x p r e s s i v e elements i n t r a n s a c t i o n a l w r i t i n g and t r a n s a c t i o n a l elements i n e x p r e s s i v e w r i t i n g . Recently, 7 G r i f f i t h s and Wells (1985) have suggested that messages are m u l t i f u n c t i o n a l , " d i f f e r e n t messages being determined by the r e l a t i v e importance of each of the f u n c t i o n s i n determining what i s intended or understood" (p. 123). The premise on which the present study i s based i s that adapting schemes used to d e s c r i b e the f u n c t i o n s of o r a l language and a p p l y i n g them to a n a l y s i s of w r i t t e n language w i l l permit of c a p t u r i n g some of the d i v e r s i t y i n f u n c t i o n that g l o b a l schemes igno r e , and so, perhaps, provide a measure s e n s i t i v e t o e f f e c t s of audience. In the present study, a c a t e g o r i z a t i o n scheme used i n studying the f u n c t i o n s of o r a l language was adapted from one suggested by Shafer, Staab and Smith (1983).as the b a s i s f o r examining the language f u n c t i o n s used i n the broad general f u n c t i o n of p e r s u a s i v e w r i t i n g . The purpose of the present study was to d i s c o v e r whether the f u n c t i o n s used i n w r i t t e n arguments vary with intended audience, s p e c i f i c a l l y the audiences of teacher and best fri end. Need f o r the Study L i t t l e i s known about how young w r i t e r s respond to v a r i o u s audiences f o r p e r s u a s i v e w r i t i n g . Current c u r r i c u l u m theory suggests s t r o n g l y that p r o v i d i n g an a u t h e n t i c audience i s important, but the nature of the e f f e c t s of p r o v i d i n g 8 d i f f e r e n t audiences has not been the subject of much i n v e s t i g a t i o n . Although evidence of e f f e c t s f o r audience on s y n t a c t i c complexity has been r e p o r t e d f o r students i n grade 10 (Crowhurst & Piche, 1979) and f i r s t year u n i v e r s i t y students (Smith & Swan, 1978), there are few r e p o r t s of e f f e c t s f o r audience i n younger students. O r a l language s t u d i e s show that even very young c h i l d r e n use language d i f f e r e n t l y f o r d i f f e r e n t audiences. T h i s apparent d i s c r e p a n c y between the e a r l y emergence of audience e f f e c t s on c h i l d r e n ' s o r a l language and i t s r e l a t i v e l y l a t e emergence i n w r i t t e n language has r e c e n t l y been i d e n t i f i e d as a gap i n our understanding of the development of a sense of audience f o r w r i t t e n language ( K r o l l , 1985). By adapting a scheme from o r a l language f o r the purpose of d e s c r i b i n g audience e f f e c t s in - w r i t t e n language, t h i s study has the p o t e n t i a l to p r o v i d e new in f o r m a t i o n about audience e f f e c t s , p a r t i c u l a r l y i n younger students, and needed v a l i d a t i o n of recent composition theory. More i m p o r t a n t l y , i t c o u l d p r o v i d e composition r e s e a r c h e r s with a new measure f o r audience e f f e c t s on w r i t t e n language that i s s e n s i t i v e to audience e f f e c t s i n c h i l d r e n i n elementary s c h o o l . 9 D e f i n i t i o n of Terms For the purpose of the present study, the f o l l o w i n g d e f i n i t i o n s were used: 1. Idea u n i t : the e x p r e s s i o n of a complete idea which may or may not be a complete sentence. 2. Language F u n c t i o n s : f i v e f u n c t i o n s of language have been d e r i v e d from Tough (1977, 1979) and Shafer et a l . (1983). a. C o n t r o l l i n g b. R e l a t i o n a l c. Informing and I n t e r p r e t i n g d. T h e o r i z i n g e. P r o j e c t i n g 3.. Sub-Functions: each f u n c t i o n i s accomplished through a v a r i e t y of s u b - f u n c t i o n s as s p e c i f i e d i n the Taxonomy of Language Functions below. For example, "Spending the money on a c l a s s pet would teach us how to care f o r animals" would be c a t e g o r i z e d as F u n c t i o n 4 ( i i ) (Surveying p o s s i b i l i t i e s , a n t i c i p a t i n g problems and s o l u t i o n s , drawing c o n c l u s i o n s ) . 4. V a r i e t y of Language F u n c t i o n s : the number of d i f f e r e n t f u n c t i o n s i n a given composition. 5. P r o p o r t i o n of Idea U n i t s of a Given F u n c t i o n : the r a t i o of idea u n i t s of a given f u n c t i o n to the t o t a l number of 10 idea u n i t s f o r a given composition. P r o p o r t i o n of Idea U n i t s of a Given Sub-Function: the r a t i o of idea u n i t s of a given s u b - f u n c t i o n and the t o t a l number of idea u n i t s f o r a given composition. The f o l l o w i n g Taxonomy of Language Fu n c t i o n s and Sub-Functions was d e r i v e d from Shafer et a l . (1983) and Tough (1977, 1979). Taxonomy of Language F u n c t i o n s and Sub-Functions Fu n c t i o n 1 ( C o n t r o l l i n g ) ( i ) D i r e c t i n s t r u c t i o n s to reader ( i i ) Attempts to c o n t r o l reader ( i i i ) Requests f o r d i r e c t i o n ( i v ) Requests f o r a t t e n t i o n (v) Requests f o r c o l l a b o r a t i o n F u n c t i o n 2 ( R e l a t i o n a l ) ( i ) A s s e r t i n g negative o p i n i o n s ( i i ) A s s e r t i n g p o s i t i v e o p i n i o n s ( i i i ) R h e t o r i c a l requests f o r o p i n i o n or d i r e c t i o n ( i v ) I n c i d e n t a l c o n v e r s a t i o n a l e x p r e s s i o n s F u n c t i o n 3 (Informing and I n t e r p r e t i n g ) ( i ) R eporting the present ( i i ) Recording the past ( i i i ) Making comparisons ( i v ) Making g e n e r a l i z a t i o n s (v) R h e t o r i c a l requests f o r i n f o r m a t i o n ( v i ) Informing about assignment 11 F u n c t i o n 4 ( T h e o r i z i n g ) ( i ) R e c o g n i z i n g c a u s a l and dependent r e l a t i o n s h i p s ( i i ) S u r v e y i n g p o s s i b i l i t i e s , a n t i c i p a t i n g problems and s o l u t i o n s , drawing c o n c l u s i o n s ( i i i ) R h e t o r i c a l q u e s t i o n s i n v o l v i n g p r e d i c t i o n ( i v ) R e f l e c t i n g on r e a s o n i n g , e v a l u a t i n g ideas F u n c t i o n 5 ( P r o j e c t i n g ) ( i ) P r o j e c t i n g s e l f i n t o e x p e r i e n c e of o t h e r s ( i i ) P r o j e c t i n g s e l f i n t o s i t u a t i o n never e x p e r i e n c e d ( i i i ) R h e t o r i c a l q u e s t i o n s i n v o l v i n g p r o j e c t i n g or i m a g i n i n g / C r e a t i n g s c e n a r i o Research Hypotheses Based on c u r r e n t c o m p o s i t i o n theory and s o c i o l i n g u i s t i c t h e o r y , r e s e a r c h i n the f i e l d s of audience e f f e c t s on w r i t t e n and o r a l language , and p i l o t d a t a , the f o l l o w i n g hypotheses were made wi th r e s p e c t to a u d i e n c e : 1. The v a r i e t y of language f u n c t i o n s (number of d i f f e r e n t f u n c t i o n s used) w i l l be g r e a t e r for the aud ience of best f r i e n d than for the audience of t eacher i n c o m p o s i t i o n s w r i t t e n by e l e v e n t h - and s i x t h - g r a d e s t u d e n t s . 2. The p r o p o r t i o n a l use of F u n c t i o n 2 ( R e l a t i o n a l ) w i l l be g r e a t e r for the audience of best f r i e n d than the audience of t eacher in c o m p o s i t i o n s w r i t t e n by e l e v e n t h - and s i x t h - g r a d e s t u d e n t s . 1 2 3. The p r o p o r t i o n a l use of F u n c t i o n 3 (Informing and I n t e r p r e t i n g ) w i l l be g r e a t e r f o r the audience of best f r i e n d than the audience of teacher i n compositions w r i t t e n by e l e v e n t h - and s i x t h - g r a d e students. 4. The p r o p o r t i o n a l use of F u n c t i o n 4 ( T h e o r i z i n g ) w i l l be g r e a t e r f o r the audience of teacher than f o r the audience of best f r i e n d i n compositions w r i t t e n by e l e v e n t h - and s i x t h - g r a d e students. 1 3 CHAPTER TWO REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE T h i s chapter reviews l i t e r a t u r e i n four a r e a s : a) l i t e r a t u r e d i s c u s s i n g the concept of audience as i t appears i n c u r r e n t composition theory; b) l i t e r a t u r e which r e p o r t s e m p i r i c a l s t u d i e s of the e f f e c t of audience on w r i t t e n language; c) s t u d i e s from both developmental psychology and s o c i o l i n g u i s t i c s of the e f f e c t of audience on o r a l language; and d ) l i t e r a t u r e which p r e s e n t s schemes f o r d e s c r i b i n g the f u n c t i o n s of o r a l and w r i t t e n language. The chapter concludes with a d i s c u s s i o n of c o n s i d e r a t i o n s of the present study. The E f f e c t of Audience i n W r i t t e n Composition • The l i t e r a t u r e on the e f f e c t of audience i n the f i e l d of w r i t t e n composition i s somewhat c o n t r a d i c t o r y . On the one hand, composition t h e o r i s t s suggest that the intended audience i s c r u c i a l f o r w r i t e r s of a l l ages a f f e c t i n g both the w r i t i n g p r ocess and w r i t t e n p r o d u c t s . Yet there i s l i t t l e e m p i r i c a l evidence that audience does indeed a f f e c t w r i t t e n language. T h i s apparent gap between composition theory and r e s e a r c h i s examined below. Current t h e o r e t i c a l views on the e f f e c t s of audience are reviewed as w e l l as recent e m p i r i c a l s t u d i e s 1 4 d e a l i n g s p e c i f i c a l l y with audience e f f e c t s on w r i t t e n language. The Concept of Audience i n Current Composition Theory T r a d i t i o n a l l y , the concept of audience occupied a prominent p l a c e i n r h e t o r i c a l theory. From the time of A r i s t o t l e , r h e t o r i c was concerned with the " s t u d i e d adjustment of d i s c o u r s e to i t s audience" (Rosen, 1973, p.178). In the past century, however, c o n s i d e r a t i o n s of audience and other a s p e c t s of the r h e t o r i c a l s i t u a t i o n have been l a r g e l y n e g l e c t e d i n composition t e a c h i n g i n favour of an emphasis on form--what has been d e s c r i b e d as the tyranny of "the t o p i c sentence^ the v a r i o u s methods of d e v e l o p i n g the paragraph . . . and the h o l y t r i n i t y of u n i t y , coherence and emphasis" (C o r b e t t , 1971, pp. 626-7). A c c o r d i n g to B e r l i n (1984), the view, that l e a r n i n g to w r i t e i s l e a r n i n g matters of " p r a c t i c a l i t y " and " s u p e r f i c i a l c o r r e c t n e s s " has haunted w r i t i n g c l a s s e s i n North America f o r almost a century (pp. 61-2). I t i s only i n the l a s t twenty years that the importance of the audience and other aspects of the r h e t o r i c a l s i t u a t i o n has re-emerged in d i s c o u r s e t h e o r i e s ( O d e l l , Cooper, & Co u r t s , 1978; Young, 1978) and i n Language A r t s t e x t books. Since the m i d - s i x t i e s , the " c u r r e n t t r a d i t i o n a l " model f o r w r i t i n g i n s t r u c t i o n , with i t s emphasis on form and c o r r e c t n e s s of mechanics, has f r e q u e n t l y been c r i t i c i z e d f o r 15 f a i l i n g to teach w r i t i n g as an a u t h e n t i c communicative a c t . For example, James M o f f e t t suggests that E n g l i s h t e a c h e r s have not emphasized that w r i t i n g i s "about-something-for-someone" (1968, p. 8 ) . . . .when students make up a sentence or paragraph demonstrating such and such kind of s t r u c t u r e , they are not l e a r n i n g what the teacher t h i n k s they a r e : they are l e a r n i n g that there i s such a t h i n g as w r i t i n g sentences and paragraphs f o r t h e i r own sake, that d i s c o u r s e need not'be motivated or d i r e c t e d at anyone, that i t i s good to w r i t e even i f you have nothing to say and no one to say i t to . . . (p. 206). S i m i l a r l y , M acrorie d e s c r i b e s composition c l a s s e s as " a s t o n i s h i n g f a i l u r e s " which produce themes "not meant to be read but to be c o r r e c t e d " (1968, p. 686). More r e c e n t l y , B e r e i t e r has c r i t i c i z e d t r a d i t i o n a l w r i t i n g i n s t r u c t i o n , "with i t s emphasis on s t y l e manuals, models and teacher c o r r e c t i o n s , " f o r producing w r i t i n g that i s performative--conforming to conventions of s t y l e and mechanics but devoid of i n t e n t i o n to have a d e s i r e d e f f e c t on an audience (1980, pp. 85-88). C u r r e n t l y , there i s c o n s i d e r a b l e agreement i n the composition f i e l d that audience c o n s i d e r a t i o n s p l a y an important p a r t i n the composition p r o c e s s . Hayes and Flower 16 (1980) argue that audience a c t s as a " c o n s t r a i n t " upon a l l stages of the w r i t i n g process f o r competent w r i t e r s . Elbow (1981) l i k e n s the audience to a "magnetic f i e l d " which e x e r t s an " o r g a n i s i n g or f o c u s i n g f o r c e on our words" (p. 191). B r i t t o n and h i s c o l l e a g u e s argue that an i n v i s i b l e audience "impels" the w r i t e r toward c h o i c e s "on every dimension of language" ( B r i t t o n , Burgess, M a r t i n , McLeod, & Rosen, 1975, p. 59). The goal of the w r i t e r , i t has been s a i d , i s to achieve p s y c h o l o g i c a l change i n the audience (Young, Becker & Pike, 1970), to make i n t e l l e c t u a l c o n t a c t with the reader, and to b r i n g about the adherence of minds.(Perelman & O l b r e c h t s Tyteca, 1969). Many c l a i m s are made f o r the values of having an " a u t h e n t i c " audience i n school s e t t i n g s . An a u t h e n t i c audience i s claimed t o produce w r i t i n g that i s co n c r e t e , a l i v e , p u r p o s e f u l , p e r s o n a l and c r e a t i v e ( F l o r i o , 1978; Judy & Judy, 1981; M o f f e t t , 1968), and to "broaden the nature of sub j e c t area l e a r n i n g " (Applebee, 1981, p. 380). Among language educators, John Dixon's dictum that language i s l e a r n t i n o p e r a t i o n , not by "dummy runs," (1967, p. 6-7) has become a x i o m a t i c . Numerous recent Language A r t s t e x t s suggest that t e a c h e r s must provide a u t h e n t i c audiences f o r c h i l d r e n ' s w r i t i n g (e.g., Fox & A l l e n , 1983; Judy & Judy, 1981; M o f f e t t & Wagner, 1976; Smith, Goodman & Meredith, 1976); and recent Language A r t s j o u r n a l s c o n t a i n frequent suggestions f o r 1 7 p r o v i d i n g " r e a l " audiences both i n s i d e and o u t s i d e of the classroom (e.g., B a r r s , 1983; Goodman & Goodman, 1983; Hoffman & McCully, 1984; Smith, 1983). The t h e o r e t i c a l b a s i s f o r t h i s recent emphasis on the importance of the intended audience f o r w r i t t e n composition can be found i n the seminal d i s c o u r s e t h e o r i e s f o r c u r r e n t Language A r t s c u r r i c u l a — t h e works of B r i t t o n (1970, 1975), M o f f e t t (1968), M o f f e t t and Wagner (1976), and, to a l e s s e r e x t e n t , Kinneavy (1971). A l l three are based on the s e m i o t i c r e l a t i o n s h i p between w r i t e r , reader, and t o p i c (Kinneavy, 1980; Vahapassi, 1982) as was A r i s t o t l e ' s theory of d i s c o u r s e p r o d u c t i o n (Kinneavy, 1971). T h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p f r e q u e n t l y takes the shape of a t r i a n g l e and i s c a l l e d the communications t r i a n g l e (Kinneavy, 1971; D'Angelo, 1981). M o f f e t t and B r i t t o n both argue that the d i s t a n c e between w r i t e r and reader shapes the d i s c o u r s e that i s produced. B r i t t o n ' s theory i s developmental. He argues that c h i l d r e n progress from e x p r e s s i v e p e r s o n a l w r i t i n g f o r the s e l f or a t r u s t e d a d u l t , to w r i t i n g with a p o e t i c or t r a n s a c t i o n a l f u n c t i o n f o r a wider and u l t i m a t e l y unknown audience. M o f f e t t , too, argues f o r a p r o g r e s s i o n from w r i t i n g f o r a known s p e c i f i c audience to p u b l i s h i n g f o r a wide p u b l i c audience. He suggests that i n c r e a s e d d i s t a n c e between w r i t e r and reader produces a need f o r i n c r e a s e d l e v e l s of g e n e r a l i z a t i o n and a b s t r a c t i o n (1968; M o f f e t t & Wagner, 1976). 18 Kinneavy i s concerned with a d u l t w r i t e r s rather than the development of c h i l d r e n ' s a b i l i t y to w r i t e f o r remote audiences. However, he, too, argues that audience a f f e c t s the w r i t e r ' s sense of purpose, and that a d u l t w r i t e r s s y s t e m a t i c a l l y vary the f u n c t i o n of w r i t i n g with the audience fo r whom they are w r i t i n g . A c c o r d i n g to Freedman and P r i n g l e (1980), the i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p between w r i t e r and audience i s " c r u c i a l i n contemporary d i s c u s s i o n s of the r h e t o r i c a l a c t " (p. 182). Current t h e o r i s t s assume that c h o i c e s i n w r i t i n g must be guided by a "complex awareness of speaker, subject and audience, not a s i n g l e set of conventions" ( O d e l l , Cooper & Courts, 1978). O d e l l (1981) argues that the assessment of w r i t i n g a b i l i t y , must i n c l u d e assessment of a b i l i t y to w r i t e f o r v a r i o u s audiences and purposes. However, composition r e s e a r c h does not o f f e r a great d e a l of evidence that students in school s e t t i n g s are indeed p r o v i d e d with the o p p o r t u n i t y to w r i t e f o r a v a r i e t y of audiences (Applebee, 1981; B r i t t o n et a l . , 1975), or that p r o v i d i n g students with d i f f e r e n t audiences a f f e c t s t h e i r w r i t i n g . There has been l i t t l e e m p i r i c a l i n v e s t i g a t i o n of the q u e s t i o n of audience e f f e c t s on w r i t t e n language. 19 S t u d i e s of Audience E f f e c t on W r i t t e n Composition In 1963 the Braddock Report (Braddock et a l . , 1963) c a l l e d f o r s t u d i e s of the r h e t o r i c a l aspects of composition i n c l u d i n g audience. However, f i f t e e n years l a t e r i n an update of the Braddock Report, Van de Veghe (1978) i d e n t i f i e d only one study which d e a l t s p e c i f i c a l l y with the e f f e c t s of audience. In recent years, a handful of e m p i r i c a l s t u d i e s have examined compositions w r i t t e n i n school s e t t i n g s f o r audience e f f e c t s . Only one study i n v o l v i n g a small number of s u b j e c t s r e p o r t s audience e f f e c t s before students reach h i g h - s c h o o l . A small set of s t u d i e s has examined the e f f e c t of audience on the s y n t a c t i c complexity of compositions intended f o r d i f f e r e n t audiences.. Using the procedure e s t a b l i s h e d by Hunt (1970) of a s k i n g students to r e w r i t e a given passage, Smith and Swan (1978) examined r e w r i t e s by s i x t h graders and two groups of c o l l e g e students. Each student rewrote a s e l e c t i o n on bees three t i m e s — o n c e so that i t "sounded b e t t e r , " once f o r a t h i r d grader, and once f o r a s u p e r i o r a d u l t . Audience a f f e c t e d s y n t a c t i c complexity f o r the c o l l e g e students and not f o r the s i x t h g r a d e r s . The c o l l e g e students wrote s h o r t e r T - u n i t s f o r the t h i r d grade audience. Crowhurst and Piche (1979) examined f r e e w r i t i n g of students i n grades s i x and ten f o r audience e f f e c t s on the s y n t a c t i c complexity of n a r r a t i v e , d e s c r i p t i v e and 20 argumentative compositions. Each student wrote s i x compositions i n h i s assigned mode—three f o r a teacher and three f o r a f r i e n d . Compositions w r i t t e n by grade ten students f o r a teacher were more s y n t a c t i c a l l y complex than compositions w r i t t e n f o r a best f r i e n d . There were no s i g n i f i c a n t audience e f f e c t s i n the compositions w r i t t e n by students i n grade s i x . Rubin and Piche (1979) had students i n grades f o u r , e i g h t and twelve, as w e l l as a group of s k i l l e d a d u l t s , w r ite arguments on the t o p i c of g l a s s r e c y c l i n g f o r audiences d i f f e r e n t i a t e d by degree of f a m i l i a r i t y . Students wrote f o r someone they knew w e l l (high intimacy), someone on t h e i r s t r e e t whom they d i d not know w e l l (intermediate intimacy), and the reader of a l o c a l newspaper (low intimacy). Compositions were examined f o r s y n t a c t i c complexity. Only l i m i t e d evidence of audience e f f e c t s on s y n t a c t i c complexity was found. Audience was found to a f f e c t mean c l a u s e l e n g t h . Clauses d i r e c t e d to low intimacy audiences were longer than those d i r e c t e d to high and int e r m e d i a t e intimacy audiences. In a d d i t i o n , t h i s study examined audience e f f e c t s on "appeal types." Eighteen c a t e g o r i e s of appeal were d e v i s e d . Intimacy of audience was found to a f f e c t number of d i f f e r e n t appeal types, and the s t r a t e g i e s of providing a context, asking the reader to publicize, expressing reservations, and making gratification appeals. In v i r t u a l l y a l l cases, 21 however, there were no d i f f e r e n c e s between audiences i n appeal types used at any of the three grade l e v e l s . The study concluded that fourth-grade w r i t t e n s t r a t e g i e s appeared to be " r o t e , mechanical and l a c k i n g i n i n t e r p e r s o n a l s e n s i t i v i t y " (p. 312). E i g h t h grade w r i t t e n s t r a t e g i e s were seen to d i s p l a y some attempt to accommodate to audience p r e d i s p o s i t i o n s , although appeals to audience v a l u e s were l i m i t e d to f i n a n c i a l rewards. T w e l f t h grade s u b j e c t s , in c o n t r a s t , were seen to perform as a d u l t s producing a high p r o p o r t i o n of r e s e r v a t i o n s , and appeals to the audiences' i n t e r n a l g r a t i f i c a t i o n . For a d u l t s u b j e c t s , more d i f f e r e n t appeal types were d i r e c t e d to audiences of high and int e r m e d i a t e intimacy than to those of low int i m a c y . Each of the three s t u d i e s c o n t a i n e d some evidence of an audience e f f e c t on the complexity of syntax f o r students i n hig h - s c h o o l and i n u n i v e r s i t y , but no evidence of such an e f f e c t f o r students i n elementary grades. From these s t u d i e s i t can be concluded that audience a f f e c t s the complexity of syntax f o r o l d e r s u b j e c t s . The Rubin and Piche study a l s o suggested that e f f e c t s f o r intended audience on number of d i f f e r e n t a p p eals, and p a r t i c u l a r appeal s t r a t e g i e s can not be found i n the w r i t i n g of students i n grades 4 and 8. Two other small s e t s of s t u d i e s have examined q u e s t i o n s r e l a t e d to the q u e s t i o n of how audience a f f e c t s w r i t t e n language. The f i r s t set has examined audience e f f e c t s on 22 q u a l i t y . In c o n t r a s t to s t u d i e s i n v o l v i n g audience e f f e c t s on syntax, s t u d i e s i n v o l v i n g audience e f f e c t s on q u a l i t y are e i t h e r l e s s r e l i a b l e or of q u e s t i o n a b l e v a l i d i t y . Metviner (1981) had 124 grade nine students w r i t e o p i n i o n essays on the use of drugs by teenagers. The c o n t r o l group wrote f o r t h e i r teacher i n order to r e c e i v e a grade while the experimental group wrote f o r t h e i r school newspapers. Contrary to the i n v e s t i g a t o r ' s e x p e c t a t i o n s , the group w r i t i n g f o r t h e i r teachers (the rhetorically deficient group) r e c e i v e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher h o l i s t i c r a t i n g s than d i d the rhetorically based group w r i t i n g f o r p u b l i c a t i o n i n the school newspaper. However, the experimenter d i d not use a repeated measures design, nor does she appear to have r e c o g n i z e d the potency of the teacher as audience f o r w r i t i n g i n her d e s i g n a t i o n of the teacher audience c o n d i t i o n as rhetorically deficient. Moreover, the promised grade and not the audience may have motivated more s e r i o u s a t t e n t i o n to the w r i t i n g task, and, hence, may have caused the observed d i f f e r e n c e s i n q u a l i t y . I t i s not p o s s i b l e , t h e r e f o r e , to conclude from t h i s study that audience a f f e c t s w r i t i n g q u a l i t y . Another study which attempted to i n v e s t i g a t e the e f f e c t of audience on w r i t i n g q u a l i t y examined compositions w r i t t e n f o r audiences of high and low intimacy by c o l l e g e freshmen (Richardson, 1 9 8 0 ) . O s t e n s i b l y , the dependent v a r i a b l e i n t h i s study was w r i t i n g q u a l i t y ; however, w r i t i n g q u a l i t y was 23 measured by s y n t a c t i c m a t u r i t y and coherence s c o r e s . Since r e s e a r c h has f a i l e d to demonstrate a r e l a t i o n s h i p between w r i t i n g q u a l i t y and e i t h e r s y n t a c t i c m a t u r i t y or coherence (Crowhurst, 1980; Stewart & Grobe, 1979), t h i s study would appear to lac k v a l i d i t y . R e s u l t s were e q u i v o c a l . S y n t a c t i c m a t u r i t y scores f o r essays w r i t t e n f o r the low intimacy audience were s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher than those f o r the high intimacy audience, s u p p o r t i n g other f i n d i n g s of audience e f f e c t s on s y n t a c t i c complexity (Crowhurst & P i c h e , 1979; Smith & Swan, 1978). Coherence scores were s i g n i f i c a n t l y lower f o r the low intimacy audience than those f o r the high intimacy audience. The second set of r e l a t e d s t u d i e s has examined audience e f f e c t s on the r e v i s i o n p r o c e s s . R e s u l t s , though somewhat c o n t r a d i c t o r y , support the general o b s e r v a t i o n that audience e f f e c t s do not emerge before students reach h i g h - s c h o o l . B r a c e w e l l , Scardamalia and B e r e i t e r (1978) addressed the q u e s t i o n of whether students would r e v i s e compositions to comply with requests from an audience to do so. Students i n grades f o u r , e i g h t and twelve wrote on the t o p i c "Should students be allowed to choose the s u b j e c t s they study i n s c h o o l ? " . S u b j e c t s were d i v i d e d i n t o four groups on the b a s i s of w r i t i n g c o n d i t i o n . Students i n the clarity c o n d i t i o n were asked to r e v i s e to make t h e i r compositions more understandable, those i n the interest c o n d i t i o n to make t h e i r 24 compositions more i n t e r e s t i n g , those i n the convincingness c o n d i t i o n to make t h e i r compositions more c o n v i n c i n g , and those in the control c o n d i t i o n to make t h e i r compositions b e t t e r . P a i r s of compositions were then r a t e d f o r q u a l i t y and fo r other f e a t u r e s such as i n t e r e s t and c o r r e c t n e s s of mechanics. C o n s i s t e n t d i f f e r e n c e s between r e v i s e d and o r i g i n a l composition r a t i n g s were o b t a i n e d o n l y a c r o s s grades. These d i f f e r e n c e s were g l o b a l ones t h a t were not s p e c i f i c to a p a r t i c u l a r r e v i s i o n c o n d i t i o n . Grade fours d i d not make s i g n i f i c a n t r e v i s i o n s . Grade e i g h t s a c t u a l l y made r e v i s i o n s of lower q u a l i t y . By grade twelve there was a " d e t e c t a b l e i n c r e a s e " i n the frequency of r e v i s i o n s judged to be improvements^ T h i s study suggested that the a b i l i t y to respond s u c c e s s f u l l y to audience requests f o r r e v i s i o n does not emerge u n t i l h i g h s c h o o l . Monahan (1984) examined audience e f f e c t on r e v i s i o n s i n compositions w r i t t e n f o r a teacher and a peer by " b a s i c " and "competent" t w e l f t h graders. Basic grade twelve w r i t e r s made more r e v i s i o n s f o r a teacher audience, while competent grade twelve w r i t e r s made more r e v i s i o n s f o r a peer audience. T h i s study, thus, p r o v i d e s f u r t h e r evidence of audience e f f e c t on r e v i s i o n s f o r o l d e r s t u d e n t s . In a study i n v o l v i n g t h i r t y - s i x s u b j e c t s , P r e n t i c e (1980) re p o r t e d evidence of response to audience at an e a r l i e r age than was found by Bracewell et a l . (1978). Twelve c h i l d r e n 25 i n each of grades three, f i v e and seven wrote d e s c r i p t i o n s of e i t h e r a simple n a t u r a l i s t i c drawing or a geometric drawing fo r one of two audiences, namely, a f i r s t grader or an a d u l t . A f t e r the f i r s t w r i t i n g e x p e r i e n c e , the s u b j e c t s r e c e i v e d , as feedback, the a c t u a l drawings done by the intended audience i n response to t h e i r d e s c r i p t i o n s . S u b j e c t s then wrote a second d e s c r i p t i o n of the same drawing f o r the same audience. D e s c r i p t i o n s were scored f o r sentence l e n g t h , vocabulary, and amount, of i n f o r m a t i o n c o n t a i n e d i n the d e s c r i p t i o n . Sentence l e n g t h d i d not vary s i g n i f i c a n t l y as a f u n c t i o n of intended audience at any grade l e v e l . S u b j e c t s i n grade seven s i m p l i f i e d vocabulary f o r a f i r s t grade audience. Students at a l l grade l e v e l s p r o v i d e d more i n f o r m a t i o n f o r an a d u l t than fo r the f i r s t grader, and a l s o i n c r e a s e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y the amount of i n f o r m a t i o n i n t h e i r d e s c r i p t i o n a f t e r r e c e i v i n g feedback from t h e i r audience. The i n v e s t i g a t o r s concluded that even c h i l d r e n i n grade three made c h o i c e s i n t h e i r w r i t i n g which took i n t o account the commmunicative needs of t h e i r intended audience. The d i f f e r e n c e between t h i s study and that of Bracewell et a l . (1978) i s probably a t t r i b u t a b l e to the v e r i s i m i l i t u d e achieved by having the students r e c e i v e feedback from a r e a l audience. These three s t u d i e s suggest, then, that audience a f f e c t s the r e v i s i o n process f o r o l d e r students, and that when attempts are made to i n c r e a s e the v e r i s i m i l i t u d e of the 26 w r i t i n g s i t u a t i o n , audience e f f e c t s may be seen i n the w r i t i n g of younger students as w e l l . However, i t should be noted that the number of s u b j e c t s i n v o l v e d i n the P r e n t i c e study i s s m a l l , and that i t focuses on the e f f e c t of reader response on r e v i s i o n , r a t h e r than on audience e f f e c t s on the p r o d u c t i o n of w r i t t e n language. O v e r a l l , the number of s t u d i e s d e a l i n g s p e c i f i c a l l y with audience e f f e c t s on w r i t t e n language i s low, and evidence of audience e f f e c t i s scant. A p l a u s i b l e e x p l a n a t i o n f o r the p a u c i t y of e m p i r i c a l evidence of audience e f f e c t on w r i t t e n language was advanced by B r a c e w e l l , Scardamalia and B e r e i t e r (1978). Using a suggestion from Nystrand (1977), they argued that the reason the data showing a d a p t a t i o n f o r audience i n w r i t t e n language i s so meagre i s that "much of the data c o l l e c t e d on w r i t i n g has been concerned with dependent measures such as the s i z e of the T - u n i t , r a t h e r than dependent measures which regard the t e x t as a communicative instrument" (p. 3). They turned to H a l l i d a y ' s (1973) n o t i o n that any statement has an i d e a t i o n a l , a t e x t u a l and an i n t e r p e r s o n a l f u n c t i o n as support f o r examining what they c a l l "overview" or " c o n t e x t - c r e a t i n g " statements such as: "There are three main p a r t s . " C o n t e x t - c r e a t i n g statements, they argued, inform the reader of the nature of the i n f o r m a t i o n to be given without g i v i n g s p e c i f i c d e t a i l s , thus s e r v i n g each of the f u n c t i o n s H a l l i d a y a t t r i b u t e s t o a l l u t t e r a n c e s . That i s , they name the t o p i c or 27 s u b - t o p i c (ideational), o r i e n t the reader to the i n f o r m a t i o n to be presented (interpersonal), and e s t a b l i s h the range of i n f o r m a t i o n to be given (textual). They designed an experiment to t e s t the hypothesis that the number of c o n t e x t - c r e a t i n g statements would i n c r e a s e with amount of s p e c i f i c i n f o r m a t i o n about audience and task . F i f t e e n students i n each of grades f o u r , e i g h t , twelve and f i r s t - y e a r - u n i v e r s i t y wrote d e s c r i p t i o n s of a geometric form. Students wrote f o r a f r i e n d of the same age i n another school so that drawings c o u l d be returned (the letter c o n d i t i o n ) , • a n d for someone of t h e i r own age with no e x p e c t a t i o n of feedback (the peer c o n d i t i o n ) . In a t h i r d w r i t i n g c o n d i t i o n , there was no mention of p o t e n t i a l audience, and no e x p e c t a t i o n of feedback (the standard c o n d i t i o n ) . In the l e t t e r w r i t i n g c o n d i t i o n , ' l e t t e r s were mailed to f r i e n d s i n other s c h o o l s who then r e t u r n e d drawings.based on the i n f o r m a t i o n r e c e i v e d . O v e r a l l , there was a low number of c o n t e x t - c r e a t i n g statements per c o n d i t i o n . As hypothesized, scores were highest f o r the l e t t e r c o n d i t i o n , lowest f o r the standard c o n d i t i o n , and int e r m e d i a t e f o r the peer c o n d i t i o n . In a v a r i a t i o n of t h i s experiment, 15 students i n each of grades f o u r , e i g h t , and twelve performed the same task f o r audiences v a r i e d by age. Students wrote f o r someone i n grade three (the youth c o n d i t i o n ) , f o r someone of t h e i r own age (the peer c o n d i t i o n ) , and f o r an a d u l t (the adult c o n d i t i o n ) . 28 Sc o r i n g procedure was the same. S p e c i f y i n g the age of audience d i d not produce more c o n t e x t - c r e a t i n g statements f o r students i n grades four and e i g h t . For students i n grade twelve, the number of c o n t e x t - c r e a t i n g statements was lowest f o r the a d u l t c o n d i t i o n , and h i g h e s t f o r the youth c o n d i t i o n . Although seventy-one percent of students d i d not use c o n t e x t - c r e a t i n g statements under any c o n d i t i o n , the i n v e s t i g a t o r s suggested that t h e i r data r e v e a l s something about the l a t e age at which student w r i t e r s begin to c o n s i d e r t h e i r audience. Taken to g e t h e r , the experimental s t u d i e s of audience e f f e c t on w r i t t e n language lend l i t t l e support to the str o n g c l a i m s that are made f o r the importance of audience i n composition theory. The number of s t u d i e s i s s m a l l . R e l i a b l e evidence of audience e f f e c t s i s s c a r c e , and few g e n e r a l i z a t i o n s can be made. T h i s i s p a r t i c u l a r l y t rue f o r young st u d e n t s . Audience has been found to a f f e c t the complexity of syntax f o r students i n high s c h o o l and u n i v e r s i t y (Crowhurst & Piche, 1979; Richardson, 1980; Rubin & Piche., 1979; Smith & Swan, 1978) and number of appeal types f o r a d u l t s (Rubin & Piche, 1979). For younger s u b j e c t s audience has been r e p o r t e d to a f f e c t v o cabulary and amount of i n f o r m a t i o n ( P r e n t i c e , 1980). However, i t may be the case that the p a u c i t y of evidence of e f f e c t of audience on w r i t t e n language i s an 29 a r t i f a c t of the measures that have been used (Bracewell et a l . , 1978). Given the s t r e n g t h of c l a i m s that are made f o r the importance of audience i n composition theory f o r both the w r i t i n g process and w r i t t e n products, f u r t h e r study of audience e f f e c t s i s warranted. But s t u d i e s should employ, as Bracewell et a l . (1978) suggest, measures s e n s i t i v e to c h i l d r e n ' s attempts to communicate i n w r i t t e n language. The E f f e c t of Audience on O r a l Language In c o n t r a s t to the p a u c i t y of i n f o r m a t i o n about audience e f f e c t s on w r i t t e n composition, audience e f f e c t s on c h i l d r e n ' s o r a l language have been documented both i n developmental psychology and i n s o c i o l i n g u i s t i c s . In both d i s c i p l i n e s there i s evidence that c h i l d r e n use d i f f e r e n t language to accomplish the same purpose with d i f f e r e n t audiences. S t u d i e s i n each d i s c i p l i n e are reviewed below. S o c i o l i n g u i s t i c s t u d i e s which examine language f u n c t i o n s i n s c h o o l s e t t i n g s are reviewed s e p a r a t e l y s i n c e they are of p a r t i c u l a r importance to the present study. S t u d i e s of C h i l d r e n ' s C o g n i t i v e E g o c e n t r i c i t y . Based on the work of P i a g e t , the p r e v a i l i n g p e r s p e c t i v e i n developmental psychology has been that young c h i l d r e n are too e g o c e n t r i c t o take the p o i n t of view of t h e i r l i s t e n e r or 3 0 reader i n t o account i n t h e i r c o n s t r u c t i o n of spoken or w r i t t e n messages. A t r a d i t i o n e x i s t s of studying c h i l d r e n ' s a b i l i t y to adapt messages to the needs of l i s t e n e r s i n what are termed r e f e r e n t i a l communication t a s k s . T y p i c a l l y , one speaker has to d e s c r i b e a r e f e r e n t i n an a r r a y , or d e s c r i b e the r u l e s f o r p l a y i n g a board game i n such a way that a l i s t e n e r w i l l be able to d u p l i c a t e the a r r a y , or pl a y the game, r e s p e c t i v e l y . The seminal study of c h i l d r e n ' s a b i l i t y to perform r e f e r e n t i a l t asks was conducted by Glucksberg, Krauss, and Weisberg (1966). S p e a k e r - l i s t e n e r dyads, aged four and f i v e , had to communicate about novel geometric forms. Speaker and l i s t e n e r were separated by a screen. The dyads were found to be in c a p a b l e of "adequate communicative performance" with the novel geometric forms. For example, one c h i l d d e s c r i b e d one geometric form as "daddy's s h i r t , " and a d i f f e r e n t geometric form as "another daddy's s h i r t . " As such d e s c r i p t i o n s were meaningful only to the c h i l d , i t was hypothesized that c h i l d r e n encode messages f o r themselves r a t h e r than t h e i r l i s t e n e r s . When c h i l d r e n were read t h e i r own "inadequate" d e s c r i p t i o n s , t h e i r a b i l i t y to i d e n t i f y the geometric forms was " v i r t u a l l y p e r f e c t , " thus s u p p o r t i n g the i n v e s t i g a t o r s ' h y p o t h e s i s that c h i l d r e n ' s messages are s e l f - e n c o d i n g s . F l a v e l l (1975) developed a s e r i e s of experimental t a s k s designed to t e s t development i n c h i l d r e n ' s a b i l i t y to c o n s t r u c t e f f e c t i v e l i s t e n e r - a d a p t e d communications. S u b j e c t s 31 were c h i l d r e n i n elementary s c h o o l s . Tasks i n c l u d e d teaching a game to a b l i n d f o l d e d or normal p a r t n e r , d e s c r i b i n g a r e f e r e n t so that i t c o u l d be s e l e c t e d from an a r r a y , and s e l e c t i n g g i f t s f o r r e c i p i e n t s who v a r i e d i n age or sex. With and without feedback, performance was found to improve with age. Throughout t h i s s e r i e s of experiments, younger s u b j e c t s were c h a r a c t e r i z e d as being too e g o c e n t r i c to take the r o l e of the l i s t e n e r . For example, on a task i n v o l v i n g d e s c r i p t i o n of a design so a l i s t e n e r c o u l d reproduce i t , younger c h i l d r e n improved t h e i r communications l e s s f o l l o w i n g negative feedback than the o l d e r ones d i d . Our hypothesis i s that i t simply never occ u r r e d to most of the second graders, e i t h e r before or a f t e r feedback, 'that L ( l i s t e n e r ) wquld r e q u i r e i n f o r m a t i o n r e g a r d i n g the s i z e , p o s i t i o n , and c o l o r i n order to reproduce the design, and th a t i t never o c c u r r e d to them l a r g e l y because they f a i l e d to represent to themselves i n any f a s h i o n , the process of reproducing i t , as experienced from L's vantage p o i n t (p. 191-2). It was concluded that a c h i l d e n t e r i n g school can make "elementary i n f e r e n c e s " about what a l i s t e n e r p e r c e i v e s , but i s "markedly i n s e n s i t i v e " to the hidden r o l e - t a k i n g requirements of communication. However, widespread changes i n r o l e - t a k i n g and communication s k i l l s were observed to take 32 pla c e d u r i n g middle c h i l d h o o d and adolesence; l e a d i n g the i n v e s t i g a t o r to observe that "as he becomes o l d e r , the c h i l d becomes i n c r e a s i n g l y aware of the n e c e s s i t y of paying c a r e f u l a t t e n t i o n t o the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the audience when communicating" (pp. 211-12). In recent years, the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the a b i l i t y to r o l e - t a k e and the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of communication has been questioned. While c h i l d r e n improve with age on both r o l e - t a k i n g and communication t a s k s , the c o r r e l a t i o n between these two ta s k s i s u s u a l l y "modest or low" (Asher & W i g f i e l d , 1981). C o g n i t i v e e g o c e n t r i c i t y and i n a b i l i t y to r o l e - t a k e are no longer regarded as an adequate e x p l a n a t i o n f o r c h i l d r e n ' s communication f a i l u r e s (Dickson, 1981; Donaldson, 1978). Indeed Masangkey, McCluskey, M c l n t y r e , Sims-Knight, Vaughn, and F l a v e l l (1974) r e p o r t e d a s e r i e s of experiments i n which they r e e v a l u a t e d the p o s i t i o n taken by F l a v e l l . C h i l d r e n aged two to f i v e are re p o r t e d to be capable of n o n e g o c e n t r i c a l l y i n f e r r i n g how an o b j e c t i s p e r c e i v e d by an observer with a p e r s p e c t i v e d i f f e r e n t from the c h i l d ' s . R e cently, i t has been argued that c h i l d r e n ' s poor performance on r e f e r e n t i a l t asks i s the r e s u l t of experimental procedures. For example, Kossan and Markman (1981) hypothesized that the l i s t e n e r ' s p r o x i m i t y i n most r e f e r e n t i a l communication tasks might prevent c h i l d r e n from r e a l i z i n g that the l i s t e n e r does not share i n f o r m a t i o n with the speaker. To 3 3 t e s t t h i s h y p o t h e s i s , three groups of c h i l d r e n i n grade one were c o n t r a s t e d . S u b j e c t s i n the single picture c o n d i t i o n were shown each r e f e r e n t i n d i v i d u a l l y , and i n s t r u c t e d to d e s c r i b e each p i c t u r e so that an a d u l t l i s t e n e r behind a screen c o u l d recognize i t . The purpose of t h i s c o n d i t i o n was to show th a t s u b j e c t s c o u l d d e s c r i b e each p i c t u r e . I t a l s o served as a base from which to eva l u a t e changes i n messages when speakers had to provide messages which d i s c r i m i n a t e d the r e f e r e n t from a set of d i s t r a c t o r s . Subjects i n the standard c o n d i t i o n had to d e s c r i b e a r e f e r e n t so a l i s t e n e r behind a screen c o u l d d i s c r i m i n a t e i t from an ar r a y of d i s t r a c t o r s that were s i m i l a r to the t a r g e t item. Subjects i n the radio c o n d i t i o n performed the same task f o r a l i s t e n e r who was not i n the room but was l i s t e n i n g over a c i t i z e n ' s band r a d i o . The messages of c h i l d r e n i n the standard c o n d i t i o n were longer but no more i n f o r m a t i v e than those of c h i l d r e n i n the s i n g l e p i c t u r e c o n d i t i o n . In c o n t r a s t , messages c o n t a i n e d more d i s c r i m i n a t i n g i n f o r m a t i o n i n the r a d i o c o n d i t i o n than i n e i t h e r the standard c o n d i t i o n or the s i n g l e p i c t u r e c o n d i t i o n . A d u l t s were more c o n f i d e n t i n s e l e c t i n g r e f e r e n t s i n t h i s c o n d i t i o n as w e l l . I t was concluded that the standard procedure used to assess r e f e r e n t i a l communication s k i l l s can l e a d to an underestimation of c h i l d r e n ' s communicative competence. 34 In a d d i t i o n , developmental p s y c h o l o g i s t s do re p o r t message a d a p t a t i o n i n young s u b j e c t s . Maratsos (1973) asked 24 t h r e e - to f i v e - y e a r - o l d s to perform a simple r e f e r e n t i a l communication task under two c o n d i t i o n s . One group addressed an experimenter who c o u l d see the r e f e r e n t s , and one group addressed an experimenter who c o u l d not. Subjec t s a d d r e s s i n g an a p p a r e n t l y b l i n d l i s t e n e r were more e x p l i c i t l y v e r b a l than were those communicating to an experimenter who c o u l d see. In a s i m i l a r experiment, Meissner and Apthorp (1976) examined 39 f o u r - and f i v e - y e a r - o l d black c h i l d r e n of lower socio-economic s t a t u s . Each su b j e c t d e s c r i b e d an ar r a y of toys to a b l i n d f o l d e d and a s i g h t e d experimenter. Many of the c h i l d r e n switched from p o i n t i n g , when the experimenter c o u l d see, to v e r b a l i z i n g when she c o u l d not. Menig-Peterson (1976) compared the communications of t h r e e - y e a r - o l d s and f o u r - y e a r - o l d s under two c o n d i t i o n s of l i s t e n e r knowledge. One group t a l k e d about an e a r l i e r e xperience with an experimenter who had been present, and one group t a l k e d with an experimenter who had not been p r e s e n t . P r o t o c o l s were scored f o r a p p r o p r i a t e i n t r o d u c t i o n or n o n i n t r o d u c t i o n of " r e f e r e n t s " ( i . e . , o b j e c t s or persons) that needed to be named i n order f o r a naive person to understand what was being t a l k e d about. F o u r - y e a r - o l d s s p e c i f i e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y more r e f e r e n t s i n the naive than i n the knowledgeable c o n d i t i o n . The p r o p o r t i o n of r e f e r e n t s 35 s p e c i f i e d by t h r e e - y e a r - o l d s d i d not d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y between c o n d i t i o n s . The i n v e s t i g a t o r s s p e c u l a t e d that the reason t h e i r data d i f f e r s from that of Glucksberg et a l . (1966), and F l a v e l l i s that the tasks employed were e a s i e r . Recent s t u d i e s i n developmental psychology suggest, then, that the extent of c h i l d r e n ' s communicative a b i l i t i e s was underestimated by e a r l i e r s t u d i e s . When e a r l i e r p r o c e d u r a l weaknesses were remedied, s u b j e c t s aged four and f i v e have been found to accommodate messages to l i s t e n e r s who are s i g h t e d or b l i n d f o l d e d (Maratsos, 1973), naive or knowledgeable (Menig-Peterson, 1976), and c h i l d r e n i n grade one have been found to accommodate messages f o r l i s t e n e r s who are l i s t e n i n g on a c i t i z e n ' s band r a d i o i n another room (Kossan & Markman, 1981). S t u d i e s of C h i l d r e n ' s S o c i o c e n t r i s m Another f i e l d to o f f e r evidence of c h i l d r e n ' s communicative a b i l i t i e s i s s o c i o l i n g u i s t i c s . In c o n t r a s t to the r e f e r e n t i a l t r a d i t i o n in developmental psychology, s o c i o l i n g u i s t i c r e s e a r c h emphasizes the importance of s t u d y i n g c h i l d r e n in n a t u r a l s e t t i n g s . One of the outcomes of t h i s approach has been "to accentuate the p o s i t i v e communicative competencies of young c h i l d r e n " (Dickson, 1981, p. 5). Rather than being e g o c e n t r i c , c h i l d r e n are seen as being s o c i o c e n t r i c even i n i n f a n c y . 36 S o c i o l i n g u i s t i c r e s e a r c h focuses on the r e l a t i o n s h i p s between s o c i a l v a r i a b l e s , such as r o l e s and s t a t u s , and l i n g u i s t i c e x p r e s s i o n i n terms of i t s form and f u n c t i o n . A p r i n c i p l e of s o c i o l i n g u i s t i c s i s , f i r s t , that there i s more than one way to express the same meaning and accomplish the same f u n c t i o n , and, second, that c h o i c e of l i n g u i s t i c form i s i n f l u e n c e d by s o c i a l and c o n t e x t u a l f a c t o r s (Cherry W i l k i n s o n , 1981). The r o l e - r e l a t i o n s h i p s and r e l a t i v e s t a t u s e s of the p a r t i c i p a n t s i n a d i s c o u r s e are g e n e r a l l y regarded as an important f e a t u r e of the s o c i a l context a f f e c t i n g l i n g u i s t i c f e a t u r e s such as f o r m a l i t y of language, terms of address, and use of pronouns ( T r u d g i l l , 1974, pp. 105-9). Many " l i s t e n e r - a d j u s t e d " f e a t u r e s of a d u l t speech have been found in the language of young c h i l d r e n as w e l l . For example, a phenomenon that has been e x t e n s i v e l y i n v e s t i g a t e d i s a d u l t s ' use of p a r t i c u l a r language forms f o r c h i l d r e n . V i r t u a l l y a l l languages seem to have s p e c i a l l i n g u i s t i c items which a d u l t s use to address c h i l d r e n (Hudson, 1980, p. 121). Recently, i n v e s t i g a t o r s have examined the language that c h i l d r e n address to i n t e r l o c u t o r s who are both o l d e r and younger than themselves f o r evidence that c h i l d r e n a l s o a d j u s t t h e i r language f o r age of l i s t e n e r . A c c o r d i n g to Sachs and Devin (1976), the speech c h i l d r e n address to l i s t e n e r s younger than themselves has been found to e x h i b i t many of the f e a t u r e s of "motherese" such as a b b r e v i a t e d length 37 and syntax, a t t e n t i o n g e t t i n g d e v i c e s , r e p e t i t i o n s , a high i n c i d e n c e of q u e s t i o n s , and r a i s e d i n t o n a t i o n . For example, Shatz and Gelman (1973) compared the language which f o u r - y e a r - o l d s addressed to two-year o l d s , to peers, and to a d u l t s , and found that s h o r t e r sentences, fewer complex c o n s t r u c t i o n s , and more a t t e n t i o n g e t t i n g d e v i c e s were addressed to two-year-olds than to peers or to a d u l t s . S i m i l a r adjustments f o r age of l i s t e n e r are r e p o r t e d i n young s u b j e c t s by Sachs and Devin (1976). Four c h i l d r e n from three t o f i v e years of age were recorded t a l k i n g to t h e i r mothers, to peers, to b a b i e s , to baby d o l l s , and p r e t e n d i n g to be babies themselves. Both spontaneous speech and c o n t r i v e d p l a y s e s s i o n s were recorded. Each c h i l d used c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s t h a t have been found i n mothers' speech to c h i l d r e n when a d d r e s s i n g both a baby and a baby d o l l . The l a r g e s t d i f f e r e n c e s between speech addressed to mother, and to baby, or baby d o l l were in the number of words o c c u r r i n g before the verb, use of names, and i m p e r a t i v e s . Other s t u d i e s have examined adjustments in c h i l d r e n ' s language f o r r e l a t i v e s t a t u s of l i s t e n e r . S t a t u s of l i s t e n e r has been shown to a f f e c t p o l i t e n e s s across c u l t u r e s (Brown & Levinson, 1978). P o l i t e n e s s i s f r e q u e n t l y s t u d i e d through the i n d i r e c t n e s s of requests and d i r e c t i v e s . For example, E r v i n - T r i p p (1976) i d e n t i f i e d c o n s i s t e n t f e a t u r e s i n the types of d i r e c t i v e s used as a f u n c t i o n of the s o c i a l f e a t u r e s of the 38 speech s i t u a t i o n i n a d u l t w h i t e - c o l l a r working environments. The s o c i a l d i s t r i b u t i o n of seven d i r e c t i v e types was i d e n t i f i e d . For example, statements of need such as "I need a match" were found to be d i r e c t e d to subordinates, while imbedded imperatives such as "Could you g i v e me a match" were d i r e c t e d to u n f a m i l i a r s or those of d i f f e r e n t rank. D i r e c t n e s s and i n d i r e c t n e s s of requests and commands in c h i l d r e n have been s t u d i e d i n some d e t a i l . As i n the speech of a d u l t s , c h o i c e of d i r e c t or i n d i r e c t form has been r e p o r t e d to depend on c o n s i d e r a t i o n s of s t a t u s , p o l i t e n e s s and p r i v i l e g e . In a review of l i t e r a t u r e on c h i l d language, E r v i n - T r i p p (1977) suggests that there i s c o n s i d e r a b l e s o c i a l d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n i n c h i l d r e n ' s d i r e c t i v e s even before the age of t h r e e . She r e p o r t s that c h i l d r e n use more imperatives with c h i l d r e n than with a d u l t s , that they use more h i n t s with f a m i l i a r than with u n f a m i l i a r a d u l t s , and more p o l i t e m o d i f i e r s with u n f a m i l i a r a d u l t s (p. 184-5). She a l s o suggests that c h i l d r e n ' s request forms "respond" to age, dominance, and f a m i l i a r i t y of addressee. S i m i l a r l y , M i t c h e l l - K e r n a n and Kernan (1977) report that black c h i l d r e n between seven and twelve years of age d i f f e r e n t i a t e d i r e c t i v e s as a f u n c t i o n of s o c i a l f a c t o r s . S u b j e c t s were observed i n spontaneous r o l e p l a y i n g s i t u a t i o n s u s i n g hand.puppets and an improvised stage. As i n E r v i n - T r i p p ' s data, statements of need were d i r e c t e d from 39 persons of higher rank to persons of lower rank. Imperatives were more l i k e l y to be d i r e c t e d to persons of lower rank than to persons of higher rank than the speaker. Most h i n t s o c c u r r e d between persons of equal s t a t u s . Olson and H i l d y a r d (1981) asked c h i l d r e n i n k i n d e r g a r t e n and second grade to f i l l i n the l a s t l i n e of a s t o r y i n v o l v i n g a request f o r e i t h e r a r i g h t or a favour from an equal, a higher s t a t u s , and a lower s t a t u s i n d i v i d u a l . Favours were more l i k e l y to be s i g n a l e d by a c o n v e n t i o n a l i z e d request form ("May I ...?" "Can I ?") than were r i g h t s . In requests f o r r i g h t s , d i r e c t commands or t h r e a t s were used when d i r e c t e d to a peer or i n d i v i d u a l of lower s t a t u s , while c o n v e n t i o n a l i z e d forms such as "May I p l e a s e . . . ? " were used f o r i n d i v i d u a l s of higher s t a t u s . Message a d a p t a t i o n f o r f a m i l i a r i t y and s t a t u s of l i s t e n e r i s a l s o r e p o r t e d i n o l d e r s u b j e c t s . S t u d i e s of o l d e r c h i l d r e n have employed p e r s u a s i v e tasks such as c o n v i n c i n g a stranger to take a l o s t puppy home. In g e n e r a l , c h i l d r e n employ more s o p h i s t i c a t e d s t r a t e g i e s i n attempting to persuade an unknown ra t h e r than a known l i s t e n e r . D e l i a , K l i n e and Burleson (1979) examined the p e r s u a s i v e s t r a t e g i e s used by approximately s i x t e e n students i n each grade from K to 12, i n two p e r s u a s i v e t a s k s . L i s t e n e r s were a mother and a s t r a n g e r . Messages were coded on a four p o i n t s c a l e f o r the degree to which they accommodate to the 40 p e r s p e c t i v e of the l i s t e n e r . Across ages, c h i l d r e n used s i g n i f i c a n t l y more h i g h e r - l e v e l p e r s u a s i v e s t r a t e g i e s in a d d r e s s i n g an audience unknown to them than i n a d d r e s s i n g a f a m i l i a r audience. In a study i n v o l v i n g two f a m i l i a r l i s t e n e r s d i f f e r e n t i a t e d by age and s t a t u s , F i n l a y and Humphries (1974) examined r h e t o r i c a l appeal used by g i r l s aged f i v e , nine and t h i r t e e n . Subjects attempted to persuade t h e i r mother or a best f r i e n d to watch TV r a t h e r than play a game. A g r e a t e r v a r i e t y of r h e t o r i c a l appeals was used f o r a best f r i e n d than f o r a mother. There i s a l s o evidence that c h i l d r e n , l i k e a d u l t s , use a d i f f e r e n t " r e g i s t e r " or "code" f o r d i f f e r e n t ^ s i t u a t i o n s . Gleason (1973) repo r t e d examples of code s w i t c h i n g i n the c h i l d r e n of f i v e f a m i l i e s in'Cambridge, Massachusetts. Subje c t s were recorded i n t h e i r own homes. C h i l d r e n in the study adopted a s t y l e of language f o r t h e i r peer-group that was d i f f e r e n t from the language addressed to a d u l t s or to b a b i e s . Peer-group s t y l e i s d e s c r i b e d as being r i c h i n sound e f f e c t s and e x p r e s s i v e words such as "Yukk." I t i s a l s o d i s t i n g u i s h e d by frequent use of f i r s t names, and frequent use of copying a preceding u t t e r a n c e without changing emphasis or s t r u c t u r e . There i s thus good evidence that f o r c h i l d r e n , l i k e a d u l t s , c h o i c e of l i n g u i s t i c form i s a f f e c t e d by s i t u a t i o n a l 4 1 and s o c i a l v a r i a b l e s i n c l u d i n g age and s t a t u s of l i s t e n e r . Age of l i s t e n e r has been r e p o r t e d to a f f e c t p h o n o l o g i c a l , l e x i c a l and s y n t a c t i c f e a t u r e s f o r f o u r - y e a r - o l d s (Shatz & Gelman, 1973), even when the l i s t e n e r i s a d o l l a s s i g n e d the r o l e of a two-year-old (Sachs & Devin, 1976). Status and f a m i l i a r i t y of l i s t e n e r have been r e p o r t e d to a f f e c t the p o l i t e n e s s of s t r a t e g i e s used to achieve p a r t i c u l a r language f u n c t i o n s ( E r v i n - T r i p p , 1977; M i t c h e l l - K e r n a n & Kernan, 1977; Olson & H i l d y a r d , 1981), number of r h e t o r i c a l appeals ( F i n l e y & Humphries, 1974), and l e v e l of r h e t o r i c a l appeals ( D e l i a et a l . , 1979). S t u d i e s of O r a l Language Fu n c t i o n s i n School S e t t i n g s S t i l l f u r t h e r evidence of c h i l d r e n ' s responsiveness to c o n t e x t u a l f e a t u r e s such as s t a t u s of l i s t e n e r can be found i n recent s t u d i e s of language f u n c t i o n s i n school s e t t i n g s . Status of l i s t e n e r i s e s p e c i a l l y r e l e v a n t in school s e t t i n g s where much of c h i l d r e n ' s language i s constrained by tea c h e r s ' e x p e c t a t i o n s (Barnes, 1976; Cazden, 1972 b.; Cher r y - W i l k i n s o n , 1981; Hymes, 1972). Recently, many i n v e s t i g a t o r s have become e s p e c i a l l y i n t e r e s t e d i n tea c h e r s ' e f f e c t s on c h i l d r e n ' s "language use" i n school s e t t i n g s . The terms "language use" and "language f u n c t i o n " are f r e q u e n t l y used synonymously. "Language f u n c t i o n " has been d e f i n e d as the communicative i n t e n t of the speaker (Chapman, 42 1981). Intent i s not analogous to sentence type. For example the three f o l l o w i n g sentences a l l serve the f u n c t i o n of request i n g : Open the door. The door i s c l o s e d . Could you open the door? In English- f u n c t i o n - i n d i c a t i n g d e v i c e s i n c l u d e mood of verb, s t r e s s , i n t o n a t i o n , and word or d e r . Numerous c a t e g o r i z a t i o n schemes f o r the f u n c t i o n a l a n a l y s i s of c h i l d r e n ' s language have been d e v i s e d . Those schemes that have been used with school-aged c h i l d r e n have i n c l u d e d a directive or controlling f u n c t i o n , an informing or representational f u n c t i o n , a personal or expressive f u n c t i o n , and an imaginative f u n c t i o n ( H a l l i d a y , 1975; Tough, 1977, 1979; Wel l s , 1975). In a d d i t i o n , H a l l i d a y suggests a heuristic f u n c t i o n , Tough a reasoning f u n c t i o n and a predicting f u n c t i o n , and Wells a ritualizing f u n c t i o n . Four s t u d i e s r e p o r t audience e f f e c t s on o r a l language f u n c t i o n s i n school s e t t i n g s . Fleming (1980) examined the e f f e c t s of audience and i n t e r r u p t i o n s on the e x p r e s s i v e language of working-class c h i l d r e n i n grades three and fo u r . C h i l d r e n were engaged i n a problem s o l v i n g a c t i v i t y with a peer and a teacher. Audience and i n t e r r u p t i o n were found to a f f e c t e x p r e s s i o n a l f l u e n c y . Language addressed to peers was more s p e c u l a t i v e and more e x p r e s s i v e than language addressed 43 to t e a c h e r s . Teachers were observed to d i r e c t language and to c o n s t r a i n the flow of s p e c u l a t i v e language. I n t e r r u p t i o n was found to c o n s t r a i n s p e c u l a t i v e language when c h i l d spoke to c h i l d , but not when c h i l d spoke to t e a c h e r . P i n n e l l (1975) i n v e s t i g a t e d language use i n three primary c l a s s rooms. Twelve c h i l d r e n aged s i x and seven were recorded i n t h e i r classrooms at r e g u l a r i n t e r v a l s over a p e r i o d of four months. Statements were analysed a c c o r d i n g to H a l l i d a y ' s (1975) c a t e g o r i e s of language f u n c t i o n s . Most of the language recorded was i n t e r a c t i o n a l . A u d i e n c e - r e l a t e d d i f f e r e n c e s are r e p o r t e d f o r the f o l l o w i n g f u n c t i o n s : more i n s t r u m e n t a l language was addressed to t e a c h e r s than to peers, more r e g u l a t o r y language and more p e r s o n a l language was addressed to peers than to t e a c h e r s . Very l i t t l e of the language recorded was h e u r i s t i c or i m a g i n a t i v e . In an e m p i r i c a l study, Jensen (1973) examined the c a s u a l and c a r e f u l o r a l language of average and s u p e r i o r boys i n grade f i v e . Randomly s e l e c t e d p a i r s of s u b j e c t s were recorded d i s c u s s i n g a problem f o r the c a s u a l speech c o n d i t i o n . For the c a r e f u l speech c o n d i t i o n , an i n v e s t i g a t o r entered the room, di s m i s s e d one su b j e c t and q u e s t i o n e d the remaining s u b j e c t . Topic was the same under both c o n d i t i o n s . Casual language s t y l e was c h a r a c t e r i z e d by more d i v e r s i f i e d word c h o i c e , s h o r t e r communication u n i t s , more v a r i e t y i n s y n t a c t i c p a t t e r n s and standard usage. The c a r e f u l s t y l e produced 4 4 g r e a t e r s t r u c t u r a l complexity and more non-standard usages. D i f f e r e n c e s were a l s o noted i n language f u n c t i o n s . The c a r e f u l s t y l e c o n t a i n e d more t e n t a t i v e n e s s than the c a s u a l s t y l e , and the c a s u a l s t y l e c o n t a i n e d more q u e s t i o n s than the c a r e f u l s t y l e . In school s e t t i n g s , language addressed to a teacher or an i n v e s t i g a t o r has been r e p o r t e d to be d i f f e r e n t i n f u n c t i o n from language addressed to peers in amount of m o d a l i t y , s p e c u l a t i v e n e s s and e x p r e s s i o n a l f l u e n c y (Fleming, 1980), amount of p e r s o n a l , r e g u l a t o r y and i n s t r u m e n t a l language ( P i n n e l l , 1975), and amount of t e n t a t i v e n e s s and number of q u e s t i o n s (Jensen, 1973). From these s t u d i e s , i t would seem that language addressed to teachers and other a d u l t s i n school s e t t i n g s i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d by t e n t a t i v e n e s s , while the language addressed to peers i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d by s p e c u l a t i v e n e s s , e x p r e s s i o n a l f l u e n c y , modal verbs, and q u e s t i o n s . Language addressed to peers i s a l s o c h a r a c t e r i z e d as being both p e r s o n a l and r e g u l a t o r y . S i m i l a r d i f f e r e n c e s i n the f u n c t i o n s of language have not been r e p o r t e d i n c h i l d r e n ' s w r i t i n g . 45 Measuring Language Functions i n O r a l and W r i t t e n Language I m p l i c a t i o n s of O r a l Language S t u d i e s f o r W r i t t e n Language S t u d i e s Evidence of e f f e c t of audience on o r a l language i s s u b s t a n t i a l , ranging from s t r u c t u r a l f e a t u r e s such as l e n g t h of u t t e r a n c e and complexity of syntax, to pragmatic f e a t u r e s such as the adequacy of i n t r o d u c t i o n of r e f e r e n t s , the d i r e c t n e s s of requests and d i r e c t i v e s , the number and l e v e l of r h e t o r i c a l appeals, the amount of p e r s o n a l , r e g u l a t o r y and e x p r e s s i v e language, and the number of q u e s t i o n s . In c o n t r a s t , evidence of audience e f f e c t s on w r i t t e n language i s meagre (Bracewell et a l . , 1978; K r o l l , 1985; Van de Veghe, 1978). The most r e l i a b l e f i n d i n g s f o r w r i t t e n language i n v o l v e the e f f e c t of audience on the complexity of syntax among o l d e r students (Crowhurst & Piche, 1979; Smith & Swan, 1978) . Two e x p l a n a t i o n s can be p o s i t e d f o r t h i s apparent "anomaly." E i t h e r w r i t i n g i s so much more complex than speaking that students cannot accommodate w r i t t e n language to d i f f e r e n t audiences, or the measures that have been used i n s t u d i e s of audience e f f e c t s on w r i t t e n language are i n s e n s i t i v e to d i f f e r e n c e s that are t h e r e . Given the s t r e n g t h of c l a i m s that are made f o r the importance of audience by d i s c o u r s e t h e o r i s t s , and the s u b s t a n t i a l evidence that 46 audience a f f e c t s c h i l d r e n ' s o r a l language, the l a t t e r e x p l a n a t i o n seems p l a u s i b l e . Indeed, r e s e a r c h e r s i n the f i e l d do suggest that audience e f f e c t s c o u l d be d i s c e r n e d more r e a d i l y i n w r i t t e n language i f measures employed were communicative r a t h e r than s t r u c t u r a l (Bracewell et a l . , 1978? Nystrand, 1979). A promising area f o r d e r i v i n g a p p r o p r i a t e measures of t h i s kind i s i n the work that has been done on language f u n c t i o n s i n s o c i o l i n g u i s t i c s and philosophy of language. While s t u d i e s of the e f f e c t of audience on o r a l language suggest numerous measures that c o u l d a l s o be a p p r o p r i a t e f o r the study of audience e f f e c t on w r i t t e n language, the f u n c t i o n s of language seem p a r t i c u l a r l y a p p r o p r i a t e f o r the study of audience e f f e c t s in s c h o o l s e t t i n g s f o r two reasons. F i r s t , language f u n c t i o n i s u s u a l l y i d e n t i f i e d with communicative i n t e n t i o n (Chapman, 1981; W e l l s , 1981). Second, v i r t u a l l y a l l w r i t i n g i n school s e t t i n g s i s addressed to a teacher (Applebee, 1981; B r i t t o n et a l . , 1975), and there are both t h e o r e t i c a l and e m p i r i c a l grounds f o r p r e d i c t i n g that s t a t u s of audience w i l l a f f e c t language f u n c t i o n . A c c o r d i n g l y , schemes d e s c r i b i n g the f u n c t i o n s of both o r a l and w r i t t e n language are d e s c r i b e d below. 47 The F u n c t i o n s of O r a l and W r i t t e n Language The f u n c t i o n s or uses of language have r e c e n t l y been a s u b j e c t of i n t e r e s t i n a number of f i e l d s . M o tivated i n part by d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n with the Chomskyan view that language can be d i s s o c i a t e d from the uses, u s e r s , and f u n c t i o n s of language (Levinson, 1983), t h e o r i z e r s and r e s e a r c h e r s i n l i n g u i s t i c s , language a c q u i s i t i o n , p h i l o s o p h y of language, and e d u c a t i o n have turned t h e i r a t t e n t i o n from language s t r u c t u r e to language f u n c t i o n . A recent statement by Gordon Wells (1981) i s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of the s h i f t that has o c c u r r e d . He argues t h a t : . . . understanding language i n v o l v e s more than a t t e n d i n g to the words and sentences that are spoken or w r i t t e n : unless we go beyond the forms to the i n t e n t i o n s they r e a l i z e , the experiences they r e f e r t o , the purposes that give r i s e to them and the s i t u a t i o n s in which they occur, we s h a l l not achieve a f u l l understanding, e i t h e r of the sentences themselves, or of language as a human phenomenon, (p. 23) Many schemes have been suggested f o r d e s c r i b i n g the i n t e n t i o n s or purposes of language, but no d e f i n i t i v e scheme e x i s t s . There i s d i v e r s i t y i n the c a t e g o r i e s that have been developed to d e s c r i b e a speaker's communicative i n t e n t "depending on author's purpose, data and p h i l o s o p h i c a l p o i n t 48 of view" (Chapman, 1981). While some systems d e s c r i b e the f u n c t i o n of an utte r a n c e independent of i t s f u n c t i o n in r e l a t i o n to the p r i o r or subsequent u t t e r a n c e , o v e r a l l d i s c o u r s e s t r u c t u r e , or the s o c i a l s t r u c t u r e of the i n t e r a c t i o n , other systems focus on these r e l a t i o n s h i p s (Chapman, p. 112-13). In a d d i t i o n , there i s d i v e r s i t y i n the b a s i s upon which c l a s s i f i c a t i o n i s made. In the seminal work on language f u n c t i o n s by Buhler (1934) ( c i t e d i n Lyons, 1977) and Jakobson (1960) ( c i t e d i n Lyons, 1977), the f u n c t i o n of language i s r e l a t e d to "focus" on one of the elements of the communication t r i a n g l e . A c c o r d i n g to Buhler, focus on the speaker produces the expressive f u n c t i o n , focus on the addressee the vocative f u n c t i o n , and focus on the e x t e r n a l s i t u a t i o n the descriptive f u n c t i o n (Lyons, p. 52). Jakobson m o d i f i e d Buhler's scheme and h i s terminology to i n c l u d e the referential f u n c t i o n f o c u s i n g on the r e f e r e n t i a l context of the message, the emotive f u n c t i o n on the speaker's s t a t e , the conative f u n c t i o n on the speaker's wishes that the addressee do or th i n k something, the metalinguistic f u n c t i o n on the code being use, the phatic f u n c t i o n on the channel, and the poetic f u n c t i o n on the way the message i s encoded (Levinson, 1983, p. 43). The work by A u s t i n (1962) and S e a r l e (1969) p r o v i d e s a d i f f e r e n t p e r s p e c t i v e on the f u n c t i o n s of language. In a s e r i e s of l e c t u r e s , a p t l y t i t l e d "How to do t h i n g s with 49 words," A u s t i n argues that u t t e r a n c e s are used not only to d e s c r i b e a s t a t e of a f f a i r s but to "do t h i n g s . " Every u t t e r a n c e , he argues, i s a speech a c t . Speech a c t s i n c l u d e making statements, promising, and o f f e r i n g , and, a c c o r d i n g to A u s t i n , the number of p o s s i b l e speech a c t s i s very l a r g e — a s l a r g e as the number of p e r f o r m a t i v e verbs in a given language. S e a r l e , A u s t i n ' s student, s i m p l i f i e d A u s t i n ' s scheme somewhat by suggesting that there are f i v e speech act c a t e g o r i e s : representatives (which commit the speaker to the t r u t h of a p r o p o s i t i o n ) , directives (which are attempts by the speaker to get the addressee to do something), commissives (which commit the speaker to some f u t u r e course of a c t i o n ) , expressives (which express p s y c h o l o g i c a l s t a t e ) , and declarations (which perform a c t i o n s by being u t t e r e d such as c h r i s t e n i n g , f i r i n g , and d e c l a r i n g war). The w r i t i n g s of Buhler, Jakobson, A u s t i n and S e a r l e have been i n f l u e n t i a l f o r s t u d i e s of the f u n c t i o n s of c h i l d r e n ' s language. Numerous schemes for d e s c r i b i n g the f u n c t i o n s of c h i l d r e n ' s w r i t t e n and o r a l language have been developed. Those that have been used with c h i l d r e n i n school s e t t i n g s w i l l be d e s c r i b e d below. 50 Schemes d e s c r i b i n g the f u n c t i o n s of w r i t t e n language. The most i n f l u e n t i a l scheme f o r the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of w r i t t e n language i s that of B r i t t o n and h i s c o l l e a g u e s (1975). Drawing on the work of Hymes, S a p i r and Jakobson (p. 13) on the f u n c t i o n s of o r a l language, B r i t t o n et a l . suggest that w r i t t e n language can serve three f u n c t i o n s : the expressive, the transactional, and the poetic. E x p r e s s i v e w r i t i n g focuses on the w r i t e r , p o e t i c w r i t i n g on the form of the message i t s e l f , and t r a n s a c t i o n a l w r i t i n g on i n f o r m a t i o n . T r a n s a c t i o n a l w r i t i n g i s f u r t h e r d i v i d e d - i n t o r e f e r e n t i a l w r i t i n g which conveys i n f o r m a t i o n , and co n a t i v e w r i t i n g which attempts to persuade or convince a reader. Applebee (1981) adapted B r i t t o n ' s scheme to'make i t more s u i t a b l e f o r an o b s e r v a t i o n a l study by i n c l u d i n g c a t e g o r i e s such as writing without composing (e.g., doing m u l t i p l e - c h o i c e e x e r c i s e s ) , informational writing (e.g., n o t e - t a k i n g ) , personal writing (e.g., d i a r i e s ) and imaginative writing (e.g., s t o r i e s and poems). F l o r i o and C l a r k (1982) d e v i s e d t h e i r own " f u n c t i o n a l " c a t e g o r i e s f o r an ethnographic study of the f u n c t i o n s of w r i t i n g i n a grade two classroom. T h e i r c a t e g o r i e s i n c l u d e w r i t i n g to take part in community, to know oneself and others, to occupy free time, and to demonstrate academic competence. However, the two schemes that are most r e l a t e d to t h e o r i e s of o r a l language f u n c t i o n s ( i . e . , Buhler, Jakobson, Hymes, S a p i r ) are those of Kinneavy (1971) and 51 B r i t t o n et a l . (1975). Kinneavy's (1971) scheme i s s i m i l a r to B r i t t o n ' s . However, i t i s unique i n that the p e r s u a s i v e f u n c t i o n i s regarded as an independent f u n c t i o n rather than as a sub-category of the t r a n s a c t i o n a l f u n c t i o n . Kinneavy's scheme i n c l u d e s an i n f o r m a t i v e f u n c t i o n , a p e r s u a s i v e f u n c t i o n , a l i t e r a r y f u n c t i o n and an e x p r e s s i v e f u n c t i o n (p. 61). In the two main s t u d i e s of the f u n c t i o n s of w r i t t e n language (Applebee, 1981; B r i t t o n et a l . , 1975), g l o b a l judgements were made about the f u n c t i o n s of each p i e c e of w r i t i n g . In other words, p e r s u a s i v e compositions c o n t a i n i n g f i v e sentences would be i n c l u d e d i n the same category as those c o n t a i n i n g f i v e paragraphs. Such g l o b a l judgements ignore v a r i a t i o n not only i n l e n g t h but i n the means used to persuade. In a d d i t i o n , g l o b a l judgements are d i f f i c u l t to make. B r i t t o n (1979) r e p o r t s that of 2,122 s c r i p t s examined, only 694 r e c e i v e d the same c l a s s i f i c a t i o n by three s c o r e r s . The number of s c r i p t s f o r which there was not three-way agreement suggests that w r i t t e n language can i n c o r p o r a t e many funct i o n s . In f a c t , d i s c o u r s e t h e o r i s t s suggest that a l l w r i t i n g c o n t a i n s more than one f u n c t i o n . Kinneavy (1971) suggests that one f u n c t i o n i s dominant while other f u n c t i o n s are s u b o r d i n a t e . B r i t t o n . (1971) .acknowledges the need f o r a dual c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of some l i t e r a r y works. Orwell's 1984, f o r 52 example, would be c l a s s i f i e d as p o e t i c / c o n a t i v e , and Joyce's Ulysses as p o e t i c / e x p r e s s i v e (p.249). M a r t i n , Medway et a l . (1973) observed that young w r i t e r s f r e q u e n t l y c y c l e from one f u n c t i o n to another, i n c o r p o r a t i n g c o n v e r s a t i o n a l and ex p r e s s i v e elements i n t r a n s a c t i o n a l w r i t i n g , and t r a n s a c t i o n a l elements i n ex p r e s s i v e w r i t i n g . The v a r i e t y of s t r a t e g i e s w i t h i n w r i t t e n d i s c o u r s e of a p a r t i c u l a r f u n c t i o n has not been s t u d i e d . The premise on which the present study i s based i s that adapting schemes used to d e s c r i b e the f u n c t i o n s of o r a l language . w i l l permit of ca p t u r i n g some of the d i v e r s i t y which g l o b a l schemes ignore, and a l s o p r o v i d e a measure s e n s i t i v e to e f f e c t s of audience. Schemes d e s c r i b i n g the f u n c t i o n s of o r a l language. H a l l i d a y (1975) d e r i v e d seven f u n c t i o n s from the e a r l y speech of h i s subj e c t N i g e l : instrumental, regulatory, interactional, personal, heuristic, imaginative, and representational. The l a s t f u n c t i o n , the r e p r e s e n t a t i o n a l , appears l a s t , a c c o r d i n g to H a l l i d a y , but comes to be the dominant f u n c t i o n i n a d u l t language. R e p r e s e n t a t i o n a l language i s used to inform, to express p r o p o s i t i o n s , to e x p l a i n , and to d e s c r i b e . Nelson (1978), commenting on the weaknesses of H a l l i d a y ' s system, such as the lack of s t a n d a r d i z e d procedures f o r c l a s s i f y i n g u t t e r a n c e s i n t o f u n c t i o n a l c a t e g o r i e s , argues, nonetheless, that h i s scheme i s v a l u a b l e f o r the c o n t i n u i t y i t 53 i m p l i e s between the language of the very young c h i l d and l a t e r c o n v e n t i o n a l i z e d language (p. 461). H a l l i d a y ' s g e n e r a l framework has been i n f l u e n t i a l f o r recent c u r r i c u l u m m a t e r i a l (e.g., A l b e r t a Education C u r r i c u l u m Guide f o r Elementary Language A r t s , 1978) and f o r remedial language programs (e.g., Simon, 1980). H is p o s i t i o n , on the importance of the p e r s o n a l and h e u r i s t i c f u n c t i o n s of language f o r school success (1973) i s o f t e n quoted. Another scheme that has been used to d e s c r i b e the fu n c t i o n s of language used by school-aged c h i l d r e n i s that of Wells (1975). Wells' scheme i n c l u d e s the f o l l o w i n g " a c t s " or f u n c t i o n s : controlling, feeling, informing, ritualizing and imagining. R i t u a l i z i n g i s c l o s e t o what Jakobson c a l l s the " p h a t i c " f u n c t i o n . I t i n c l u d e s d e v i c e s f o r i n i t i a t i n g , m a i n t a i n i n g and c l o s i n g c o n v e r s a t i o n s such as g r e e t i n g , f a r e w e l l s , and r e p e a t i n g . A t h i r d scheme that has a l s o been i n f l u e n t i a l f o r c u r r i c u l u m development i s that of Tough (1977, 1979). In Tough's scheme, u t t e r a n c e s are c l a s s i f i e d a c c o r d i n g to a t h r e e - l e v e l framework of " f u n c t i o n a l uses" which i n c l u d e a directive f u n c t i o n , an interpretive f u n c t i o n , a projective f u n c t i o n , and a relational f u n c t i o n (1977, pp. 68-69). Each f u n c t i o n c o n t a i n s s u b - c a t e g o r i e s of s e v e r a l "language uses" and the s t r a t e g i e s used to achieve them. 54 I n f l u e n c e d by B e r n s t e i n ' s (1973) hy p o t h e s i s that c h i l d r e n from homes with low socio-economic s t a t u s use a " r e s t r i c t e d code" while those from homes of high socio-economic s t a t u s use an " e l a b o r a t e d code" which i s more s u i t e d to school success, Tough d e v i s e d a scheme to d e s c r i b e c l a s s - r e l a t e d d i f f e r e n c e s in c h i l d r e n ' s uses of language. Indeed, Tough does r e p o r t s i g n i f i c a n t c l a s s - r e l a t e d d i f f e r e n c e s i n c h i l d r e n ' s uses of v a r i o u s language f u n c t i o n s (1977, pp. 190-191), and concludes that the r e l a t i o n s h i p between school success and s o c i a l c l a s s i s mediated by d i f f e r e n c e s i n language use. Tough's c o n c l u s i o n s and her methodology have been sub j e c t e d to some s c r u t i n y and c r i t i c i s m (e.g., W e l l s , 1977). Wells i s e s p e c i a l l y c r i t i c a l of the n o n - i n t e r a c t i v e nature of her c l a s s i f i c a t i o n system (p. 21). There i s , f o r example, no category f o r q u e s t i o n s or f o r e x p r e s s i o n s of f e e l i n g . However, Tough's scheme has been d e s c r i b e d as v a l u a b l e f o r the advanced semantic content i t c a p t u r e s (Chapman, 1981). Wells c e r t a i n l y acknowledges that her scheme captures some of the complex purposes f o r which c h i l d r e n use language, and t h e i r importance f o r school success. Her scheme has been m o d i f i e d and adapted by r e s e a r c h e r s and p r a c t i t i o n e r s . Tough h e r s e l f s i m p l i f i e d her c l a s s i f i c a t i o n system to i n c l u d e o n l y two l e v e l s of uses and s u p p o r t i n g s t r a t e g i e s (1979, p. 36). A s t i l l f u r t h e r s i m p l i f i c a t i o n of her scheme i s suggested by Shafer, Staab and 55 Smith (1983) who reduce Tough's seven uses to f i v e : asserting and mai nt ai ni ng social needs, controlling, informing, forecasting and reasoning, and projecting (1983, pp. 41-42). Shafer et a l . a l s o suggest that the terms functions and sub-functions be s u b s t i t u t e d f o r Tough's terms uses and strategies. T h e i r m o d i f i c a t i o n s meet some of Wel l s ' o b j e c t i o n s c oncerning i n t e r a c t i v e u t t e r a n c e s which cannot be c l a s s i f i e d on Tough's o r i g i n a l scheme. In a d d i t i o n , Shafer et a l . suggest s t a n d a r d i z e d procedures f o r the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of ut t e r a n c e s . Although these three schemes are d i f f e r e n t , there i s a core of f u n c t i o n s which a l l three r e s e a r c h e r s observe i n the language of school-aged c h i l d r e n . These a r e : controlling or directing, reporting or ^comment i ng on past and present, expressing self and imagining. In a d d i t i o n , H a l l i d a y argues f o r a heuristic f u n c t i o n i n which language i s used to i n v e s t i g a t e and to q u e s t i o n , Tough f o r both a reasoning f u n c t i o n and a predicting f u n c t i o n , and Wells f o r a ritualizing f u n c t i o n . Because Tough's scheme i n c o r p o r a t e s the f u n c t i o n s of the other schemes used with school c h i l d r e n ( H a l l i d a y , 1975; Wells, 1975), and because i n i t s m o d i f i c a t i o n by Shafer et a l . (1983) procedures f o r i d e n t i f y i n g f u n c t i o n s were d e s c r i b e d and t e s t e d with school-aged c h i l d r e n , the Shafer et a l . scheme seems an a p p r o p r i a t e c h o i c e f o r the present study. 5 6 C o n s i d e r a t i o n s of the Present Study The present study i s an e m p i r i c a l i n v e s t i g a t i o n of the e f f e c t of audience on language f u n c t i o n s used in w r i t t e n compositions by students at two grade l e v e l s using measures d e r i v e d from o r a l language s t u d i e s . Argument was chosen because i t i s i n argument that a t t e n t i o n i s most l i k e l y to be focused on audience (Kinneavy, 1971), and because audience d i f f e r e n c e s have been found i n argument when none were found i n n a r r a t i o n or d e s c r i p t i o n (Crowhurst & Piche, 1979; Smith & Swan; 1978). The audiences of teacher and best f r i e n d , which are d i f f e r e n t i a t e d on the b a s i s of power and p r e s t i g e , were s e l e c t e d f o r the present study because there are both t h e o r e t i c a l and e m p i r i c a l grounds fo r p r e d i c t i n g that s t a t u s of audience w i l l a f f e c t language use. Two g r a d e s - - s i x and e l e v e n — w e r e s e l e c t e d . The reason fo r the s e l e c t i o n of these two grades r e l a t e s to the f a c t t h a t , although the few s t u d i e s which have examined audience e f f e c t s i n w r i t i n g have found an e f f e c t f o r upper high school grades but not f o r elementary c l a s s e s (Crowhurst & Piche, 1979), t h e o r e t i c a l reasons e x i s t f o r b e l i e v i n g that e f f e c t s may e x i s t f o r upper elementary school c h i l d r e n and that such e f f e c t s may be d e t e c t e d by measures which are s e n s i t i v e to communicative i n t e n t . T h e r e f o r e , i t was decided to use one 57 c l a s s i n the high school and one i n the upper elementary s c h o o l . Grade 6 was chosen i n the elementary school because p i l o t data i n d i c a t e d t h a t arguments w r i t t e n by grade 5 students tended to be r a t h e r s h o r t . The a d a p t a t i o n of Tough's scheme by Shafer et a l . (1983) was c o n s i d e r e d to be a p p r o p r i a t e f o r the present study f o r the f o l l o w i n g reasons: f i r s t , i t encompasses most of the f u n c t i o n s i n c l u d e d i n other schemes employed with school c h i l d r e n ( H a l l i d a y , 1975; W e l l s , 1975), second, i t i s based on classroom r e s e a r c h and experience, t h i r d i t p r o v i d e s s t a n d a r d i z e d procedures f o r i d e n t i f y i n g f u n c t i o n s , and f o u r t h i t i s adaptable to w r i t t e n languge. 58 CHAPTER THREE DESIGN AND PROCEDURES The present study was designed and conducted t o examine the e f f e c t of audience on language f u n c t i o n s used i n w r i t t e n arguments by students at two grade l e v e l s when measures of o r a l language f u n c t i o n s are used to analyze w r i t t e n language. Subjects The s u b j e c t s f o r t h i s study were student's e n r o l l e d i n two elementary schools and one high s c h o o l i n middle t o upper-middle c l a s s s c h o o l s i n Vancouver, B r i t i s h Columbia. W r i t i n g assignments were a d m i n i s t e r e d to 63 students i n two el e v e n t h grade c l a s s e s at the high school l e v e l , and to 80 s i x t h grade students i n four s p l i t - g r a d e c l a s s e s at the elementary school l e v e l . The mean age of the 80 s i x t h grade s u b j e c t s was 11.6; the mean age of the 62 grade eleven s u b j e c t s was 16.4. The Vancouver School D i s t r i c t was chosen because of i t s w i l l i n g n e s s to p a r t i c i p a t e i n e d u c a t i o n a l r e s e a r c h . The high school c l a s s e s were s e l e c t e d on the b a s i s of t h e i r teacher's w i l l i n g n e s s to p a r t i c i p a t e when approached by the Program Resources L i a i s o n f o r the Vancouver School Board. The c l a s s e s 59 at the elementary schools were chosen because both schools were feeder schools to the high s c h o o l , thus e n s u r i n g that students i n the two grades were drawn from the same socio-economic c l a s s . Complete s e t s of four assignments were obtained from 62 e l e v e n t h graders, and 75 s i x t h g r a d e r s . Twenty-five complete s e t s by students i n grade 6 and grade 11 were d i s c a r d e d p r i o r to data a n a l y s i s because at l e a s t one composition i n a set f a i l e d to meet minimum requirements f o r l e n g t h , or because at l e a s t one composition i n a set was judged not to be a w r i t t e n argument. Minimun requirement f o r l e n g t h was set by the i n v e s t i g a t o r at four idea u n i t s . A c c e p t a b i l i t y of compositions as w r i t t e n arguments was judged by the i n v e s t i g a t o r and one other e x p e r i e n c e d teacher of E n g l i s h . Of the 25 complete s e t s d i s c a r d e d , 13 s e t s by s i x t h - g r a d e students and three s e t s by eleventh-grade students c o n t a i n e d compositions judged not to be w r i t t e n arguments, and 10 s e t s by s i x t h grade students were judged t o c o n t a i n compositions which f a i l e d to meet minimum c r i t e r i a f o r l e n g t h . To determine whether the d e l e t i o n of n a r r a t i v e s / d i a l o g u e s or u n u s u a l l y short compositions i n t r o d u c e d b i a s i n t o the sample of w r i t i n g that was analysed, the d i s t r i b u t i o n of n a r r a t i v e s / d i a l o g u e s and short compositions was examined. The t o t a l of n a r r a t i v e s / d i a l o g u e s f o r both grades was 13 f o r the audience of teacher and 16 f o r the audience of best f r i e n d ; 60 u n u s u a l l y short compositions were w r i t t e n only by s i x t h graders who wrote 8 f o r the audience of teacher and 10 f o r the audience of best f r i e n d . From t h i s d i s t r i b u t i o n i t would appear that the w r i t i n g of n a r r a t i v e s / d i a l o g u e s or short compositions was not r e l a t e d to audience, and t h e r e f o r e that no b i a s was i n t r o d u c e d by e l i m i n a t i n g sets of compositions c o n t a i n i n g e i t h e r n a r r a t i v e s or u n u s u a l l y short compositions. A f t e r the d i s c a r d s d e s c r i b e d above, the number of complete s e t s a v a i l a b l e f o r f u n c t i o n a l a n a l y s i s was 52 at grade 6, and 59 at grade 11. M a t e r i a l s Students i n the study wrote twice on each of two t o p i c s , once f o r the audience of teacher and once f o r the audience of best f r i e n d , with the p r e s e n t a t i o n of audiences and t o p i c s c o u nterbalanced. Exact wording of t o p i c s i s c o n t a i n e d in Appendix A. Topic One concerned the q u e s t i o n of whether c h i l d r e n should be allowed to go to school when they want to and do what they l i k e when they get t h e r e . T h i s t o p i c was d e r i v e d from W i l k i n s o n (1980) who used t h i s t o p i c to e l i c i t w r i t t e n o p i n i o n essays i n the C r e d i t o n p r o j e c t , a study i n v o l v i n g c l o s e to one hundred students i n a primary and lower-secondary s c h o o l i n England. A s i m i l a r t o p i c was a l s o used by Bracewell 61 et a l . (1978). When t h i s t o p i c was p i l o t e d with students i n grades 5 and 9, the grade nine students were confused by the term children and p r e f e r r e d to be r e f e r r e d to as students. As a r e s u l t of experience gained through p i l o t t e s t i n g , wording of both t o p i c s was a p p r o p r i a t e l y a d j u s t e d f o r grade l e v e l . Topic Two concerned the a v a i l a b i l i t y of f i v e hundred d o l l a r s f o r the student's c l a s s to spend. T h i s t o p i c was chosen because, i n the experience of the i n v e s t i g a t o r , the a l l o c a t i o n of money has been found to be an a p p r o p r i a t e t o p i c f o r w r i t t e n argument f o r both elementary and h i g h - s c h o o l s t u d e n t s . At each grade l e v e l , t here were two d i f f e r e n t assignments f o r each of two t o p i c s , o*ne assignment f o r a best f r i e n d audience and one f o r a teacher audience. Each assignment was s t a p l e d to two p i e c e s of l e g a l s i z e paper l i n e d on both s i d e s . Procedure P r i o r to the f i r s t w r i t i n g assignment, the i n v e s t i g a t o r v i s i t e d each p a r t i c i p a t i n g teacher t o ensure that students would r e c e i v e the same i n s t r u c t i o n s . The teachers were to e x p l a i n to t h e i r students that they were going to take part i n a study of the w r i t i n g of students at elementary and secondary s c h o o l s i n Vancouver; they were going to w r i t e four compositions on two t o p i c s f o r d i f f e r e n t audiences; t h e i r 62 w r i t i n g would not be returned to them; the i n v e s t i g a t o r would inform t h e i r teacher about how they had performed; and they were to do. t h e i r best w r i t i n g at a l l times. The i n v e s t i g a t o r d e l i v e r e d the a p p r o p r i a t e number of assignments to each teacher each week. As the number of students i n each of the two grade eleven c l a s s e s was appropximately the same, and the number of students i n each of the two elementary schools was approximately the same, c o u n t e r b a l a n c i n g was achieved by a d m i n i s t e r i n g the same assignment to a l l of the students i n i n t a c t c l a s s e s at both grades 6 and 11. Only one form of a given assignment was ad m i n i s t e r e d to a given c l a s s i n a given s e s s i o n . Assignments were ad m i n i s t e r e d by the r e g u l a r teacher who d i s t r i b u t e d the assignments and i s s u e d b r i e f , s t a n d a r d i z e d i n s t r u c t i o n s on each of the four weekly w r i t i n g o c c a s i o n s . The i n v e s t i g a t o r v i s i t e d each classroom on one of four w r i t i n g o c c a s i o n s to ensure that i n s t r u c t i o n s were u n i f o r m l y adhered t o . Each s u b j e c t wrote one composition on each of four s e s s i o n s w i t h i n a four week p e r i o d . Each w r i t i n g s e s s i o n l a s t e d f o r t y minutes. Not a l l s u b j e c t s r e q u i r e d the f u l l time. No a s s i s t a n c e was given by the teacher u n l e s s a student was unable to read the assignment. Help was then given only i n reading the assignment. No feedback was given to the students while the experiment was i n pr o c e s s . Students who 63 missed w r i t i n g assignments were allowed to make up assignments in c l a s s time under the s u p e r v i s i o n of t h e i r t e a c h e r . Within a two-week p e r i o d f o l l o w i n g the f i n a l w r i t i n g assignment, the i n v e s t i g a t o r v i s i t e d each classroom to thank the students f o r t h e i r c o - o p e r a t i o n and to read examples of c o n v i n c i n g arguments to them. To comply with the grade 11 te a c h e r ' s request that students r e c e i v e a grade f o r t h e i r w r i t i n g , the i n v e s t i g a t o r a s s i g n e d one grade c o v e r i n g a l l four compositions f o r each student i n grade 11. Scor ing The Taxonomy of Language F u n c t i o n s and Sub-Functions A m o d i f i e d form of the scheme developed by Shafer et a l . (1983) was'used i n the present study. Because the Shafer et a l . system was intended f o r the a n a l y s i s of o r a l r a t h e r than w r i t t e n language, the f o l l o w i n g m o d i f i c a t i o n s were made: a) the c a t e g o r i e s Shafer et a l . l a b e l Asserting and Mai nt ai ni ng Social Needs and Forecasting and Reasoning were l a b e l e d Relational ( a f t e r Tough, 1977) and Theorizing ( a f t e r Kinneavy, 1971) r e s p e c t i v e l y because these terms are a p p r o p r i a t e to w r i t t e n language; and b) the category Shafer et a l . l a b e l Informing was broadened to i n c l u d e Interpreting ( a f t e r Tough, 1977). The f o l l o w i n g Taxonomy of Language Functions and Sub-Functions was d e r i v e d from experience with p i l o t d a ta: 64 Taxonomy of Language F u n c t i o n s and Sub-Functions Fu n c t i o n 1 ( C o n t r o l l i n g ) ( i ) D i r e c t i n s t r u c t i o n s to reader ( i i ) Attempts to c o n t r o l reader ( i i i ) Requests for d i r e c t i o n ( i v ) Requests f o r a t t e n t i o n (v) Requests f o r c o l l a b o r a t i o n F u n c t i o n 2 ( R e l a t i o n a l ) ( i ) A s s e r t i n g negative o p i n i o n s ( i i ) A s s e r t i n g p o s i t i v e o p i n i o n s ( i i i ) R h e t o r i c a l requests f o r o p i n i o n or d i r e c t i o n ( i v ) I n c i d e n t a l c o n v e r s a t i o n a l e x p r e s s i o n s F u n c t i o n 3 (Informing and I n t e r p r e t i n g ) ( i ) Reporting the present ( i i ) Recording the past ( i i i ) Maing comparisons ( i v ) Making g e n e r a l i z a t i o n s (v) R h e t o r i c a l requests f o r i n f o r m a t i o n ( v i ) Informing about assignment Fu n c t i o n 4 ( T h e o r i z i n g ) ( i ) Recognizing c a u s a l and dependent r e l a t i o n s h i p s ( i i ) Surveying p o s s i b i l i t i e s , a n t i c i p a t i n g problems and s o l u t i o n s , drawing c o n c l u s i o n s ( i i i ) R h e t o r i c a l q u e s t i o n s i n v o l v i n g p r e d i c t i o n s ( i v ) R e f l e c t i n g on reasoning, e v a l u a t i n g ideas F u n c t i o n 5 ( P r o j e c t i n g ) ( i ) P r o j e c t i n g s e l f i n t o experience of others ( i i ) P r o j e c t i n g s e l f i n t o s i t u a t i o n never experienced ( i i i ) R h e t o r i c a l q u e s t i o n s i n v o l v i n g p r o j e c t i n g or imagining/ C r e a t i n g s c e n a r i o 65 M a t e r i a l f o r Scorers Two packages of m a t e r i a l were prepared f o r s c o r e r s . One package c o n t a i n e d an i n s t r u c t i o n sheet e n t i t l e d Instructions for Dividing Compositions into Idea Units, and a sample of a composition d i v i d e d i n t o idea u n i t s . Copies are contained i n Appendices B and C. The second package c o n t a i n e d two i n s t r u c t i o n sheets e n t i t l e d Instructions for Identifying Language Functions, and Examples of Language Functions and Sub-Functions, and a sample of a scored composition. These m a t e r i a l s were d e r i v e d from Shafer et a l . (1983). Copies of. these m a t e r i a l s are c o n t a i n e d i n Appendices D, E, and F.. Sc o r i n g Procedure In p r e p a r a t i o n f o r s c o r i n g , o r i g i n a l w r i t t e n compositions were typed. No changes were made to o r i g i n a l compositions i n s p e l l i n g . Garbles were d u p l i c a t e d as c l o s e to the o r i g i n a l as was p o s s i b l e . A l l names were removed or changed. A l l s a l u t a t i o n s and c l o s i n g s were d e l e t e d . Each composition was f i r s t segmented i n t o idea u n i t s , a s l i g h t departure from Shafer et a l . (1983) who suggest that d i s c o u r s e should be segmented i n t o statements b e f o r e i t i s analy s e d a c c o r d i n g to f u n c t i o n . Because the term c o u l d be i n t e r p r e t e d to mean a type of sentence, i t was decid e d that the more general term idea unit should be used. The idea u n i t i s commonly used i n readi n g r e s e a r c h (Fodor & Bever, 1965; 66 Johnson, 1965), and i s d e f i n e d as a phrase or sentence that r e p r e s e n t s a s i n g l e thought or u n i t of i n f o r m a t i o n (Reynolds & Schwartz, 1979). Chafe (1982) suggests that the idea u n i t in w r i t t e n language i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d by " i n t e g r a t i v e " grammatical d e v i c e s such as n o m i n a l i z a t i o n , p a r t i c i p l e s , c o n j o i n e d phrases, s e r i e s , sequences of p r e p o s i t i o n a l phrases, complement c l a u s e s and r e l a t i v e c l a u s e s (p. 44). Chafe's d e f i n i t i o n of the idea u n i t was i n c o r p o r a t e d i n the m a t e r i a l f o r s c o r e r s used i n the present study. Rules f o r segmenting are c o n t a i n e d i n Appendix B. Segmentation was performed by two experienced t e a c h e r s of E n g l i s h who had advanced degrees i n education and e x t e n s i v e t e a c h i n g experience, one at both the secondary and the u n i v e r s i t y l e v e l , and the other at the elementary and the u n i v e r s i t y l e v e l . S c o r e r s were b l i n d with r e s p e c t to hypotheses of the study. Both s c o r e r s segmented a l l compos i t i o n s . A f t e r a t r a i n i n g s e s s i o n using p i l o t data, i n t e r - s c o r e r r e l i a b i l i t y c o e f f i c i e n t s were c a l c u l a t e d as .88 using the commonly accepted g e n e r a l formula agrees/(agrees + d i s a g r e e s ) (House, House & Campbell, 1981). I n t e r - s c o r e r r e l i a b i l i t y when approximately h a l f of the compositions had been d i v i d e d i n t o idea u n i t s was .86. I n t e r - s c o r e r r e l i a b i l i t y f o r the e n t i r e corpus was .93. Disagreements were r e s o l v e d through three-way n e g o t i a t i o n 67 i n v o l v i n g both s c o r e r s and the i n v e s t i g a t o r . Procedures f o r n e g o t i a t i o n were d e r i v e d from K e i s l e r (1973). R e s o l u t i o n was achieved by d i s c u s s i o n , and by re f e r e n c e to m a t e r i a l used i n t r a i n i n g s e s s i o n s . The i n v e s t i g a t o r took p a r t only when s c o r e r s c o u l d not achieve r e s o l u t i o n . With the exce p t i o n of at l e a s t one composition by each of two students, s c o r e r s were able to r e s o l v e v i r t u a l l y a l l disagreements, the m a j o r i t y r e s u l t i n g from f a i l u r e to recognize compound sentences. Two complete s e t s by s i x t h grade students were d i s c a r d e d at t h i s phase because of a high r a t e of i n t e r - s c o r e r disagreement on segmentation, and a consensus that at l e a s t one composition i n each set was incomprehensible. A f t e r the d i s c a r d s d e s c r i b e d above, the number of complete s e t s a v a i l a b l e f o r f u r t h e r a n a l y s i s was, 50 at grade 6 and 59 at grade 1 1 . Idea u n i t s were then c a t e g o r i z e d a c c o r d i n g to su b - f u n c t i o n on the Taxonomy of Language F u n c t i o n s . Procedures f o r i d e n t i f y i n g the su b - f u n c t i o n used were based on the work of Shafer et a l . (1983). Appendix D c o n t a i n s a copy of Instructions for Identifying Language Fund i ons. C a t e g o r i z a t i o n was performed by two experienced teachers of E n g l i s h who had advanced degrees and ex t e n s i v e t e a c h i n g e x p e r i e n c e . Both had some f a m i l i a r i t y with t h e o r i e s about language f u n c t i o n s , and an i n t e r e s t i n w r i t t e n language. S c o r e r s were b l i n d with res p e c t to hypotheses of the study. 68 Both s c o r e r s c a t e g o r i z e d a l l compositions. A f t e r a t r a i n i n g s e s s i o n using p i l o t data, i n t e r - s c o r e r r e l i a b i l i t y was .80. Both s c o r e r s scored a l l compositions. Because s c o r i n g took many weeks, two weeks a f t e r the i n i t i a l t r a i n i n g , a b r i e f r e t r a i n i n g s e s s i o n was h e l d u s i n g p i l o t data to ensure that " s c o r e r d r i f t " had not o c c u r r e d . I n t e r - s c o r e r r e l i a b i l i t y when approximately h a l f of the compositions had been scored was .79. I n t e r - s c o r e r r e l i a b i l i t y f o r the e n t i r e corpus was .83. Of a t o t a l of 5813 u n i t s , agreement on s u b - f u n c t i o n and f u n c t i o n was reached on 4877 (83%) u n i t s . Agreement on f u n c t i o n "and disagreement on s u b - f u n c t i o n o c c u r r e d f o r 181 (3%) u n i t s , and disagreement on both s u b - f u n c t i o n and f u n c t i o n o c c u r r e d on 755 (13%) u n i t s . Where there ,was i n i t i a l disagreement, agreement was reached through n e g o t i a t i o n i n v o l v i n g both s c o r e r s and the i n v e s t i g a t o r u s i n g procedures d e s c r i b e d by K e i s l e r , 1973. Agreement was reached by d i s c u s s i o n and by r e f e r e n c e to t r a i n i n g m a t e r i a l . The i n v e s t i g a t o r took p a r t only when s c o r e r s c o u l d not achieve r e s o l u t i o n . 69 Data Each composition i n i t s e n t i r e t y was examined for v a r i a t i o n in language f u n c t i o n . The f o l l o w i n g scores were c a l c u l a t e d f o r each composition: 1. T o t a l number of idea u n i t s . 2. Number of idea u n i t s of each of the f i v e language f u n c t i o n s : F u n c t i o n 1 ( C o n t r o l l i n g ) , F u n c t i o n 2 ( R e l a t i o n a l ) , F u n c t i o n 3 (Informing and I n t e r p r e t i n g ) , F u n c t i o n 4 ( T h e o r i z i n g ) , F u n c t i o n 5 ( P r o j e c t i n g ) . 3. The r a t i o of idea u n i t s of a given f u n c t i o n to the t o t a l number of idea u n i t s . 4. Number of idea u n i t s of each of the s u b - f u n c t i o n s of the f i v e language f u n c t i o n s . 5. Number of language f u n c t i o n s used. Experimental Design The design was a mixed f a c t o r i a l experiment with repeated measures on audience and t o p i c . Grade served as a between s u b j e c t s f a c t o r . The independent v a r i a b l e s were grade, andience and t o p i c . The dependent v a r i a b l e s were the p r o p o r t i o n of idea u n i t s belonging to each of the f i v e language f u n c t i o n s : (a) C o n t r o l l i n g , (b) R e l a t i o n a l , (c) 70 Informing and I n t e r p r e t i n g , (d) T h e o r i z i n g and (e) P r o j e c t i n g ; and the number of d i f f e r e n t language f u n c t i o n s used. Two t o p i c s were used because t o p i c e f f e c t s are common in r e s e a r c h on composition; as long ago as the Braddock Report (Braddock et a l . , 1963), r e s e a r c h e r s have been a d v i s e d to use at l e a s t two t o p i c s . A n a l y s i s of the Data The f o l l o w i n g analyses were performed: 1. An a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e (ANOVA) was used to examine the e f f e c t s of audience, at two l e v e l s , and t o p i c , at two l e v e l s , as w i t h i n s u b j e c t s f a c t o r s , and grade, at two l e v e l s , as a between s u b j e c t s f a c t o r , on the number of d i f f e r e n t f u n c t i o n s used. R e s u l t s were t e s t e d at the .05 l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e . 2. A m u l t i v a r i a t e a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e (MANOVA) was used to examine the e f f e c t s of audience, at two l e v e l s , and t o p i c , at two l e v e l s , as w i t h i n s u b j e c t s f a c t o r s , and grade, at two l e v e l s , as a between s u b j e c t s f a c t o r , on the p r o p o r t i o n of idea u n i t s for each of the f i v e f u n c t i o n s . The dependent v a r i a b l e s were: a. The p r o p o r t i o n of idea u n i t s c a t e g o r i z e d as F u n c t i o n 1 ( C o n t r o l l i n g ) b. The p r o p o r t i o n of idea u n i t s c a t e g o r i z e d as F u n c t i o n 71 2 ( R e l a t i o n a l ) c. The p r o p o r t i o n of idea u n i t s c a t e g o r i z e d as Fun c t i o n 3 (Informing and I n t e r p r e t i n g ) d. The p r o p o r t i o n of idea u n i t s c a t e g o r i z e d as Fu n c t i o n 4 ( T h e o r i z i n g ) e. The p r o p o r t i o n of idea u n i t s c a t e g o r i z e d as Fu n c t i o n 5 ( P r o j e c t i n g ) Follow-up ANOVAs were used to i d e n t i f y the f u n c t i o n s which were the sources of s i g n i f i c a n t MANOVA e f f e c t s . R e s u l t s were t e s t e d f o r s i g n i f i c a n c e at the .05 l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e . 3. A MANOVA was used f o r each language f u n c t i o n f o r which there was a s i g n i f i c a n t main e f f e c t i n (2) above in order to i d e n t i f y the s u b - f u n c t i o n s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r the main e f f e c t s . The a n a l y s i s was used to examine the e f f e c t s of audience, at two l e v e l s , and t o p i c , at two l e v e l s , as w i t h i n s u b j e c t s f a c t o r s , and grade, at two l e v e l s , as a between s u b j e c t s f a c t o r , on the p r o p o r t i o n of idea u n i t s f o r each of the s u b - f u n c t i o n s . The dependent v a r i a b l e s f o r each of these MANOVAs were the p r o p o r t i o n s of idea u n i t s f o r each s u b - f u n c t i o n of the r e l e v a n t language f u n c t i o n . Follow-up ANOVAs were used to i d e n t i f y the su b - f u n c t i o n s which were the sources of s i g n i f i c a n t MANOVA e f f e c t s . R e s u l t s were t e s t e d at the .01 l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e . Since a number of MANOVAs were done, a more s t r i n g e n t alpha l e v e l was used i n t e s t i n g these e f f e c t s to reduce the p r o b a b i l i t y of a Type I e r r o r . 73 CHAPTER FOUR RESULTS OF THE STUDY The purpose of t h i s study was to examine the e f f e c t of audience on the use of f i v e language f u n c t i o n s ( C o n t r o l l i n g , R e l a t i o n a l , Informing and I n t e r p r e t i n g , T h e o r i z i n g , and P r o j e c t i n g ) in w r i t t e n arguments f o r each of two audiences by students i n grades 6 and 11. Students i n the study wrote twice on each of two t o p i c s , once f o r the audience of teacher and once f o r the audience of best f r i e n d , with the order of p r e s e n t a t i o n of audiences and t o p i c s c o unterbalanced. One-hundred-nine complete s e t s of w r i t t e n arguments, 50 from students i n grade 6 and 59 by students i n grade 11, were subj e c t e d to f u n c t i o n a l a n a l y s i s using a m o d i f i e d form of a scheme suggested by Shafer, Staab and Smith (1983) f o r the a n a l y s i s of c h i l d r e n ' s o r a l language. Compositions were f i r s t d i v i d e d i n t o idea u n i t s ; each u n i t was then c a t e g o r i z e d a c c o r d i n g to f u n c t i o n and su b - f u n c t i o n using the Instructions for Identifying Language Functions d e s c r i b e d i n d e t a i l i n Appendix D. The o v e r a l l mean l e n g t h of compositions was 14.0 idea u n i t s . Mean l e n g t h , in idea u n i t s , of grade 6 compositions f o r teacher was 9.9 and f o r best f r i e n d 9.9 with an o v e r a l l mean of 9.9. Mean l e n g t h , in idea u n i t s , of grade 11 74 compositions f o r teacher was 17.6 and f o r best f r i e n d 17.3 with an o v e r a l l mean of 17.5. Table 1 p r o v i d e s means and standard d e v i a t i o n s f o r the number of idea u n i t s per composition f o r c o n d i t i o n s v a r y i n g by grade, t o p i c and audience. Table 1 Means and Standard D e v i a t i o n s f o r Idea U n i t s i n Grade by Topic by Audience C e l l s Group Grade M a r g i n a l s * Six Eleven Teacher • . (T 1) 10.8 (5.1 ) 18.7 (7.0) 15.1 (T 2) 9.1 (4.4) 16.4 (6.4) 13.1 (M) 9.9 17.6 14.1 Fr iend (T 1) 9.5 (4.8) 18.4 (6.6) 14.3 (T 2) 10.3 (4.2) 16.3 (5.9) 13.5 (M) 9.9 17.3 13.9 M a r g i n a l s 9.9 17.5 14.0 T 1: Topic One (School) T 2: Topic Two (Money) (M): Mean * i Means i n t h i s column are weighted f o r d i f f e r e n t sample s i z e s i n the two grades 75 Three a n a l y s e s were performed. 1. The number of d i f f e r e n t f u n c t i o n s used was examined by an a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e (ANOVA) with audience, at two l e v e l s , and t o p i c , at two l e v e l s , as w i t h i n - s u b j e c t s f a c t o r s , and grade, at two l e v e l s , as a between-subjects f a c t o r . 2. The p r o p o r t i o n a l use of each of the f i v e language f u n c t i o n s was examined by a m u l t i v a r i a t e a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e (MANOVA) with audience, at two l e v e l s , and t o p i c , at two levels., as w i t h i n - s u b j e c t s f a c t o r s , and grade, at two l e v e l s , as a between-subjects f a c t o r . Follow-up ANOVAs were used to i d e n t i f y the f u n c t i o n s which were the sources of s i g n i f i c a n t MANOVA e f f e c t s . 3. The p r o p o r t i o n a l use of each of the s u b - f u n c t i o n s of f u n c t i o n s f o r which there was a main e f f e c t i n (2) above was examined using m u l t i v a r i a t e a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e (MANOVA) with audience, at two l e v e l s , and t o p i c , at two l e v e l s , as w i t h i n - s u b j e c t s f a c t o r s , and grade, at two l e v e l s as a between-subjects f a c t o r . Follow-up ANOVAs were used t o i d e n t i f y the su b - f u n c t i o n s which were the sources of s i g n i f i c a n t MANOVA e f f e c t s . Four hypotheses were t e s t e d with respect to audience e f f e c t s . No hypotheses were formulated with res p e c t t o grade or t o p i c . However, grade and t o p i c e f f e c t s were found. A c c o r d i n g l y , the f i n d i n g s of the study are re p o r t e d under the 76 f o l l o w i n g headings: 1. Audience E f f e c t 2. Grade E f f e c t 3. Topic E f f e c t In the f o l l o w i n g s e c t i o n s , only those e f f e c t s f o r which there was a s i g n i f i c a n t f i n d i n g are r e p o r t e d . N o n - s i g n i f i c a n t f i n d i n g s are not r e p o r t e d . Audience E f f e c t Hypothesis 1 The v a r i e t y of language f u n c t i o n s (number of d i f f e r e n t f u n c t i o n s used) w i l l be g r e a t e r f o r the audience of best f r i e n d than f o r the audience of teacher in compositions w r i t t e n by e l e v e n t h - and s i x t h - g r a d e students The ANOVA used to examine the number of d i f f e r e n t f u n c t i o n s used showed a s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t f o r audience. I n s p e c t i o n of the means r e v e a l e d that f o r students in both grades, more d i f f e r e n t language f u n c t i o n s were used i n compositions w r i t t e n f o r the audience of best f r i e n d than i n compositions w r i t t e n f o r the audience of teacher (2.6 versus 2.3) (F=14.98, df = 1,l07, p_<• 0 1 ) • Hypothesis 1 was t h e r e f o r e accepted. Hypothesis 2 The p r o p o r t i o n of idea u n i t s of F u n c t i o n 2 ( R e l a t i o n a l ) w i l l be g r e a t e r f o r the audience of best f r i e n d than the audience of teacher i n compositions w r i t t e n by e l e v e n t h - and s i x t h - g r a d e students. 77 Hypothesis 3 The p r o p o r t i o n of idea u n i t s of Fun c t i o n 3 (Informing and I n t e r p r e t i n g ) w i l l be gr e a t e r f o r the audience of best f r i e n d than the audience of teacher i n compositions w r i t t e n by e l e v e n t h - and six t h - g r a d e s t u d e n t s . Hypothesis 4 The p r o p o r t i o n of idea u n i t s of F u n c t i o n 4 ( T h e o r i z i n g ) w i l l be gr e a t e r f o r the audience of teacher than f o r the audience of best f r i e n d i n compositions w r i t t e n by e l e v e n t h - and s i x t h - g r a d e students. The MANOVA used to examine the p r o p o r t i o n a l use of language f u n c t i o n s showed a s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t f o r audience ( F = 5 . 9 8 , d f = 6 , l 0 2 , p_< . 0 1 ) . The follo w - u p u n i v a r i a t e ANOVAs i n d i c a t e d s i g n i f i c a n t audience e f f e c t s f o r Fun c t i o n 1 ( C o n t r o l l i n g ) ( F = 9 . 1 9 , d f = 1 , l 0 7 , p < . 0 l ) , F u n c t i o n 2 ( R e l a t i o n a l ) (F=8.76, d f = 1 , 1 0 7 , p _ < . 0 l ) , and F u n c t i o n 4 ( T h e o r i z i n g ) ( F = 1 5 . 3 9 , d f = 1 , l 0 7 , ^<.0)). I n s p e c t i o n of the means ( r e p o r t e d i n Table 2 ) r e v e a l e d t h a t , f o r the R e l a t i o n a l f u n c t i o n , the p r o p o r t i o n of idea u n i t s i n w r i t i n g addressed to a b e s t - f r i e n d audience was s i g n i f i c a n t l y g r e a t e r than the p r o p o r t i o n of idea u n i t s addressed to a teacher audience ( . 0 8 versus . 0 3 ) . Hypothesis 2 was t h e r e f o r e accepted. For the T h e o r i z i n g f u n c t i o n , the p r o p o r t i o n of idea u n i t s i n w r i t i n g addressed to a teacher was s i g n i f i c a n t l y g r e a t e r than the p r o p o r t i o n of idea u n i t s addressed to a best f r i e n d ( . 5 6 versus . 4 7 ) . Hypothesis 4 was t h e r e f o r e accepted. 78 There was no s i g n i f i c a n t audience e f f e c t f o r F u n c t i o n 3 (Informing and I n t e r p r e t i n g ) . T h e r e f o r e , hypothesis 3 was r e j e c t e d . In a d d i t i o n to the hypothesized d i f f e r e n c e s , there was a s i g n i f i c a n t audience e f f e c t f o r the C o n t r o l l i n g f u n c t i o n (F=9.19, df = 1 . 107, p_<.0l.) I n s p e c t i o n of the means r e v e a l e d that the p r o p o r t i o n of idea u n i t s with a C o n t r o l l i n g f u n c t i o n was s i g n i f i c a n t l y g r e a t e r i n compositions addressed to a best f r i e n d than i n compositions addressed to a teacher (.08 versus .05) . Table 2 Means, Standard D e v i a t i o n s , and F S t a t i s t i c s f o r Use of Functions f o r Two Audiences Funct ion Audience Follow-up ANOVAs Teacher F r i e n d F £ F 1 .05 (.10) .08 (.12) 9.19 <.01 F 2 .03 ( .09) .08 ( .21 ) 8.76 <.01 F 3 .28 (.27) .27 ( .27) .16 .687 F 4 .56 ( .33) .47 ( .34) 1 5.39 <.01 F 5 .07 ( .20) . 1 1 ( .26) 3.11 .081 F 1: F u n c t i o n 1 ( C o n t r o l l i n g ) F 2: F u n c t i o n 2 ( R e l a t i o n a l ) F 3: F u n c t i o n 3 (Informing and I n t e r p r e t i n g ) F 4: F u n c t i o n 4 ( T h e o r i z i n g ) F 5: Fu n c t i o n 5 ( P r o j e c t i n g ) 79 In t h e s e c o n d a r y a n a l y s i s , f o r e a c h of t h e l a n g u a g e f u n c t i o n s f o r w h i c h t h e r e was a s i g n i f i c a n t a u d i e n c e e f f e c t ( namely F u n c t i o n 1, F u n c t i o n 2 and F u n c t i o n 4 ) , a s e p a r a t e MANOVA w i t h f o l l o w - u p ANOVAs was u s e d t o i d e n t i f y t h e s u b - f u n c t i o n s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e main e f f e c t f o r a u d i e n c e on t h e r e s p e c t i v e f u n c t i o n . A s i g n i f i c a n t . a u d i e n c e e f f e c t was f o u n d f o r t h e MANOVAs on F u n c t i o n 1 ( C o n t r o l l i n g ) (F=3.92, d f = 5 , l 0 3 , p < . 0 l ) , F u n c t i o n 2 ( R e l a t i o n a l ) (F=4.15, df = 4,1(D4, P<.01), and F u n c t i o n 4 ( T h e o r i z i n g ) (F=4.77, df = 4,1(D4, p < . 0 l ) . The f o l l o w - u p u n i v a r i a t e ANOVAs r e v e a l e d t h a t , f o r F u n c t i o n 1 ( C o n t r o l l i n g ) , A u d i e n c e e x e r t e d a s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t on F u n c t i o n 1 ( v ) . F o r F u n c t i o n 2 ( R e l a t i o n a l ) , a u d i e n c e e x e r t e d a s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t on F 2 ( i i i ) . F o r F u n c t i o n 4, a u d i e n c e e x e r t e d a s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t on F 4 ( i i ) . (See T a b l e G 2 ) . I n s p e c t i o n of t h e means ( r e p o r t e d i n T a b l e s G3, G4 and G5 i n A p p e n d i x G) r e v e a l e d t h a t s t u d e n t s a t b o t h g r a d e s u s e d more of F 1 (v) ( r e q u e s t s f o r c o l l a b o r a t i o n ) , and F 2 ( i i i ) ( r h e t o r i c a l r e q u e s t s f o r o p i n i o n o r d i r e c t i o n ) f o r t h e a u d i e n c e o f b e s t f r i e n d t h a n f o r t h e a u d i e n c e o f t e a c h e r (.02 v e r s u s .01, and .02 v e r s u s .01, r e s p e c t i v e l y ) . S t u d e n t s a t b o t h g r a d e s u s e d more of F 4 ( i i ) ( s u r v e y i n g p o s s i b i l i t i e s , a n t i c i p a t i n g p r o b l e m s and s o l u t i o n s , d r a w i n g c o n c l u s i o n s ) f o r t h e a u d i e n c e of t e a c h e r t h a n f o r t h e a u d i e n c e o f b e s t f r i e n d (.36 v e r s u s . 2 8 ) . 80 Grade E f f e c t The ANOVA used to examine the number of d i f f e r e n t f u n c t i o n s used d i d not show a s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t f o r grade. The MANOVA used to examine the p r o p o r t i o n a l use of language f u n c t i o n s showed s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t s f o r grade (F=12.78, df=6,l02, 2 < « 0 1 ) - T h e follow-up u n i v a r i a t e ANOVAs of grade e f f e c t s i n d i c a t e d s i g n i f i c a n t grade e f f e c t s f o r Fun c t i o n 2 ( R e l a t i o n a l ) (F= 11.62, df= 1,107, p_<.0l), Function 3 (Informing and I n t e r p r e t i n g ) (F=36.58, df_=1,l07, p_<.0l), and Fun c t i o n 4 ( T h e o r i z i n g ) (F=38.12, df=1,107, p < - 0 1 ) * I n s p e c t i o n of the means (r e p o r t e d i n Table 3) r e v e a l e d that s i x t h - g r a d e students used F 2 ( R e l a t i o n a l ) and F 3 (Informing and I n t e r p r e t i n g ) p r o p o r t i o n a l l y more o f t e n than d i d , eleventh-grade students (.09 versus .03, and .36 versus .19 r e s p e c t i v e l y ) . Eleventh-grade students used F 4 ( T h e o r i z i n g ) p r o p o r t i o n a l l y more o f t e n than d i d s i x t h - g r a d e students (.63 versus .40). 81 Table 3 Means, Standard D e v i a t i o n s and F S t a t i s t i c s f o r Use of Func t i o n s at Two Grades Fun c t i o n s Grade Follow-up ANOVAs Six Eleven F p F 1 .08 (.08) .05 (.08) 2.86 .094 F 2 .09 (.22) .03 (.07) 11.62 < .01 F 3 .36 (.29) .19 (.21) 36.58 < .01 F 4 .40 ( .31) .63 ( .33) 38.12 < .01 F 5 .08 (.21) .TO (.24) .68 .412 F 1 : F u n c t i o n 1 ( C o n t r o l l i n g ) F 2: F u n c t i o n 2 ( R e l a t i o n a l ) F 3: F u n c t i o n 3 (Informing and I n t e r p r e t i n g ) F 4: F u n c t i o n 4 ( T h e o r i z i n g ) F 5: F u n c t i o n 5 ( P r o j e c t i n g ) In the secondary a n a l y s i s u s i n g s u b - f u n c t i o n s , a s i g n i f i c a n t grade e f f e c t was found f o r the MANOVAs of F u n c t i o n 2 ( R e l a t i o n a l ) (F=5.95, df=4,l04, p_< .01), F u n c t i o n 3 (Informing and I n t e r p r e t i n g ) (F = 1 1 . 54 , df = 6,l02, p_<.0l), and Fun c t i o n 4 ( T h e o r i z i n g ) (F=24.52, df=4,l04, p_<.0l). T n e f o l l o w - u p ANOVAs r e v e a l e d that f o r Fun c t i o n 2 ( R e l a t i o n a l ) , grade e x e r t e d a s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t on F 2 ( i i ) , and F 2 ( i i i ) . For F u n c t i o n 3 (Informing and I n t e r p r e t i n g ) , grade exerted a s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t on F 3 ( v i ) ; f o r Fu n c t i o n 4 ( T h e o r i z i n g ) , grade e x e r t e d a s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t on F 4 ( i i ) and F 4 ( i v ) . 82 I n s p e c t i o n of the means ( r e p o r t e d i n Tables G6, G7 and G8 i n Appendix G) r e v e a l e d t h a t students i n grade 6 used p r o p o r t i o n a l l y more of F 2 ( i i ) ( a s s e r t i n g p o s i t i v e o p i n i o n s ) , F 2 ( i i i ) ( r h e t o r i c a l requests f o r o p i n i o n or d i r e c t i o n ) , and F 3 ( v i ) ( i n f o r m i n g about t o p i c ) than d i d grade 11 students (.02 versus .01, and .02 versus <.01, and .19 versus .05, r e s p e c t i v e l y ) ; students i n grade 11 used more of F 4 ( i i ) (s u r v e y i n g p o s s i b i l i t i e s , a n t i c i p a t i n g problems and s o l u t i o n s , drawing c o n c l u s i o n s ) , and F 4 ( i v ) ( r e f l e c t i n g on reasoning, e v a l u a t i n g ideas) (.40 versus .24, and .11 versus .04) than d i d grade 6 students. Topic E f f e c t The ANOVA used to examine the number of d i f f e r e n t f u n c t i o n s used showed a s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t f o r t o p i c . I n s p e c t i o n of the means r e v e a l e d that f o r students at both grades, more d i f f e r e n t f u n c t i o n s were used in compositions on Topic 2 (Money) than on Topic 1 (School) (2.54 versus 2.39) (F = 4.26, df = 1,l07, p_<-05). The MANOVA used to examine the p r o p o r t i o n a l use of the language f u n c t i o n s showed s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t s f o r t o p i c (F=20.32, df = 6,l02, p_<'01)' Follow-up u n i v a r i a t e ANOVAs of t o p i c e f f e c t s i n d i c a t e d s i g n i f i c a n t u n i v a r i a t e e f f e c t s f o r F u n c t i o n 1 ( C o n t r o l l i n g ) (F=44.29, df=1,107, £<.0]), Function 3 (Informing and I n t e r p r e t i n g ) , (F=52.62, df = 1 ,107, p_<.0l), 83 and F u n c t i o n 4 ( T h e o r i z i n g ) (F=43.76, df=1,107, p<.0l). I n s p e c t i o n of the means ( r e p o r t e d i n Table 4) r e v e a l e d that Topic 2 (Money) produced s i g n i f i c a n t l y g r e a t e r use of the C o n t r o l l i n g f u n c t i o n (.09 versus .04), and the Informing and I n t e r p r e t i n g f u n c t i o n (.36 versus .19), while Topic 1 (School) produced s i g n i f i c a n t l y g r e a t e r use of the T h e o r i z i n g f u n c t i o n (.62 versus .41). Table 4 Means, Standard D e v i a t i o n s and F S t a t i s t i c s f o r Use of Functions Across Audiences and Grades Fun c t i o n Topic Follow-up ANOVAs School Money F p_ F 1 .04 ( .08) .09 (. 13) 44.29 <.01 F 2 .06 (.20) .05 ( . 1 1 ) .42 .5183 F 3 . 1 9 ( .21 ) .36 ( . 29) 52.62 <.01 F 4 .62 (.31 ) .41 ( . 34) 43.76 <.01 F 5 .10 ( .23) .08 ( . 22) 1.14 .288 F 1 : Func t i o n 1 ( C o n t r o l l i n g ) F 2: Function 2 ( R e l a t i o n a l ) F 3: Fun c t i o n 3 (Informing and I n t e r p r e t ing) F 4: Fu n c t i o n 4 ( T h e o r i z i n g ) F 5: Fu n c t i o n 5 ( P r o j e c t ing) In the secondary a n a l y s i s u s i n g s u b - f u n c t i o n s , a s i g n i f i c a n t t o p i c effec-t was found f o r the MANOVAs of Fun c t i o n 1 ( C o n t r o l l i n g ) (F = 11.41, df = 5,l03, |>=<.0l). F u n c t i o n 2 84 ( R e l a t i o n a l ) (F=4.97, df=4,104, p=<.01), F u n c t i o n 3 (Informing and I n t e r p r e t i n g ) (F=21.02, df = 6, 1 02, p_<.0l), and F u n c t i o n 4 ( T h e o r i z i n g ) (F=17.63, df=4,l04, p_< . 0 1 ) . The follow-up ANOVAs re v e a l e d that f o r Fu n c t i o n 1, t o p i c e x e r t e d a s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t on F 1 ( i i ) , and F 1 ( v ) . For Function 3, t o p i c e x e r t e d a s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t on F 3 ( i ) , F 3 ( i i ) , and F 3 ( v i ) . For Function 4, t o p i c e x e r t e d a s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t on F 4 ( i ) , F 4 ( i i i ) , and F 4 ( i v ) . I n s p e c t i o n of the means ( r e p o r t e d i n Tables G9, G10 and G11 i n Appendix G) r e v e a l e d that f o r Fu n c t i o n 1, students used p r o p o r t i o n a l l y more of Fu n c t i o n 1 ( i i ) (attempts to c o n t r o l r e a d e r ) , and F u n c t i o n 1 (v) (re q u e s t s f o r c o l l a b o r a t i o n ) f o r T2 (Money) than f o r T1 (School)(.05 versus .02, and .03 versus .01, r e s p e c t i v e l y ) . For F u n c t i o n 3, students used more of F 3 ( i ) ( r e p o r t i n g the p r e s e n t ) , F 3 ( i i ) ( r e c o r d i n g the past) and F 3 ( v i ) ( i n f o r m i n g about assignment) f o r T2 (Money) than f o r T1 (School) (.07 versus .02, .02 versus <.01, and .18 versus .06, r e s p e c t i v e l y ) . For F 4, students used more of F 4 ( i ) ( r e c o g n i z i n g c a u s a l and dependent r e l a t i o n s h i p s ) , F 4 ( i i i ) ( r h e t o r i c a l q u e s t i o n s i n v o l v i n g p r e d i c t i o n ) , and F 4 ( i v ) ( r e f l e c t i n g on reasoning, e v a l u a t i n g ideas) f o r T 1 (School) than f o r T 2 (Money) (.16 versus .06, .02 versus .01, and .09 versus .05, r e s p e c t i v e l y ) . 85 Summary of Main F i n d i n g s Audience E f f e c t Audience was found to a f f e c t the use of language f u n c t i o n s i n w r i t t e n arguments by students i n both s i x t h grade and e l e v e n t h grade. More d i f f e r e n t f u n c t i o n s were used i n compositions w r i t t e n f o r the audience of best f r i e n d than i n compositions w r i t t e n f o r the audience of teacher. W r i t i n g addressed to a f r i e n d c o n t a i n e d more of Fu n c t i o n 1 ( C o n t r o l l i n g ) and Fu n c t i o n 2 ( R e l a t i o n a l ) , while w r i t i n g addressed to a teacher contained more of Fu n c t i o n 4 ( T h e o r i z i n g ) . The s u b - f u n c t i o n accounting f o r the e f f e c t of the audience of best f r i e n d on the C o n t r o l l i n g f u n c t i o n was 1 (v) (requests f o r c o l l a b o r a t i o n ) . The s u b - f u n c t i o n a c c o u n t i n g f o r the e f f e c t of the audience of best f r i e n d on the R e l a t i o n a l f u n c t i o n was 2 ( i i i ) ( r h e t o r i c a l requests f o r o p i n i o n or d i r e c t i o n ) . The s u b - f u n c t i o n accounting f o r the e f f e c t of audience of teacher on the T h e o r i z i n g f u n c t i o n was 4 ( i i ) ( s u r v e y i n g p o s s i b i l i t i e s , a n t i c i p a t i n g problems and s o l u t i o n s and drawing c o n c l u s i o n s ) . Grade E f f e c t Grade was found to a f f e c t the use of language f u n c t i o n s in w r i t t e n arguments. Students i n grade 6 used more of F u n c t i o n 2 ( R e l a t i o n a l ) and F u n c t i o n 3 (Informing and I n t e r p r e t i n g ) than d i d grade 11 students, and grade 11 86 students used more of the F u n c t i o n 4 ( T h e o r i z i n g ) than d i d grade 6 s t u d e n t s . The s u b - f u n c t i o n accounting f o r the e f f e c t of grade on Fu n c t i o n 2 ( R e l a t i o n a l ) was F 2 ( i i ) ( a s s e r t i n g p o s i t i v e o p i n i o n s ) . The s u b - f u n c t i o n accounting f o r the e f f e c t of grade on Function 3 (Informing and I n t e r p r e t i n g ) was F 3 ( v i ) (i n f o r m i n g about assignment). Sub-functions a c c o u n t i n g f o r the e f f e c t of grade on the Fu n c t i o n 4 ( T h e o r i z i n g ) were 4 ( i i ) ( s u r v e y i n g p o s s i b i l i t i e s , a n t i c i p a t i n g problems and s o l u t i o n s , drawing c o n c l u s i o n s ) , and 4 ( i v ) ( r e f l e c t i n g on reasoning, e v a l u a t i n g i d e a s ) . Topic E f f e c t Topic was found to a f f e c t the use of language f u n c t i o n s i n compositions w r i t t e n by students at both grade' l e v e l s . More d i f f e r e n t f u n c t i o n s were used i n compositions on Topic 2 (Money) than on Topic 1 ( S c h o o l ) . Students used more of F u n c t i o n 4 ( T h e o r i z i n g ) f o r Topic 1 (S c h o o l ) , and more of F u n c t i o n 1 ( C o n t r o l l i n g ) and F u n c t i o n 3 (Informing and I n t e r p r e t i n g ) f o r Topic 2 (Money). Sub-functions a c c o u n t i n g f o r the e f f e c t of T 1 (School) on F u n c t i o n 4 ( T h e o r i z i n g ) were 4 ( i ) ( r e c o g n i z i n g c a u s a l and dependent r e l a t i o n s h i p s ) , 4 ( i i i ) r h e t o r i c a l q u e s t i o n s i n v o l v i n g p r e d i c t i o n , and 4 ( i v ) ( r e f l e c t i n g on reasoning, e v a l u a t i n g i d e a s ) . Sub-functions a c c o u n t i n g f o r the e f f e c t s of Topic 2 (Money) on F 1 ( C o n t r o l l i n g ) were 1 ( i i ) (attempts to c o n t r o l r e a d e r ) , and 1 (v) (requests f o r c o l l a b o r a t i o n ) . Sub-functions accounting 8 7 f o r the e f f e c t of Topic 2 on Fu n c t i o n 3 (Informing and I n t e r p r e t i n g ) were 3 ( i ) ( r e p o r t i n g the p r e s e n t ) , 3 ( i i ) ( r e c o r d i n g the p a s t ) , and 3 ( v i ) (inf o r m i n g about assignment). I n t e r a c t i o n s I t should be noted that a l l i n t e r a c t i o n s were n o n s i g n i f i c a n t (see Table G l ) . The f o l l o w i n g c o n c l u s i o n s r e g a r d i n g audience e f f e c t s can be drawn: the absence of a s i g n i f i c a n t Audience by Grade i n t e r a c t i o n i n d i c a t e s that the audience e f f e c t s d i d not d i f f e r between s i x t h - g r a d e and eleventh-grade students; the absence of a s i g n i f i c a n t Audience by Topic i n t e r a c t i o n i n d i c a t e s that the audience e f f e c t s d i d not d i f f e r between compositions w r i t t e n on Topic 1 (Money) and Topic 2 ( S c h o o l ) . 88 CHAPTER FIVE DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS The q u e s t i o n examined i n t h i s study was: Are there a u d i e n c e - r e l a t e d d i f f e r e n c e s i n compositions w r i t t e n by s i x t h and e l e v e n t h graders? The measures used to examine hypothesized d i f f e r e n c e s were f i v e language f u n c t i o n s , measures d e r i v e d from o r a l language s t u d i e s . In t h i s chapter, the f i n d i n g s i n regard to the above qu e s t i o n are d i s c u s s e d w i t h i n the context of r e l a t e d r e s e a r c h , c u r r e n t composition theory and s o c i o l i n g u i s t i c t heory. F i n d i n g s with regard to grade and t o p i c d i f f e r e n c e s are a l s o d i s c u s s e d . C o n c l u s i o n s are presented f o l l o w e d by a d i s c u s s i o n of i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r f u r t h e r r e s e a r c h . The E f f e c t of Audience on Use of Language F u n c t i o n s Audience e f f e c t s were found i n t h i s study a c r o s s both grades. Two of the f i v e language f u n c t i o n s , C o n t r o l l i n g and R e l a t i o n a l , were used more in compositions intended f o r the audience of best f r i e n d , while one f u n c t i o n , T h e o r i z i n g , was used more i n compositions intended f o r the audience of t e a c h e r . In a d d i t i o n , more d i f f e r e n t f u n c t i o n s were used i n compositions intended f o r the audience of best f r i e n d than i n 89 compositions intended f o r the audience of teacher. Although the o v e r a l l use of the C o n t r o l l i n g f u n c t i o n was low at both grades (see Table 3 i n Chapter F o u r ) , the e f f e c t f o r audience was s i g n i f i c a n t (see Table 2 i n Chapter F o u r ) . The audience d i f f e r e n c e was found to be due, p r i m a r i l y , to.the s u b - f u n c t i o n requests for collaboration, although there were minimal d i f f e r e n c e s i n favour of the b e s t - f r i e n d audience f o r the s u b - f u n c t i o n s direct instructions to reader, attempts to control reader, and requests for attention as w e l l (See Table G3 i n Appendix G). T y p i c a l l y , requests f o r c o l l a b o r a t i o n o c c u r r e d at the end of what would c o n v e n t i o n a l l y be c a l l e d the argument: . . . i f you agree I w i l l g l a d l y say yes to something that i s reasonable. (Grade 6) . . . Le t ' s ask the committee tomorrow,, and we'11 decide i f w e ' l l get a computer. (Grade 6~5 . . . I hope you agree because I t h i n k education i s the most important t h i n g i n our l i v e s , so please agree with me i f you th i n k the same. (Grade 6) . . . I hope you agree with me Ja n i e because I cou l d n ' t do i t without you. (Grade TD . . .Since we are both on the team, we should spend the money on the th i n g s I have suggested. (Grade rn The use of requests f o r c o l l a b o r a t i o n i n compositions intended f o r the audience of best f r i e n d means that there were more r e f e r e n c e s to a shared r e l a t i o n s h i p , and more suggestions f o r 90 compromise than in compositions intended f o r the audience of tea c h e r . I t i s to be noted that t h i s s u b - f u n c t i o n does not i n c l u d e d i r e c t i m p e r a t i v e s , g r e a t e r use of which might have been expected i n compositions intended f o r the same s t a t u s audience, given t h a t , i n o r a l language, imperatives have been found to be more frequent f o r a same- or lo w e r - s t a t u s audience than f o r a h i g h e r - s t a t u s audience ( E r v i n - T r i p p , 1977). Rather than u s i n g d i r e c t i m p e r a t i v e s , students i n t h i s study used m o d i f i e d or " p o l i t e " imperatives ( f o r example using please, and h i n t s which a v o i d the agent such as "Lets go to the committee with our d e c i s i o n . " ) . The use of p o l i t e d i r e c t i v e forms f o r the same s t a t u s audience i n t h i s , study may be a t t r i b u t e d to d i f f e r e n c e s between speech and w r i t i n g . W r i t i n g i s g e n e r a l l y regarded as more e l a b o r a t e d and formal i n usage than spoken language (Chafe, 1982). The audience i s i n e v i t a b l y more " d i s t a n t " because i t i s not p r e s e n t . I t i s , t h e r e f o r e , not s u r p r i s i n g t h a t w r i t i n g i s more formal than spoken language. The use of p o l i t e d i r e c t i v e forms f o r the same-status audience may a l s o be p a r t i a l l y due to the temporary r i f t i n the s o l i d a r i t y of the f r i e n d s h i p i m p l i e d by the w r i t i n g t o p i c s . The assignments, by a s k i n g the students to "convince your reader that your o p i n i o n i s r i g h t , " i m p l i e d disagreement. I t i s p o s s i b l e that students were more p o l i t e with the same-status 91 audience than they might otherwise have been because of t h i s imaginary disagreement. The o v e r a l l use of the R e l a t i o n a l f u n c t i o n , l i k e that of the C o n t r o l l i n g f u n c t i o n , was r e l a t i v e l y low at both grades (see Table 3 i n Chapter F o u r ) ; the e f f e c t f o r audience, nonetheless, was s i g n i f i c a n t (See Table 2 i n Chapter F o u r ) . The audience d i f f e r e n c e was found to be due, p r i m a r i l y , to the sub - f u n c t i o n rhetorical requests for opinion or direction, although there were d i f f e r e n c e s i n favour of the b e s t - f r i e n d audience f o r the s u b - f u n c t i o n asserting negal i ve' opi ni ons as we l l (See Table G4 i n Appendix G). The f o l l o w i n g are examples of the s u b - f u n c t i o n rhetorical requests for opinion or direction o c c u r r i n g i n compositions intended f o r the audience of best f r i e n d . . . . The money should go towards t h i n g s that we need. Don't you agree?(Grade 6) . . . I thin k I l i k e s chool j u s t the way i t i s . Even i f we do get t e s t s and homework. What do you think about t e s t s and homework? I l i k e s c h o o l but I hate t e s t s and homework. (Grade 6) . . . I thin k the most important use f o r the money i s f i e l d t r i p s , we haven't had one a l l year! Now wouldn't i t be great to be a b l e to get out of school for a while some s p e c i a l days? (Grade 6) . . . Everyday one can hear the same words, "You people must study harder." Well who needs i t Pete. (Grade 11) If they (students) d i d what they want to do 92 when they get to s c h o o l , they would probably chew gum, s i t on top of the desk, r i p t h e i r t e x t books, do e v e r y t h i n g . Do you t h i n k so C a i t l i n ? ( G r a d e 6) . . .Do you want your school to have uniforms that are ragged and old? (Grade 11) C i n d i , what do you t h i n k about students being allowed to come to school when they want to and do whatever they want when they get there? I t h i n k i t would be great! '. '. i (Grade i l l Shafer et a l . (1983) suggest t h a t , i n o r a l language, requests f o r o p i n i o n serve the purpose of c l a r i f y i n g the o p i n i o n of the speaker, presumably because the answer r e c e i v e d helps to c l a r i f y p e r s o n a l o p i n i o n . As w r i t e r s r e c e i v e no response, i t i s u n l i k e l y that requests f o r o p i n i o n serve t h i s purpose in w r i t i n g . In o r a l d i s c u s s i o n s , such q u e s t i o n s a l s o serve to g i v e the addressee a chance to speak. T h e i r appearance in w r i t t e n compositions f o r the audience of best f r i e n d suggests that the w r i t e r s might be drawing from numerous o r a l arguments with peers. Use of the s u b - f u n c t i o n , rhetorical requests for opinion, l i k e use of requests f o r c o l l a b o r a t i o n , gave compositions intended f o r the audience of best f r i e n d an o r a l q u a l i t y l a c k i n g in compositions intended f o r the audience of t e a c h e r . O v e r a l l , compositions intended f o r the audience of best f r i e n d tended to be more c o n v e r s a t i o n a l and p e r s o n a l than compositions intended f o r the audience of teacher, a d i f f e r e n c e which seems a p p r o p r i a t e to the presumed d i f f e r e n c e 93 i n s t a t u s and d i s t a n c e between a teacher-audience and a b e s t - f r i e n d audience. In c o n t r a s t to both the C o n t r o l l i n g f u n c t i o n and the R e l a t i o n a l f u n c t i o n , the use of the T h e o r i z i n g f u n c t i o n was r e l a t i v e l y high at both grades (see Table 3 i n Chapter F o u r ) . The s i g n i f i c a n c e l e v e l of the audience e f f e c t , l i k e that of the e f f e c t f o r both the C o n t r o l l i n g f u n c t i o n and the R e l a t i o n a l f u n c t i o n , was high (See Table 2 i n Chapter F o u r ) . The audience d i f f e r e n c e was found to be due p r i m a r i l y to the s u b - f u n c t i o n surveying p o s s i b i l i t i e s , anticipating pr obi ems, solutions and consequences, and drawing conclusions, although there were a l s o minimal d i f f e r e n c e s i n favour of the teacher audience f o r the s u b - f u n c t i o n s recognizing causal and dependent relationships, and reflecting on reasoning', evaluating ideas. (See Table G5 i n Appendix G). The f o l l o w i n g are examples of the su b - f u n c t i o n surveying p o s s i b i l i t i e s , anticipating problems, solutions and consequences, and coming to conclusions used i n compositions intended f o r the audience of teacher by students at both grades. . . . I know f i v e hundred d o l l a r s wouldn't be enough f o r an expensive computer but we c o u l d get a simple one. Then i n the f u t u r e we c o u l d expand and get more t h i n g s f o r the computer^ (Grade 6) . . . You would probably end up having no money or c l o t h e s or any f u r n i t u r e . A l s o you would probably end up l i v i n g on a park bench somewhere. (Grade 6) 94 . . . The b l i n d students c o u l d use the money to buy equipment which they c o u l d put to much use. Books and t y p e w r i t e r s c o u l d be purchased. With t h i s new equipment, our school would be one of the most capable to r e c e i v e and teach b l i n d s tudents. (Grade TTT . . . T h i s s o r t of a t t i t u d e would rub o f f on students making them i r r e s p o n s i b l e people. I t would a l s o make them wonder how important school r e a l l y i s . (Grade 11) The T h e o r i z i n g f u n c t i o n was used when students were attempting to be o b j e c t i v e and impersonal. In the above examples, i t should be noted that the students d e a l t i n g e n e r a l i t i e s such as the average student or the school system, r a t h e r than i n f e e l i n g s or p e r s o n a l consequences. Making p r e d i c t i o n s and coming to c o n c l u s i o n s would seem to be a p p r o p r i a t e i n compositions intended f o r the audience of teacher, while p e r s o n a l o p i n i o n or requests f o r c o l l a b o r a t i o n are not. C o n s i d e r i n g p o s s i b i l i t i e s , making p r e d i c t i o n s , and coming to c o n c l u s i o n s are s t r a t e g i e s t h a t are t r a d i t i o n a l l y a s s o c i a t e d with w r i t t e n argument. From t h i s study, i t would appear that w r i t t e n arguments intended f o r the audience of teacher are more o b j e c t i v e and impersonal, and more l i k e l y to conform to the genre of w r i t t e n argument than are arguments w r i t t e n f o r the audience of best f r i e n d . T h i s c o n c l u s i o n i s supported by the f i n d i n g that students used more d i f f e r e n t f u n c t i o n s i n compositions intended f o r the audience of best f r i e n d than i n compositions intended f o r the audience of teacher. As a n a l y s i s r e v e a l e d , compositions 95 intended f o r the audience of teacher focused on one f u n c t i o n , T h e o r i z i n g ; compositions intended f o r the audience of best f r i e n d c o n t a i n e d e f f e c t s f o r audience on two f u n c t i o n s , C o n t r o l l i n g and R e l a t i o n a l . I t i s as i f , when w r i t i n g f o r the audience of best f r i e n d , students f e l t l e s s need to demonstrate the v a l i d i t y , or l o g i c of t h e i r arguments because they can appeal t o l o y a l t y and shared o p i n i o n to win t h e i r case. Based on experience with p i l o t data, i t was a l s o h ypothesized t h a t compositions intended f o r the audience of best f r i e n d would c o n t a i n more Informing and I n t e r p r e t i n g than compositions intended f o r the audience of teacher. The assumption that there would be more r e f e r e n c e to shared common experience i n compositions intended f o r the audience of best f r i e n d proved not to be the case. There was no e f f e c t f o r audience on t h i s f u n c t i o n at e i t h e r grade. The e f f e c t f o r audience on the C o n t r o l l i n g f u n c t i o n , the R e l a t i o n a l f u n c t i o n and the T h e o r i z i n g f u n c t i o n , however, was unequivocal at both grades. For the audience of the same s t a t u s , students employed more C o n t r o l l i n g s t r a t e g i e s and R e l a t i o n a l s t r a t e g i e s which produced compositions with a d i r e c t , p e r s o n a l and c o n v e r s a t i o n a l q u a l i t y ; f o r the audience of a h i g h s t a t u s , they focused on T h e o r i z i n g s t r a t e g i e s thus producing compositions with a more formal tone, which conformed more to the c o n v e n t i o n a l d e f i n i t i o n of w r i t t e n 96 argument. Measures used i n t h i s study thus produced evidence of audience e f f e c t s f o r both s i x t h graders and e l e v e n t h g r a d e r s . T h i s o v e r a l l f i n d i n g i s d i v e r g e n t from other s t u d i e s which r e p o r t l i t t l e evidence of e f f e c t s f o r intended audience i n compositions by students i n elementary schools (Crowhurst & P i c h e , 1979; Rubin & Piche, 1979; Smith & Swan, 1975). The f a c t that r e s u l t s were found f o r elementary students whereas none were found by Crowhurst and Piche, Rubin and Piche, and Smith and Swan i s a t t r i b u t e d to the use of measures d e r i v e d from s t u d i e s of c h i l d r e n ' s o r a l language f u n c t i o n s . The measures used i n the present study were s e l e c t e d because they had the p o t e n t i a l of c a p t u r i n g d i v e r s i t y of purpose which s t r u c t u r a l measures such as the s i z e of the T - u n i t i g n o r e . I t was reasoned that the s e n s i t i v i t y to audience which c h i l d r e n d i s p l a y i n t h e i r o r a l language might w e l l be d i s c e r n e d i n t h e i r w r i t t e n language as w e l l , i f measures were s e n s i t i v e to communicative i n t e n t as measures d e r i v e d from o r a l language were l i k e l y to be. The f i n d i n g s of the present study are c o n s i s t e n t with o r a l language s t u d i e s of language f u n c t i o n s i n school s e t t i n g s . The f o l l o w i n g d i f f e r e n c e s have been observed i n language addressed to peers as opposed to t e a c h e r s . P i n n e l l (1975) found language addressed to peers to be more p e r s o n a l ; Fleming (1980) found language addressed to peers to be more 97 e x p r e s s i v e ; and Jensen (1973) found language addressed to peers to c o n t a i n more q u e s t i o n s . O r a l language s t u d i e s , thus, are c o n s i s t e n t with o b s e r v a t i o n s i n t h i s study regarding the use of p e r s o n a l and c o n v e r s a t i o n a l language f o r the audience of best f r i e n d . F i n d i n g s of the present study suggest that the s e n s i t i v i t y to s t a t u s of audience which c h i l d r e n d i s p l a y i n t h e i r o r a l language i s evident i n t h e i r w r i t t e n language as w e l l , i f measures employed are s e n s i t i v e to communicative i n t e n t i o n . F u r t h e r s t u d i e s of audience e f f e c t s employing communicative measures seem warranted. The present study, thus, r a i s e s q u e s t i o n s regarding the measurement of audience e f f e c t s on w r i t t e n language, and the age at which audience e f f e c t s can be d i s c e r n e d . Adapting a scheme used to d e s c r i b e the f u n c t i o n s of c h i l d r e n ' s o r a l language p r o v i d e d c o n s i d e r a b l e i n s i g h t i n t o audience e f f e c t s on w r i t t e n language f o r students i n elementary school and high s c h o o l . The present study a l s o r a i s e s q u e s t i o n s r e g a r d i n g the e f f e c t of s t a t u s of audience. According to s o c i o l i n g u i s t i c theory and r e s e a r c h , s t a t u s has a major impact on language use (Brown & Levinson, 1979; T r u d g i l l , 1974), yet only one p r e v i o u s study of audience e f f e c t s on w r i t t e n language has d i f f e r e n t i a t e d intended audiences on t h i s dimension (Crowhurst & P i c h e , 1979). Given the p e r v a s i v e p r a c t i c e of having students i n sc h o o l s e t t i n g s w r i t e almost e x c l u s i v e l y f o r the 98 t e a c h e r — a h i g h - s t a t u s audience ( B r i t t o n et a l . , 1975; Applebee, 1981, 1982)--further study of s t a t u s e f f e c t s on w r i t t e n language are warranted. The E f f e c t of Grade on Use of Language Functions While no hypotheses were made with respect to grade e f f e c t s on the use of language f u n c t i o n s , grade d i f f e r e n c e s i n the use of language f u n c t i o n s were found. The R e l a t i o n a l f u n c t i o n and the Informing and I n t e r p r e t i n g f u n c t i o n were used more by students i n grade 6, while the T h e o r i z i n g f u n c t i o n was used more by students i n grade 11. The o v e r a l l use of the R e l a t i o n a l f u n c t i o n by students i n grade s i x was due, p r i m a r i l y , to the su b - f u n c t i o n asserting positive opinions, although there were d i f f e r e n c e s i n favour of s i x t h graders f o r the other s u b - f u n c t i o n s asserting positive o pi ni o ns, rhetorical requests for opinion and direction, and incidental conversational expressions as w e l l . (See Table G6 i n Appendix G). Greater use of the su b - f u n c t i o n s asserting positive opinions and rhetorical requests for opinion by s i x t h graders i s not s u r p r i s i n g and c o u l d be a t t r i b u t e d to lack of t r a i n i n g in the w r i t i n g of argument, and lack of exposure to argument i n reading m a t e r i a l . Older students have gre a t e r s o p h i s t i c a t i o n i n w r i t i n g an argument. Rather than simply 99 s t a t i n g an o p i n i o n , such as I think this idea is great, or a s k i n g the reader f o r an o p i n i o n , they give reasons, make p r e d i c t i o n s , and draw c o n c l u s i o n s — i n s h o r t , attempt to convince the reader r a t i o n a l l y r a t h e r than by simply e x p r e s s i n g a p e r s o n a l o p i n i o n . The o v e r a l l use of the Informing and I n t e r p r e t i n g f u n c t i o n by students i n grade 6 was due p r i m a r i l y to the s u b - f u n c t i o n informing about assignment. The f o l l o w i n g i s an example of a s i x t h grade composition which r e l i e s h e a v i l y on t h i s s u b - f u n c t i o n : I think the money should be spent on school goods. The school goods that I am t a l k i n g about are pens, p e n c i l s , r u l e r s , note books, e r a s e r s , paper and f i e l d t r i p s . Those t h i n g s would be u s e f u l and h e l p f u l to the kids and teache r s i n the s c h o o l . I_ do not t h i n k i t should be spent on p a r t i e s . I a l s o think i t should be spent on ch a l k , chalk e r a s e r s , and desks The student makes only one attempt to j u s t i f y the o p i n i o n that the money should be spent on school goods ("Those t h i n g would be u s e f u l . . . " ) . As a r e s u l t , the composition i s more i n f o r m a t i v e than p e r s u a s i v e , a c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of many si x t h - g r a d e compositions. The tendency fo r s i x t h - g r a d e r s to r e l y on informin g more than d i d e l e v e n t h graders can probably be a t t r i b u t e d to t h e i r r e l a t i v e l a c k of s k i l l in de v e l o p i n g an argument (Crowhurst, 1983; W i l k i n s o n , Barnsley, Hannah, & Swan, 1980). , The o v e r a l l use of the T h e o r i z i n g f u n c t i o n by students i n grade 11 was due, p r i m a r i l y , to the su b - f u n c t i o n s surveying 100 p o s s i b i l i t i e s , anticipating problems, solutions and consequences, and coming to conclusions; and evaluating ideas, reflecting on reasoning, although there was a d i f f e r e n c e i n favour of ele v e n t h graders i n rhetorical questions involving pr edi ct i on as w e l l . Compositions by eleventh-grade students, t h e r e f o r e , tended to be c o n s i d e r a b l y more t h e o r e t i c a l than were compositions by si x t h - g r a d e students. The a b i l i t y to reason at an a b s t r a c t l e v e l i s thought to appear i n a p r e l i m i n a r y form at about the age of 11 or 12 (Case, 1985), p r e c i s e l y the age of the si x t h - g r a d e students i n t h i s study. I t i s l i k e l y , t h e r e f o r e , that the f a c t eleventh-grade students engaged i n more t h e o r i z i n g than d i d s i x t h - g r a d e students i s due to t h e i r g r e a t e r a b i l i t y to engage in a b s t r a c t reasoning. A number of s t u d i e s have i n d i c a t e d t hat younger students do not perform w e l l when asked to w r i t e argument. Instead, they tend to lapse i n t o n a r r a t i v e anecdote (Crowhurst, 1983; Wi l k i n s o n , B a r n s l e y , Hannah & Swan, 1980), or to w r i t e extremely short compositions ( B e r e i t e r & Scardamalia, 1982). M o f f e t t (1968) has suggested that d i s c o u r s e i s h i e r a r c h i c a l l y arranged from n a r r a t i v e , to g e n e r a l i z i n g , t o t h e o r i z i n g , and that n a r r a t i v e i s the most n a t u r a l form f o r young w r i t e r s to adopt. The d i f f i c u l t y younger w r i t e r s experience with argumentative w r i t i n g , t h e r e f o r e , may be a t t r i b u t e d to the c o g n i t i v e d i f f i c u l t y of adopting a t h e o r e t i c a l p o i n t of view. R e s u l t s of t h i s study suggest that r a t h e r than engaging i n 101 higher l e v e l d i s c o u r s e s t r a t e g i e s , younger w r i t e r s r e l y on r e l a t i o n a l s t r a t e g i e s and informing s t r a t e g i e s . R e s u l t s of t h i s study a l s o suggest t h a t , i n the w r i t i n g of argument, younger students drew more upon s o c i a l e xperiences than d i d o l d e r students who, i t can be assumed, have a c q u i r e d more f a m i l i a r i t y with the genre of w r i t t e n argument. T h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n i s c o n s i s t e n t with t r a d i t i o n a l e x p l a n a t i o n s f o r the development of w r i t t e n language, and with more recent t h e o r i e s of c o g n i t i v e developmental p s y c h o l o g i s t s as w e l l . T r a d i t i o n a l l y , language a r t s t h e o r i s t s have argued that w r i t t e n language grows out of o r a l language. S p e c i a l emphasis has been p l a c e d on the importance of c o n v e r s a t i o n a l e x periences f o r the development of w r i t t e n language ( B r i t t o n et a l . , 1975; M o f f e t t , 1968). More r e c e n t l y , B e r e i t e r and Scardamalia (1982) hypothesized that because c h i l d r e n do not have a schema f o r w r i t t e n argument in the way that they have a schema f o r n a r r a t i o n or f o r d i r e c t i o n g i v i n g , they must adapt the s t r a t e g i e s used i n o r a l argument f o r w r i t t e n argument. R e s u l t s of the present study suggest that an e v o l u t i o n from o r a l and c o n v e r s a t i o n a l language to t h e o r i z i n g language takes p l a c e between the l a t t e r years of elementary school and high s c h o o l . The a b i l i t y to w r i t e argument i s g e n e r a l l y c o n s i d e r e d an important s k i l l f o r students to a c q u i r e ; f i n a l examinations i n E n g l i s h u n i v e r s a l l y i n c l u d e an opinion essay. Despite the 1 02 importance a t t a c h e d to the w r i t i n g of argument, conative or persuasive w r i t i n g accounts f o r a very low percentage of the w r i t i n g done i n secondary s c h o o l s on both s i d e s of the A t l a n t i c (Applebee, 1980; B r i t t o n et a l . , 1975). Few s t u d i e s have examined how s k i l l i n the w r i t i n g of argument develops. R e s u l t s of the present study suggest that an e v o l u t i o n from the R e l a t i o n a l and the Informing and I n t e r p r e t i n g f u n c t i o n to the T h e o r i z i n g f u n c t i o n occurs between s i x t h grade and el e v e n t h grade. Given the emphasis p l a c e d on argumentative w r i t i n g i n most assessments of w r i t t e n language, f u r t h e r r e s e a r c h i s needed to d e l i n e a t e the development that occurs i n students' a b i l i t y to w r i t e p e r s u a s i v e l y . The E f f e c t of Topic on Use of Language Fu n c t i o n s The l i k e l i h o o d of t o p i c e f f e c t s i n r e s e a r c h on w r i t t e n composition has long been r e c o g n i z e d . The Braddock Report (Braddock et a l . , 1963) ad v i s e d that r e s e a r c h e r s always use at l e a s t two t o p i c s p r e c i s e l y because w r i t i n g performance can d i f f e r markedly from one p i e c e of w r i t i n g to the next. For t h i s reason, two t o p i c s were used i n the present study. I t i s to be noted that there were no i n t e r a c t i o n s between t o p i c e f f e c t s and audience e f f e c t s i n the present study; these e f f e c t s can t h e r e f o r e be assumed to be independent. The Informing and I n t e r p r e t i n g f u n c t i o n was used more i n 1 03 compositions on Topic 2 (Money), and the T h e o r i z i n g f u n c t i o n was used more i n compositions on Topic 1 ( S c h o o l ) . The f i n d i n g that Topic 1 (School) produced more of Fun c t i o n 4 ( T h e o r i z i n g ) and Topic 2 (Money) produced more of Fun c t i o n 3 (Informing and I n t e r p r e t i n g ) and F u n c t i o n 1 ( C o n t r o l l i n g ) can best be i n t e r p r e t e d by r e f e r e n c e to the wording of the t o p i c s themselves. I t c o u l d be argued that the im p l i e d s i t u a t i o n f o r Topic 1 (School) Would it work if . . .? was more theoretical than was Topic 2 (Money) Five hundred dollars is available for your class to s pe nd. . . . Topic 2 tended to produce i n f o r m a t i v e d e s c r i p t i o n s of present n e e d — s u p p l y shortages i n classrooms f o r example, or what coders d e s c r i b e d as shopping l i s t s , and requests that the reader agree with the w r i t e r on how the money should be spent. Topic 1 ( S c h o o l ) , on the other hand, produced more s p e c u l a t i o n and h y p o t h e s i z i n g , an e f f e c t which i s evident in the main e f f e c t f o r t o p i c on the su b - f u n c t i o n s recognizing causal and dependent relationships, rhetorical questions involving predictions, and reflecting on reasoning, evaluating ideas. W i l k i n s o n et a l . (1980), from whom t h i s t o p i c was d e r i v e d , observed that t h i s t o p i c produced h y p o t h e t i c a l s y n t a c t i c c o n s t r u c t i o n s even i n young s u b j e c t s (p. 127). R e s u l t s of the present study c o n f i r m the widely h e l d view that t o p i c a f f e c t s language use. 104 Summary and I m p l i c a t i o n s f o r E d u c a t i o n a l P r a c t i c e Contrary to p r e v i o u s r e s e a r c h , the present study p r o v i d e s evidence of e f f e c t s f o r intended audience in w r i t t e n arguments by students i n elementary school as w e l l as i n secondary s c h o o l . Compositions intended f o r the audience of teacher' c o n t a i n e d more T h e o r i z i n g , were more o b j e c t i v e and impersonal, and c o n t a i n e d l e s s v a r i e t y of language f u n c t i o n . In c o n t r a s t , compositions intended f o r the audience of best f r i e n d c o n t a i n e d more of the C o n t r o l l i n g and R e l a t i o n a l f u n c t i o n s , were l e s s o b j e c t i v e and more p e r s o n a l , c o n t a i n e d more v a r i e t y of language f u n c t i o n , and more i n t e r a c t i v e , c o n v e r s a t i o n a l s t r a t e g i e s . The present study, t h e r e f o r e , p r o v i d e s e m p i r i c a l support f o r composition r e s e a r c h e r s and t h e o r i s t s who suggest that w r i t i n g f o r a v a r i e t y of r e a l or a u t h e n t i c audiences i s important f o r students i n sc h o o l s e t t i n g s because a s s i g n e d w r i t i n g f r e q u e n t l y occurs i n an a r h e t o r i c a l s i t u a t i o n . A l l too o f t e n , students are w r i t i n g to inform a teacher who i s a l r e a d y informed about a t o p i c (Applebee, 1982, Rosen, 1973). What i s important, recent t h e o r i s t s suggest, i s c r e a t i n g o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r genuine communication (M a r t i n , 1983). The present study supports that p o i n t of view by p r o v i d i n g e m p i r i c a l evidence that students do w r i t e d i f f e r e n t l y f o r d i f f e r e n t audiences. 105 In regard to the development of w r i t i n g a b i l i t y , the present study p r o v i d e s i n s i g h t i n t o a g e - r e l a t e d d i f f e r e n c e s i n the use of language f u n c t i o n s i n w r i t t e n argument. From t h i s study i t would appear, as B e r e i t e r and Scardamalia (1982) suggest, that younger w r i t e r s r e l y more on the s t r a t e g i e s l e a r n e d i n o r a l argument such as e x p r e s s i n g o p i n i o n s , and re q u e s t i n g o p i n i o n s of the reader than do o l d e r w r i t e r s who have l e a r n e d a schema f o r w r i t t e n argument. P e d a g o g i c a l l y , t h i s study suggests that the d i s t i n c t i o n between o r a l argument and w r i t t e n argument c o u l d be c l a r i f i e d f o r young w r i t e r s . In a d d i t i o n , c u r r i c u l u m designed to teach w r i t t e n argument should b u i l d on, r a t h e r than ignore, c h i l d r e n ' s experiences i n o r a l argument. The present study a l s o p r o v i d e s evidence of t o p i c e f f e c t s on language f u n c t i o n s . Students performed d i f f e r e n t l y on d i f f e r e n t t o p i c s . The present study, thus, r e i n f o r c e s a common no t i o n i n composition assessment that w r i t i n g performance should not be judged on the b a s i s of one w r i t i n g sample only (Braddock et a l . 1963; O d e l l , 1981). The present study a l s o p o i n t s out the need f o r educators and r e s e a r c h e r s to employ more than one t o p i c , and the importance of equating t o p i c s . 1 0 6 C o n c l u s i o n s Based on the r e s u l t s of the present study and the d i s c u s s i o n of r e s u l t s presented i n t h i s chapter, the f o l l o w i n g c o n c l u s i o n s can be drawn: 1. For both s i x t h - and eleventh-grade students, s t a t u s of audience a f f e c t e d the use of language f u n c t i o n s i n w r i t t e n argument. The C o n t r o l l i n g and the R e l a t i o n a l f u n c t i o n s were used p r o p o r t i o n a l l y more o f t e n i n compositions w r i t t e n f o r a best f r i e n d , and the T h e o r i z i n g f u n c t i o n was used p r o p o r t i o n a l l y more o f t e n i n compositions w r i t t e n f o r a teacher. Compositions intended f o r a same-status audience, t h e r e f o r e , were more d i v e r s e , more d i r e c t i v e , more r e l a t i o n a l and c o n v e r s a t i o n a l , i n c o n t r a s t t o compositions intended f o r a h i g h - s t a t u s audience which were l e s s d i v e r s e , more o b j e c t i v e and impersonal. 2. Grade a f f e c t e d the use of language f u n c t i o n s i n w r i t t e n arguments. Sixth-grade students used p r o p o r t i o n a l l y more of the R e l a t i o n a l f u n c t i o n and the Informing and I n t e r p r e t i n g f u n c t i o n ; eleventh-grade students use more of the T h e o r i z i n g f u n c t i o n . W r i t t e n arguments by younger students contained more e x p r e s s i o n s of p o s i t i v e o p i n i o n , requests f o r the reader's o p i n i o n , and i n f o r m a t i v e responses to the t o p i c , i n c o n t r a s t to compositions by 1 07 o l d e r students which c o n t a i n e d more s p e c u l a t i o n , p r e d i c t i o n and e v a l u a t i o n . 3. Topic a f f e c t e d the use of language f u n c t i o n s i n w r i t t e n arguments. The t o p i c suggesting a h y p o t h e t i c a l s i t u a t i o n produced gre a t e r use of the T h e o r i z i n g f u n c t i o n than d i d the t o p i c which was r e l a t e d to past and present experience which produced the use of more d i f f e r e n t f u n c t i o n s , and grea t e r use of the Informing and I n t e r p r e t i n g f u n c t i o n , and the C o n t r o l l i n g f u n c t i o n . I m p l i c a t i o n s f o r Furth e r Research The present study suggests t h a t , when measures are s e n s i t i v e to communicative i n t e n t i o n , audience e f f e c t s can be d i s c e r n e d i n compositions by students i n elementary s c h o o l s . The present study, t h e r e f o r e , has i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r the s o r t of measures that c o u l d be used i n f u r t h e r s t u d i e s of audience e f f e c t s , and r a i s e s q u e s t i o n s about the age at which audience e f f e c t s can be d i s c e r n e d i n w r i t t e n language. In regard to measures, i t seems a p p r o p r i a t e that f u r t h e r s t u d i e s of audience e f f e c t s should examine d i f f e r e n c e s that are communicative r a t h e r than s t r u c t u r a l . Because both are concerned with the impact of context on language, r h e t o r i c a l theory and 108 s o c i o l i n g u i s t s i c theory and r e s e a r c h c o u l d w e l l p r o v i d e measures that are meaningful and p r o f i t a b l e . For example, s o c i o l i n g u i s t i c r e s e a r c h suggests that audience a f f e c t s number of r h e t o r i c a l appeals, and l e v e l of r h e t o r i c a l appeals. I t i s i r o n i c , given the t r a d i t i o n a l emphasis on appeal and appeal types i n r h e t o r i c a l theory, that only one study of audience e f f e c t s on w r i t t e n language has attempted to examine appeal types (Rubin & Piche, 1979). A s i m i l a r argument can be made f o r the examination of q u e s t i o n s in w r i t t e n argument. Even though, t r a d i t i o n a l l y , r h e t o r i c a l theory has a d v i s e d w r i t e r s to use the q u e s t i o n f o r a v a r i e t y of purposes, use of q u e s t i o n s i n w r i t t e n language has not been s t u d i e d . From the present study, the q u e s t i o n would seem to be a s e n s i t i v e , e a s i l y i d e n t i f i a b l e index of audience e f f e c t s . In regard to the age at which audience e f f e c t s can be d i s c e r n e d , the present study r e v e a l s the p o s s i b i l i t y that audience e f f e c t s can indeed be d i s c e r n e d i n c h i l d r e n i n elementary s c h o o l s . Very l i t t l e i s known about the age at which audience e f f e c t s emerge in w r i t t e n language, or how audience e f f e c t s develop. Because t h i s study d i v e r g e s from p r e v i o u s s t u d i e s of audience e f f e c t on w r i t t e n compositions, i t c o u l d w e l l be r e p l i c a t e d . Subsequently, students younger than s i x t h graders and 109 students i n grades between s i x t h - and eleventh-grade c o u l d be examined. M e t h o d o l o g i c a l l y , -further s t u d i e s of audience e f f e c t s c o u l d attempt to i n t r o d u c e v e r i s i m i l i t u d e as d i d P r e n t i c e (1980). In that study, the simple strategem of m a i l i n g compositions to " r e a l " readers produced evidence of audience e f f e c t s i n young w r i t e r s . Students i n the present study wrote d i f f e r e n t l y f o r d i f f e r e n t audiences d e s p i t e the a r t i f i c i a l i t y of the experimental s i t u a t i o n . No p r e w r i t i n g a c t i v i t i e s o c c u r r e d . Students were simply t o l d t o w r i t e . One can only s p e c u l a t e about what the magnitude of the audience e f f e c t s would have been i f the audiences had indeed been r e a l audiences, or i f some form of audience s e n s i t i z a t i o n such as l i s t i n g a d j e c t i v e s t o d e s c r i b e , or drawing a p i c t u r e of the intended audience had o c c u r r e d . Given the strong t h e o r e t i c a l c l a i m s that a u t h e n t i c i t y of audience i s important f o r both the w r i t i n g process and w r i t t e n products, f u r t h e r s t u d i e s of audience e f f e c t s c o u l d p r o f i t from employing q u a s i - e x p e r i m e n t a l designs which i n c o r p o r a t e n a t u r a l l y o c c u r r i n g a u t h e n t i c audiences where p o s s i b l e . For example, teachers are f r e q u e n t l y advised to have students w r i t e f o r small peer groups c a l l e d w r i t i n g groups, f o r s c h o o l newspapers, and f o r p u b l i c a t i o n . W r i t i n g done i n 1 10 classrooms in which w r i t i n g i s read r e g u l a r l y by readers other than the teacher c o u l d p r o v i d e a r i c h source of i n f o r m a t i o n about audience e f f e c t s on w r i t t e n language without the need f o r t i g h t l y c o n t r o l l e d experimental d e s i g n . The coding scheme used in the present study p r o v i d e s c o n s i d e r a b l e i n s i g h t i n t o audience e f f e c t s on language f u n c t i o n s . I t a l s o c o n t r i b u t e s to our knowledge about the d i f f e r e n c e s t h a t . e x i s t between s i x t h - g r a d e and eleventh-grade i n students' a b i l i t y to w r i t e w r i t t e n argument. T h i s coding scheme c o u l d be used to d e l i n e a t e the e f f e c t s of audience on language f u n c t i o n s i n w r i t t e n arguments by even younger stu d e n t s . I t c o u l d a l s o be used to d e l i n e a t e development i n students' a b i l i t y to w r i t e p e r s u a s i v e l y . 111 REFERENCES Applebee, A. (1982). W r i t i n g and l e a r n i n g i n school s e t t i n g s . In M. Nystrand (Ed.), What w r i t e r s know: The language process and s t r u c t u r e of d i s c o u r s e (pp. 365-383). New York: Academic Press. Applebee, A. N. (1981). W r i t i n g i n the secondary s c h o o l : E n g l i s h and the content areas. Research Report, 21. Urbana, 111.: N a t i o n a l C o u n c i l of Teachers of E n g l i s h . Asher, S. R., & W i g f i e l d , A. (1981). T r a i n i n g r e f e r e n t i a l communication s k i l l s . In W. P a t r i c k Dickson (Ed.), C h i l d r e n ' s o r a l communication s k i l l s (pp. 105-124). New York: Academic P r e s s . A u s t i n , J . L. (1962). How to do t h i n g s with words (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Harvard U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s . Barnes, D. (1976). From communication t o c u r r i c u l u m . Harmondsworth, England: Penguin Books. B a r r s , M. (1983). The new orthodoxy about w r i t i n g . Language A r t s , 60(7), 829-40. B e r e i t e r , C. (1980). Development i n w r i t i n g . In E. Gregg & M. S t e i n b e r g (Eds.), C o g n i t i v e processes i n w r i t i n g (pp. 73-93). H i l l s d a l e , New J e r s e y : Erlbaum. B e r e i t e r , C., & Scardamalia, M. (1982). From c o n v e r s a t i o n to composition: The r o l e of i n s t r u c t i o n i n a developmental p r o c e s s . In R. G l a s e r (Ed.), Advances i n i n s t r u c t i o n a l 1 12 psychology ( V o l . 2) (pp. 1-56). H i l l s d a l e , N. J . : Erlbaum. B e r l i n , J . A. (1984). C u r r e n t - t r a d i t i o n a l r h e t o r i c . W r i t i n g i n s t r u c t i o n i n n i n e t e e n t h - c e n t u r y American c o l l e g e s (pp. 58-76). Carbondale, 1 1 1 . : Southern I l l i n o i s U n i v e r s i t y Press. B e r n s t e i n , B. (1973). C l a s s codes and c o n t r o l ( V o l . 1). S t . Albans, H e r t s . : P a l a d i n . B r a c e w e l l , R. J . , Scardamalia, M. J . , & B e r e i t e r , C. (1978). The development of audience awareness in w r i t i n g . Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American E d u c a t i o n a l Research A s s o c i a t i o n . Toronto, Canada, (ERIC Document Reproduction S e r v i c e No. ED 154 433) Braddock, R. , Lloyd-Jones, R.', & Schoer, L. (1963). Research i n w r i t t e n composition. Urbana, 1 1 1 , : N a t i o n a l C o u n c i l of Teachers of E n g l i s h Monographs. B r i t t o n , J . (1970). Language and l e a r n i n g . London: Penguin P r e s s . B r i t t o n , J . (1978). The composing process and the f u n c t i o n s of w r i t i n g . In C. Cooper & L. O d e l l (Eds.), Research on composing: P o i n t s of departure (pp. 13-28). Urbana, 1 1 1 . : N a t i o n a l C o u n c i l of Teachers of E n g l i s h . B r i t t o n , J . (1971). What's the use? A schematic account of language f u n c t i o n s . E d u c a t i o n a l Review, 23(3), 205-19. 1 13 B r i t t o n , J . , B a r r s , M., & Burgess, T. (1979). No, no J e a n e t t e ! A r e p l y to J e a n e t t e W i l l i a m ' s c r i t i q u e of the s c h o o l s c o u n c i l w r i t i n g r e s e a r c h p r o j e c t . Language f o r L e a r n i n g , _1_(1), 23-41. B r i t t o n , J.', Burgess, T., M a r t i n , N., McLeod, A., & Rosen, H. (1975). The development of w r i t i n g a b i l i t i e s (11-18). London: Macmillan E d u c a t i o n . Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1978). U n i v e r s a l s i n language usage: p o l i t e n e s s phenomenon. In E. N. Goody (Ed.), Questions and p o l i t e n e s s (pp. 33-62). Cambridge: Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y Press. Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1979). S o c i a l s t r u c t u r e , groups and i n t e r a c t i o n . In K. R. Scherer & H. G i l e s (Eds.), S o c i a l markers i n speech (pp. 291-333). Cambridge: Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s . Buhler, K. (1934). S p r a c h t h e o r i e . Jena: F i s c h e r . ( R e p r i n t e d S t u t t g a r t : F i s c h e r , 1965). Case, R. (1985). The phenomena and q u e s t i o n s of i n t e l l e c t u a l development. In R. Case (Ed.), I n t e l l e c t u a l development b i r t h to adulthood (pp. 3-8). Orlando: Academic Press. Cazden, C. B. (1972). C h i l d language and e d u c a t i o n . New York: H o l t Rinehart and Winston. Cazden, C. B. (1972). The s i t u a t i o n : a n e g l e c t e d source of s o c i a l c l a s s d i f f e r e n c e s i n language use. In J . B. . P r i d e & J . Holmes (E d s . ) , S o c i o l i n g u i s t i c s 1 14 (pp. 294-313). Harmondsworth, Middlesex: Penguin Educat i o n . Chafe, W. L. (1982). I n t e g r a t i o n and involvement i n speaking w r i t i n g and o r a l l i t e r a t u r e . In D. Tannen (Ed.), Spoken and w r i t t e n language: E x p l o r i n g o r a l i t y and l i t e r a c y ( V o l . 9) (pp. 35-53). Norwood, N.J.: Ablex. Chapman, R. S. (1981). E x p l o r i n g c h i l d r e n ' s communicative i n t e n t s . A s s e s s i n g language p r o d u c t i o n i n c h i l d r e n (pp. 111-138). B a l t i m o r e : U n i v e r s i t y Park P r e s s . Cherry W i l k i n s o n , L., Clevenger, M., & Dolloghan, C. (1981). Communication in small i n s t r u c t i o n a l groups: a s o c i o l i n g u i s t i c approach. In W. P a t r i c k Dickson (Ed.), C h i l d r e n ' s o r a l communication s k i l l s (pp. 207-238). New York: Academic P r e s s . C o r b e t t , E. P. J . (1971). C l a s s i c a l r h e t o r i c f o r the modern student (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s . Crowhurst, M. (1983). P e r s u a s i v e w r i t i n g at grades 5, 7, and 11: A c o g n i t i v e - d e v e l o p m e n t a l p e r s p e c t i v e . Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Education Researchers A s s o c i a t i o n , M ontreal, Canada. Crowhurst, M. (1980). S y n t a c t i c complexity and t e a c h e r s ' q u a l i t y r a t i n g s of n a r r a t i o n and arguments. Research i n the Teaching of E n g l i s h , _1_4(3), 223-31. Crowhurst, M. & Piche, G. L. (1979). Audience and mode of 1 15 d i s c o u r s e e f f e c t s on s y n t a c t i c complexity in w r i t i n g at two grade l e v e l s . Research i n the Teaching of E n g l i s h , 1 3 ( 2 ) , 101-09. D'Angelo, F. J . (1981). The search f o r i n t e l l i g i b l e s t r u c t u r e in the t e a c h i n g of composition. In G. Tate & E. P. S. Corbett (Eds.), The w r i t i n g t e a c h e r ' s sourcebook (pp. 80-88). New York: Oxford U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s . D e l i a , J . , K l i n e , L., & Burleson, R. (1979). The development of p e r s u a s i v e communication s t r a t e g i e s i n k i n d e r g a r t e n e r s through t w e l f t h graders. Communication Monographs, 46(4), 241-256. Dickson, W. P. (1981). I n t r o d u c t i o n : Toward an i n t e r d i s c i p l i n a r y c o n c e p t i o n of c h i l d r e n ' s communication a b i l i t i e s . In W. P. Dickson (Ed.), C h i l d r e n ' s o r a l communication s k i l l s (pp. 1-10). New York: Academic P r e s s . Dimensions of language use. A l b e r t a education c u r r i c u l u m guide f o r elementary language a r t s (1978 r e v . ) . Dixon, J . (1967). Growth through E n g l i s h . Reading, England: N a t i o n a l A s s o c i a t i o n f o r Teachers of E n g l i s h . Donaldson, M. (1978). C h i l d r e n ' s minds. Glasgow: C o l l i n s . Dore, J . (1979). Conversation and p r e s c h o o l language development. In P. F l e t c h e r & M. Garman (Eds.), Language a c q u i s i t i o n (pp. 337-362). Cambridge: Cambridge 1 1 6 University Press. Elbow, P. (1981). Writing with power. New York: Oxford University Press. Ervin-Tripp, S. (1976). Is Sybil there? The structure of some American English directives. Language in Society, 5, 25-66. Ervin-Tripp, S. (1977). Wait for me roller-skate! In Ervin-Tripp & C. Mitchell-Kernan (Eds.), Child discourse (pp. 165-188). New York: Academic Press, Inc. Finley, E. & Humphries, C. A. (1974). Naive psychology and the development of persuasive appeals in girls. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 6(1), 75 - 80. Flavell, J . H. (1975). The development of role taking and communication skil ls in children. New York: Robert E. Kreigher Publishing Co. Fleming, D . R. (1980). The effect of audience on the expressive language of working class children. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto, 1979). Dissertation Abstracts International, £0(12), 6129A. Florio, S. (1978). The problem of dead letters: Social perspectives.on the teaching of English. Research Series No. 34. East Lansing: Michigan State University for Research on Teaching. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 163 492) Florio, S., & Clark, C. M. (1982). The functions of writing 1 17 in an elementary classroom. Research i n the Teaching of E n g l i s h , j 16(2), 115-130. Flower, L., & Hayes, J . R. (1980). The c o g n i t i o n of d i s c o v e r y : D e f i n i n g a r h e t o r i c a l problem. C o l l e g e Composition and Communication, 31, 21-32. Freedman, A., & P r i n g l e , I. (1980). E p i l o g u e : r e i n v e n t i n g the r h e t o r i c a l t r a d i t i o n . In A. Freedman & I. P r i n g l e (Eds.), Reinventing the r h e t o r i c a l t r a d i t i o n (pp. 173-185). Ottawa, Canada: Canadian C o u n c i l of Teachers of E n g l i s h . Fodor, J . A., & Bever, T. G. (1965). The p s y c h o l o g i c a l r e a l i t y of l i n g u i s t i c Segments. J o u r n a l of V e r b a l L e a r n i n g and V e r b a l Behaviour, 4, 414-20. Fox, S. E., & A l l e n , V. G. (1983). The language a r t s : An.. i n t e g r a t e d approach. New York: Holt Rinehart and Winston. Gleason, J . B. (1973). Code s w i t c h i n g i n c h i l d r e n ' s language. In Timothy E. Moore (Ed.), C o g n i t i v e development and the a c q u i s i t i o n of language (159-167). New York: Academic P r e s s . Glucksberg, S., Krauss, R. M., & Wiesberg, R. (1966). R e f e r e n t i a l communication i n nursery school c h i l d r e n : Method and some p r e l i m i n a r y f i n d i n g s . J o u r n a l of Experimental C h i l d Psychology, 3, 333-42. Goodman, K., & Goodman, Y. (1983). Reading and w r i t i n g 1 18 r e l a t i o n s h i p s : Pragmatic f u n c t i o n s . Language A r t s , 60(5), 590-606. G r i f f i t h s , M., & Wells, G. (1983). Who w r i t e s what and why. In B. K r o l l & G. Wells (Eds.), E x p l o r a t i o n s i n the development of w r i t i n g theory and p r a c t i c e (pp. 119-152). C h i c h e s t e r : John Wiley & Sons. H a l l i d a y , M. A. K. (1973). E x p l o r a t i o n s i n the f u n c t i o n s of language. London: Edward A r n o l d . H a l l i d a y , M. A. K. (1975). L e a r n i n g how to mean: Explorations' i n the study of language. London: Edward Ar n o l d . Hayes, J . , & Flower, L. (1980). I d e n t i f y i n g the o r g a n i z a t i o n of w r i t i n g p r o c e s s e s . In E. Gregg & M. S t e i n b e r g (Eds.), C o g n i t i v e processes in w r i t i n g (pp. 13-30). H i l l s d a l e , N. J . : Erlbaum. Hoffman, S., & McCully, B. (1984). O r a l language f u n c t i o n s in t r a n s a c t i o n with c h i l d r e n ' s w r i t i n g . Language A r t s , 6(1), 49-50. House, A. E., House, B. J . , & Campbell, M. B. (1981). Measures of i n t e r o b s e r v e r agreement: C a l c u l a t i o n , formulas and d i s t r i b u t i o n e f f e c t s . J o u r n a l of B e h a v i o u r a l Assessment, 3, 37-57. Hudson, R. A. (1980). S o c i o l i n g u i s t i e s . Cambridge: Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s . Hunt, K. W. (1970). S y n t a c t i c m a t u r i t y i n school c h i l d r e n 119 and a d u l t s . Monographs of the S o c i e t y f o r Research i n C h i l d Development, 35, ( S e r i a l No. 134). Hymes, D. H. (1972). On communicative competence. In J . B. P r i d e & J . Holmes (E d s . ) , S o c i o l i n g u i s t i c s (pp. 269-293). Harmondsworth: Penguin Books. Jakobson, R. (1960). L i n g u i s t i c s and p o e t i c s . In T. A. Sebeok (Ed.), S t y l e i n language. Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Pr e s s . Jensen, J . M. (1973). A comparative i n v e s t i g a t i o n of c a s u a l and c a r e f u l o r a l language s t y l e s of average and s u p e r i o r f i f t h grade boys and g i r l s . Research i n the Teaching of E n g l i s h , 7, 338-351. Johnson, N. F. (1965). The p s y c h o l o g i c a l r e a l i t y of p h r a s e - s t r u c t u r e r u l e s . J o u r n a l of V e r b a l L e a r n i n g and V e r b a l Behaviour, 4, 469-75. Judy, S. N., & Judy, S. J . (1981). An i n t r o d u c t i o n to the te a c h i n g of w r i t i n g . New York: John Wiley and Sons. K e i s l e r , D. J . (1973). The process of psychotherapy: E m p i r i c a l foundations and systems of a n a l y s i s . Chicago: A l d i n e P u b l i s h i n g Company. King, M. (1978). Research i n composition: A need f o r theory. Research i n the Teaching of E n g l i s h , J_2(3) , 193-202. Kinneavy, J . L. (1971). A theory of d i s c o u r s e : The aims of d i s c o u r s e . New J e r s e y : P r e n t i c e H a l l . Kinneavy, J . L. (1980). A p l u r a l i s t i c s y n t h e s i s of four 1 20 contemporary models for t e a c h i n g c o m p o s i t i o n . In A . Freedman & I . P r i n g l e ( E d s . ) , R e i n v e n t i n g the r h e t o r i c a l T r a d i t i o n (pp. 37 -52) . Ottawa, Canada: Canadian C o u n c i l of Teachers of E n g l i s h . K o s s a n , N . E . , & Markman, E . M. (1981) . R e f e r e n t i a l communicat ion: E f f e c t s of l i s t e n e r presence on the performance of young s p e a k e r s . M e r r i l l - P a l m e r Q u a r t e r l e y , 27 (3 ) , 307-315. K r o l l , B . M. (1985) . R e w r i t i n g a complex s t o r y for a young r e a d e r : The development of aud ience adapted w r i t i n g s k i l l s . Research i n the T e a c h i n g of E n g l i s h , 19(2) , 120-139. L e v i n s o n , S. C . (1983) . P r a g m a t i c s . Cambridge: Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s . L y o n s , J . (1977) . Communication and i n f o r m a t i o n . Semantics ( V o l . 1) . Cambridge: Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s . M a c r o r i e , K . (1968) . To be r e a d . E n g l i s h J o u r n a l , 57, 686-692. M a r a t s o s , M. P . (1973) . N o n e g o c e n t r i c communication a b i l i t i e s i n p r e s c h o o l c h i l d r e n , C h i l d Development, 44 (3 ) , 697-700. M a r t i n , N . (1983) . Genuine communicat ions : The enfranch i sement of young w r i t e r s . M o s t l y about w r i t i n g : S e l e c t e d essays of Nancy M a r t i n (pp. 155-168) . Upper M o n t c l a i r , N . J . : Boynton Cook P u b l i s h e r . 121 M a r t i n , N., Medway, P., Smith, H., & Darcy, P. (1973). Why wr i t e ? London: London U n i v e r s i t y I n s t i t u t e of Education W r i t i n g a c r o s s the c u r r i c u l u m P r o j e c t . Masangkay, Z. S., McClusky, K. A., Maclntyre, C. W., Sims-Knight, J . , Vaughn, B. E., & F l a v e l l , J . H. (1974). The e a r l y development of i n f e r e n c e s about the v i s u a l percepts of o t h e r s . C h i l d Development, 45(2), 357-66. Meissner, J . & Apthorp, H. (1976). Nonegocentrism and communication mode s w i t c h i n g i n black p r e s c h o o l c h i l d r e n , Developmental Psychology, J_2(3), 245-249. Menig-Peterson, C. L. (1976). The m o d i f i c a t i o n of communication behaviour i n p r e s c h o o l aged c h i l d r e n as a f u n c t i o n of l i s t e n e r ' s p e r s p e c t i v e . C h i l d Development, 46 (4), 1015-18. Metviner, E. S. (1981). R h e t o r i c a l l y based and r h e t o r i c a l l y d e f i c i e n t w r i t i n g : the e f f e c t s of purpose and audience on the q u a l i t y of n i n t h grade students' compositions. ( D o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y of C o n n e c t i c u t ) . D i s s e r t a t i o n A b s t r a c t s I n t e r n a t i o n a l , 4J_(9), 3977A. M i t c h e l l - K e r n a n C , & Kernan, K. (1977). Pragmatics of d i r e c t i v e c h o i c e among c h i l d r e n . In 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 (pp. 189-207). New York: Academic P r e s s . M o f f e t t , J . (1968). Teaching the u n i v e r s e of d i s c o u r s e . 122 Boston: Houghton M i f f l i n Company. M o f f e t t J . , & Wagner, B. J.(1976). Student c e n t e r e d language a r t s and reading K-13: A handbook f o r t e a c h e r s (2nd ed.). Boston: Houghton M i f f l i n Company. Monahan, B. D. (1984). R e v i s i o n s t r a t e g i e s of b a s i c and competent w r i t e r s as they w r i t e f o r d i f f e r e n t audiences. Research in the Teaching of E n g l i s h , J_8(3), 288-304. Nelson, K. (1978). E a r l y Speech i n i t s communicative co n t e x t . In S. D. Min.isie & L. L. L l o y d (Eds), Communication and c o g n i t i v e a b i l i t i e s : E a r l y b e h a v i o u r a l assessment (pp. 443-474). B a l t i m o r e : U n i v e r s i t y Park Press. Nystrand, .M. (1977). A s s e s s i n g w r i t t e n communica'tive competence: A t e x t u a l c o g n i t i v e model. Toronto,Canada: OISE S t u d i e s i n E d u c a t i o n . (ERIC Document Reproduction S e r v i c e No. ED 133 732) Nystrand, M. (1979). On measuring the communicative competence of w r i t e r s , Research i n the Teaching of E n g l i s h , j_3(3), 243-253. O d e l l , L. (1981). D e f i n i n g and a s s e s s i n g competence i n w r i t i n g . In C. Cooper (Ed.), The nature and measurement of competency i n e n g l i s h (pp. 95-138). Urbana, 111.: N a t i o n a l C o u n c i l f o r Teachers of E n g l i s h . O d e l l , L., Cooper, C , & Courts, C. (1978). D i s c o u r s e theory i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r r e s e a r c h on composing. In C. Cooper & 1 23 L. O d e l l (Eds.), Research on composing: p o i n t s of dep a r t u r e . (1-12). Urbana, 111.: N a t i o n a l C o u n c i l f o r Teachers of E n g l i s h . Olson, R., & H i l d y a r d , A. (1981). Assent and compliance i n c h i l d r e n ' s language. In W. P. Dickson (Ed.), C h i l d r e n ' s o r a l communication s k i l l s (pp. 313-336). New York: Academic P r e s s . Perelman, C. H. , & O l b r e c h t s - T y t e c a , L. (1969). The framework of argumentation (pp. 11-62). The new r h e t o r i c : A t r e a t i s e on argumentation. Notre Dame: U n i v e r s i t y of Notre Dame Pr e s s . P i n e l l , G. S. (1975). Language i n primary classrooms. Theory i n t o P r a c t i c e , 21(5), 318-27. P r e n t i c e , W. C. (1980). The e f f e c t s of intended audience and feedback on the w r i t i n g s of middle grade p u p i l s . ( D o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y of North Dakota). D i s s e r t a t i o n A b s t r a c t s I n t e r n a t i o n a l , 41(3). Reynolds, R. E., & Schwartz,.R. M. (1979). The r e l a t i o n of metaphoric p r o c e s s i n g of the comprehension and memory of prose. Paper presented at the American E d u c a t i o n a l Research A s s o c i a t i o n , San F r a n c i s c o . Richardson, E. M. (1980). The q u a l i t y of essays w r i t t e n f o r d i s t a n t and i n t i m a t e audiences by high and low apprehensive two-year c o l l e g e freshmen. ( D o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y of C i n c i n n a t i , 1980). 124 D i s s e r t a t i o n A b s t r a c t s I n t e r n a t i o n a l , 41_(03), 8021064. Rosen, H. (1972). W r i t t e n language and the sense of audience. E d u c a t i o n a l Research, J_5(3), 177-87 . Rubin, D., & Piche, G. (1979). Development i n s y n t a c t i c and s t r a t e g i c aspects of audience a d a p t a t i o n s k i l l s i n w r i t t e n p e r s u a s i v e communication. Research i n the Teaching of E n g l i s h , _1_3(4), 293-316. Sachs, J . , & Devin, J . (1976). Young c h i l d r e n ' s use of age-appropriate speech s t y l e s i n s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n and r o l e - p l a y i n g . J o u r n a l of C h i l d Language, 3_(1), 81-98. S e a r l e , J . R. (1969). Speech a c t s an. essay i n the phil o s o p h y of language. Cambridge: Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s . Shafer, R. E., Staab, C , & Smith, K. (1983). Language f u n c t i o n s and school success. Glenview, 111.: S c o t t , Foresman and Company. Shatz, M., & Gelman, R. (1973). The development of communication s k i l l s : M o d i f i c a t i o n s i n the speech of young c h i l d r e n as a f u n c t i o n of l i s t e n e r . Monographs of the S o c i e t y f o r Research i n C h i l d Development, 38. Simon, C. (1980). Communicative competence: A f u n c t i o n a l pragmatic approach to language therapy. Tueson: Communication S k i l l B u i l d e r s . Smith, E. B., Goodman, K. S., & Meredith, R. (1976). Language and t h i n k i n g i n sc h o o l (2nd ed.). New York: 125 Holt Rinehart and Winston. Smith, F. (1983). Reading l i k e a w r i t e r . Language A r t s , 60 (5), 558-67. Smith, W. L., & Swan, M. B. (1978). A d j u s t i n g s y n t a c t i c s t r u c t u r e s to v a r i e d l e v e l s of audience. J o u r n a l of Experimental Education, 46, 29-34. Stewart, M. F., & Grobe, C. H. (1979). S y n t a c t i c m a t u r i t y , mechanics of w r i t i n g , and t e a c h e r s ' q u a l i t y r a t i n g s . Research i n the Teaching of E n g l i s h , J_3(3), 207-215. T r u d g i l l , P. (1974). S o c i o l i n g u i s t i c s : An i n t r o d u c t i o n . Harmondsworth: Penguin Books. Tough, J . (1977). The development of meaning. London: Unwin Education Books. Tough, J . (197-9). Talk f o r t e a c h i n g and l e a r n i n g . London: Ward Lock E d u c a t i o n a l . Vahapassi, A. (1982). On the s p e c i f i c a t i o n of the domain of school w r i t i n g . E v a l u a t i o n i n Education, 5_, 265-89. Van de Veghe, R. (1978). Research i n w r i t t e n composition: F i f t e e n years of i n v e s t i g a t i o n . (ERIC Reproduction S e r v i c e No. ED 157 095) W e l l s , C. G. (1975). Coding manual for the d e s c r i p t i o n of c h i l d speech i n i t s c o n v e r s a t i o n a l context (rev. ed.). B r i s t o l : U n i v e r s i t y of B r i s t o l School of E d u c a t i o n . W e l l s , G. (1981). Language as i n t e r a c t i o n . In G. Wells (Ed.), L e a r n i n g through i n t e r a c t i o n : The study of 126 language development (22-73). Cambridge: Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s . W e l l s , G. (1977). Language use and e d u c a t i o n a l success: An e m p i r i c a l response to Joan Tough's 'The development of meaning'. Research i n Education, 18, 9-34. W i l k i n s o n , A., Barnsley, G., Hannah, P., & Swan, M. (1980). The assessment of w r i t t e n E n g l i s h . England: Oxford U n i v e r s i t y Press. Young, R. E. (1976). I n v e n t i o n : A t o p o g r a p h i c a l survey. In G. Tate (Ed.), Teaching composition: Ten b i b l i o g r a p h i c a l essays (pp. 1-44). F o r t Worth: Texas C h r i s t i a n U n i v e r s i t y Press. Young, R. E. (1978). Paradigms and problems: Needed r e s e a r c h i n , r h e t o r i c a l i n v e n t i o n . In C. R. Cooper & L. O d e l l (Eds.) Research on composing (pp. 29-47). Urbana, 111,: N a t i o n a l C o u n c i l of Teachers of E n g l i s h . Young, R. E., Becker, A. L., & Pike, K. L. (1970). R h e t o r i c D i s c o v e r y and Change. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World. 1 2 7 APPENDICES APPENDIX A : WRITING ASSIGNMENTS APPENDIX B: INSTRUCTIONS FOR DIVIDING COMPOSITIONS INTO IDEA UNITS APPENDIX C : SAMPLE COMPOSITION DIVIDED INTO IDEA UNITS APPENDIX D: INSTRUCTIONS FOR IDENTIFYING LANGUAGE FUNCTIONS APPENDIX E : EXAMPLES OF LANGUAGE FUNCTIONS AND SUB-FUNCTIONS APPFNDIX F : SAMPLE COMPOSITION SCORED FOR FUNCTION AND SUB-FUNCTION APPENDIX G : TABLES 1 28 APPENDIX A WRITING ASSIGNMENTS T o p i c One (Grade 6) Should c h i l d r e n be a l l o w e d to come to s c h o o l when they want t o , and do whatever they want when they get t h e r e ? Dec ide whether or not t h i s s h ou l d be a l l o w e d to happen. Then w r i t e a c o m p o s i t i o n which w i l l c o n v i n c e your t e a c h e r / b e s t f r i e n d tha t your o p i n i o n i s r i g h t . You have p l e n t y of t i m e . W r i t e as much as you c a n . Remember to w r i t e for your t e a c h e r / b e s t f r i e n d . T o p i c Two (Grade 6) The sum of f i v e hundred d o l l a r s i s a v a i l a b l e f o r your c l a s s to spend. You are a member of the c l a s s committee which w i l l d e c i d e how i t s h ou l d be spent . Your t e a c h e r / b e s t f r i e n d i s a l s o a member of the committee . Dec ide what you t h i n k about how the money s h ou l d be s p e n t . Then w r i t e a c o m p o s i t i o n which w i l l c o n v i n c e your t e a c h e r / b e s t f r i e n d to agree wi th y o u . You have p l e n t y of t i m e . W r i t e as much as you c a n . Remember to w r i t e f o r your t e a c h e r / b e s t f r i e n d . 1 29 Topic One (Grade 11) Should students be allowed to come to school when they want to and do whatever they want when they get there? Decide whether or not t h i s should be allowed to happen. Write a composition which w i l l convince your t e a c h e r / b e s t f r i e n d t h a t your o p i n i o n i s r i g h t . You have p l e n t y of time, so w r i t e as much as you can. Remember to w r i t e f o r your teacher/best f r i e n d . Topic Two (Grade 11) F i v e hundred d o l l a r s has been a l l o c a t e d to your c l a s s to spend. You are a member of a c l a s s committee which w i l l decide how i t should be spent. Your tea c h e r / b e s t f r i e n d i s a l s o a member of the committee. Decide what your o p i n i o n i s about how the money should be spent. Then w r i t e a composition which w i l l convince your t e a c h e r / b e s t f r i e n d to agree with you. You have p l e n t y of time, so w r i t e as much as you can. Remember to w r i t e f o r your teacher/best f r i e n d . 130 APPENDIX B INSTRUCTIONS FOR DIVIDING COMPOSITIONS INTO IDEA UNITS Def i n i t i o n : One c l e a r i d e a - may or may not be a grammatical sentence. C h i l d r e n should not have to come to s c h o o l . / Super duper milkshakes i n s t e a d of o l d m i l k . / G u i d e l i n e s : Complex sentences c o n t a i n i n g dependent c l a u s e s are one u n i t . I t h i n k that i f c h i l d r e n come to school when they wanted then people wouldn't l e a r n anything because they wouldn't come o f t e n enough./ E x c e p t i o n : I f the student c o n s t r u c t s a complex sentence that c l e a r l y c o n t a i n s more than one idea, count as more than one u n i t . I f they c o u l d do what they want there i t would be even worse because the kid s that wanted to do work wouldn't know what to do without a teacher's a d v i c e / because the teacher s t u d i e d many years to become a teacher so she knows how to teach / but a k i d does not know how to teach h i m s e l f . / Compound sentences c l e a r l y c o n t a i n i n g two (or more) ideas are counted as two (or more) u n i t s . I don't t h i n k c h i l d r e n should go to school whenever they 1 3 1 want because t h e y ' l l get bad marks / and when they go to high school they would not know how to do the work. Items in s e r i e s - w i l l be counted as one u n i t unless the w r i t e r i n d i c a t e s that they are separate ideas by punctuating them as separate i d e a s . If the teacher d i d n ' t come, we would throw s p i t b a l l s , eat lunch i n the classroom, w r i t e on the boards, and t a l k a l l day./ Super duper c h o c o a l t e milkshakes i n s t e a d of o l d m i l k . / Bubble gum and c h o c o l a t e and p i z z a . / R o l l e r c o a s t e r r i d e s , / and a l l of i t t o t a l l y f r e e . / I n c i d e n t a l e x p r e s s i o n s such as "no way," "so t h e r e " and "egad-zooks" w i l l be counted as one u n i t when they are punctuated with a p e r i o d or an exclamation mark. 132 APPENDIX C SAMPLE COMPOSITION DIVIDED INTO IDEA UNITS If c h i l d r e n c o u l d come to school whenever they l i k e d , and more importantly not come to school whenever they d i d n ' t , the education system would s u f f e r g r e a t l y . / Of course a few teachers would improve t h e i r c l a s s e s by c u t t i n g o f f t e d i o u s work in an e f f o r t to get students to a t t e n d t h e i r c l a s s , / but education should not be geared i n t h i s d i r e c t i o n . / I can j u s t f o r s e e a group of teachers huddled i n a c i r c l e comparing attendance f i g u r e s i n an e f f o r t to prove who i s the most pop u l a r . / If I wern't f o r c e d to go to s c h o o l , I know that I lack the willpower to do so./ As i t i s now my attendance, although b e t t e r than some, i s f a r from p e r f e c t , / and that i s not e n t i r e l y due to i l l n e s s . / If students were allowed to do whatever they l i k e d when in s c h o o l , attendance would be more r e g u l a r than i t i s now./ The classroom would t u r n i n t o a zoo or j u n g l e , / and I would be sure to be the head ape./ Those few who would t r u l y wish to do t h e i r work and l e a r n would be unable to do so because of people l i k e me who would i n t e r f e r e with loud n o i s e and z a n i n e s s . / Education would be unable to f u n c t i o n under these c i r c u m s t a n c e s , / but i t would be a heck of a l o t of f u n . / \ I .1 132a APPENDIX D INSTRUCTIONS FOR IDENTIFYING LANGUAGE FUNCTIONS Derived from Tough (1977, 1979) and Shafer et al. (1983) Leaves 133-37 not filmed; permission not obtained. 133 APPENDIX D INSTRUCTIONS FOR IDENTIFYING LANGUAGE FUNCTIONS Der i v e d from Tough (1977, 1979) and Shafer et a l . (1983) Fun c t i o n 1: C o n t r o l l i n g C o n t r o l l i n g language i s used to d i r e c t , or c o n t r o l the behaviour of the reader. U s u a l l y , i t i s d i r e c t (eg. "Don't spend the money on more books./ Spend i t on a f i e l d t r i p i n s t e a d . / " ) , and has a c o n v e r s a t i o n a l q u a l i t y . W r i t e r s can a l s o be l e s s d i r e c t i n t h e i r attempts to c o n t r o l t h e i r r e a d e r s . For example, f l a t t e r y ("You are a wise person,") can be used by the w r i t e r i n an attempt to c o n t r o l the reader's a c t i o n s . D i r e c t requests such as "Write back,/ and t e l l us what to do."/ are c l a s s i f i e d as c o n t r o l l i n g i f the w r i t e r wants the reader to do something and i f the reader i s a b l e to f u l f i l l the r e q u e s t . I n s t r u c t i o n s to the reader to imagine are regarded as requests the reader c o u l d f u l f i l l . Most q u e s t i o n s are regarded as r h e t o r i c a l r a t h e r than as c o n t r o l l i n g and are c l a s s i f i e d a c c o r d i n g to the f u n c t i o n s they perform. The f o l l o w i n g paragraph c o n t a i n s examples of c o n t r o l l i n g language: 134 Ok Joe/ We have got to decide what to do with the money./ L e t ' s take a p o l l / You t a l k to the boys/ and I'11 t a l k to the g i r l s . / F u n c t i o n 2: R e l a t i o n a l R e l a t i o n a l language i s used to " r e l a t e " to the reader and has a c o n v e r s a t i o n a l tone. I t i s both p e r s o n a l and s o c i a l . R e l a t i o n a l language i s used to express p e r s o n a l p r e f e r e n c e s and o p i n i o n s ("I thin k t h i s i s a c r a z y i d e a . " / ) , and to open, c l o s e or maintain communication. R h e t o r i c a l requests f o r o p i n i o n such as "What do you t h i n k ? " are i n c l u d e d i n t h i s c a t e g o r y . I n c i d e n t a l c o n v e r s a t i o n a l e x p r e s s i o n s such as "good g r i e f " , " H i . " , "Thank you." and " I ' l l phone you l a t e r " are i n c l u d e d i n t h i s category because of t h e i r s o c i a l or i n t e r a c t i o n a l f u n c t i o n . The f o l l o w i n g paragraph opens with examples of language which i s r e l a t i o n a l . Hi M e l i s s a / How are you?/ What do you t h i n k of t h i s s i l l y i d e a ? / I thin k i t i s p l a i n s i l l y . / That's what I t h i n k . / I mean, gad-zooks j u s t think what would happen./ 1 35 Func t i o n 3: Informing and I n t e r p r e t i n g Language i n t h i s category i s used to report on past and present events. The w r i t e r informs the reader about what he/she has observed and b e l i e v e s to be true ("We have to share our S o c i a l S t u d i e s books./ I am a l l e r g i c to g e r b i l s . " / " We have f i v e hundred d o l l a r s to spend."/). The w r i t e r can a l s o make g e n e r a l i z a t i o n s about past and present experience ("Five hundred d o l l a r s i s a l o t of money."/ C h i l d r e n have to go to s c h o o l . " ) . Statements r e l a t e d d i r e c t l y to the w r i t i n g assignment are a l s o regarded as informing (e. g. "I thin k the answer i s yes./") 1 36 F u n c t i o n 4: T h e o r i z i n g Language i n t h i s category i s used to reason, t o p r e d i c t , and to make hypotheses based on past experiences or o b s e r v a t i o n s . Often i t i s impersonal and l a c k i n g i n f e e l i n g . The f o l l o w i n g paragraph c o n t a i n s examples of language used f o r t h i s f u n c t i o n . C h i l d r e n go to school because t h e i r p a rents and teachers make them go./ I f c h i l d r e n were ab l e to come to school when they want to go, most c h i l r e n would not come at a l l / , Those that d i d come would not come at the same time,/ and the teacher would have to teach the same l e s s o n over and over a g a i n . / If t h i s were allowed to go on f o r very l o n g , the whole school system would c o l l a p s e . / So, even though i t may seem l i k e a good i d e a , i t would not work and should not be allowed to happen./ 1 37 F u n c t i o n 5: P r o j e c t i n g and Imagining Tough c a l l s t h i s use of language "going beyond f i r s t hand exp e r i e n c e " (1979, p 168). T h i s category i n c l u d e s language used to p r o j e c t i n t o o t h e r s ' experiences i n the present ("As you are a teacher, you know how d i s t r a c t i n g s p i t b a l l s can be."/) , and i n t o experiences of s e l f and others i n an imagined context ("If t h i s were to happen, we would never come./ We would go o f f to the movies./ We would go to S t a n l e y Park and feed the ducks./ Then we would r i d e on the t r a i n . / I would l i k e t h a t . / " ) . I n s t r u c t i o n s to the reader to imagine or p r o j e c t are i n c l u d e d i n t h i s category i f the w r i t e r c r e a t e s a s c e n a r i o . 137a APPENDIX E EXAMPLES OF LANGUAGE FUNCTIONS AND SUB-FUNCTIONS Adapted from Tough (1977, 1979) and Shafer, Staab and Smith (1983) Leaves 138-^2 not filmed; permission not obtained. 1 38 APPENDIX E EXAMPLES OF LANGUAGE FUNCTIONS AND SUB-FUNCTIONS Adapted from Tough (1977, 1979) and Shafer, Staab and Smith (1983) Fun c t i o n 1: C o n t r o l l i n g 1. D i r e c t i n s t r u c t i o n s to reader a. Write back./ b. Change the Program./ c. Have joke s h e e t s . / d. L i s t e n to t h i s . / 2 V Attempts to c o n t r o l reader 1 a. You're a wise man./ 3. Requests f o r d i r e c t i o n a. T e l l us what to do now./ 4. Requests f o r a t t e n t i o n a. Hey L i n d a ! / b. O K K a r i ! / c. Do you understand?/ 5. Requests f o r c o l l a b o r a t i o n a. We have got to decide what to do with the money./ b. L e t ' s have a movie and charge admission./ c. We should suggest t h a t the money be given to the Red C r o s s . / 1 39 Function 2: R e l a t i o n a l A s s e r t i n g negative o p i n i o n s a. Do you know what I thin k about t h i s s i l l y i d e a ? / I think i t i s p l a i n s i l l y . / That's what I t h i n k . / A s s e r t i n g p o s i t i v e o p i n i o n s a. I t h i n k i t i s a wonderful i d e a . / b. I am so e x c i t e d . / c. I'm r i g h t . / I'm r i g h t . / R h e t o r i c a l requests f o r o p i n i o n or d i r e c t i o n a. What do you t h i n k ? / b. What should we do?/ I n c i d e n t a l c o n v e r s a t i o n a l e x p r e s s i o n s a. No way!/ b. So t h e r e ! / c. Egad-zooks!/ d. I've got to go now./ I ' l l phone you a f t e r s c h o o l . / e. Guess what we d i d i n sch o o l today./ 140 Function 3: Informing and I n t e r p r e t i n g 1. R e p o r t i n g the present a. I want a g e r b i l . / You want a f i e l d t r i p . / 2. Recording the past a. Last year we had no f i e l d t r i p s . / 3. Making comparisons a. School i s a f i v e and a h a l f hour d u e l . / 4. Making g e n e r a l i z a t i o n s a. C h i l d r e n have to go to s c h o o l . / b. A young c h i l d l i v e s from day to day./ c. School should be taken s e r i o u s . / d. People have d i f f e r e n t ways of t h i n k i n g . / 5. R h e t o r i c a l requests f o r i n f o r m a t i o n a. Who do you know that would r a t h e r go to school than to a movie?/ 6. Informing about assignment a. I t h i n k the answer i s no./ b. These are the t h i n g s we c o u l d spend the money on . . . ./ 141 Function 4: T h e o r i z i n g Recognizing c a u s a l and dependent r e l a t i o n s h i p s a. When you don't l e a r n anything you can't get a j o b . / b. No educa t i o n , no medical s t a f f . / c. I f the money i s spent on a c l a s s pet, then we would a l l l e a r n how to take care of i t . / d. I f c h i l d r e n came to school when they wanted, then they wouldn't l e a r n anything because they wouldn't come./ Surveying p o s s i b i l i t i e s , a n t i c i p a t i n g problems s o l u t i o n s and consequences, drawing c o n c l u s i o n s a. The unemployment r a t e would be higher than i t now, and the government would have to c r e a t e jobs.// b< The c h i l d r e n wouldn't come at the same time, so the teachers would have to teach the same l e s s o n over and over./ c. So i n the long run i t would not work i f . . ./ R h e t o r i c a l q u e s t i o n s i n v o l v i n g p r e d i c t i o n a. I f they don't l e a r n , how are they going to s u r v i v e ? / R e f l e c t i n g on i d e a , r e c o g n i z i n g p r i n c i p l e s a. I would be i l l o g i c a l to expect t h i s to work./ b. Wasted time would be i n c o n s e q u e n t i a l compared to time wasted now./ c. I t would be n i c e , but i t would not work./ 1 42 F u n c t i o n 5: P r o j e c t i n g and Imagining P r o j e c t i n g s e l f i n t o e x p e r i e n c e s of o t h e r s a . As you are a t e a c h e r , you know how d i s t r a c t i n g s p i t b a l l s can b e . / P r o j e c t i n g s e l f . i n t o s i t u a t i o n never e x p e r i e n c e d a . I would t a l k a l l day to my f r i e n d s . / b . The t e a c h e r s would p r o b a b l y hate i t . / R h e t o r i c a l q u e s t i o n s i n v o l v i n g p r o j e c t i n g or i m a g i n i n g a . Why would they bother to go to c l a s s when they c o u l d go o u t s i d e and do what they want? / 143 APPFNDIX F SAMPLE COMPOSITION SCORED FOR LANGUAGE FUNCTION AND SUB-FUNCTION Susan, the d e c i s i o n over how to use the money has s p l i t up the c l a s s . / (3 ( i ) ) Everybody has a d i f f e r e n t idea which they th i n k i s b e s t . / (3 ( i ) ) Don't you thin k we should u n i t e and work f o r one plan and stop f i g h t i n g each other (1 ( v ) ) . Remember when we had to re s e a r c h and t a l k about the s t a t e of Human Righ t s before Christmas?/ (3 (v)) We a l l chose d i f f e r e n t c o u n t r i e s , / (3 ( i i ) ) but a name that came up q u i t e o f t e n was Amnesty I n t e r n a t i o n a l . / (3 ( i i ) ) Everyone agreed that the work they d i d was important, and that they deserved our p r a i s e and our h e l p , i f p o s s i b l e . / ( 3 ( i i ) ) We decided to w r i t e l e t t e r s saying what we f e l t about the s t a t e of Human Right i n the area we chose./ (3 ( i i ) ) U n f o r t u n a t e l y , many of our classmates d i d not do t h i s , e i t h e r because they were too l a z y , or they simply f o r g o t about i t . / (3 (2)) But now we have money which we can use to h e l p Amnesty I n t e r n a t i o n a l , and people a l l over the world./ (3 ( v i ) ) . Phone me Sue,/ (1 ( i ) ) and t e l l me what you t h i n k . / (1 ( i i i ) ) I am sure that when you c o n s i d e r i t , you w i l l r e a l i z e t h a t t h i s o p t i o n w i l l make the best p o s s i b l e use f o r the money.(1 (v)) 1 44 APPENDIX G STATISTICAL TABLES Table G1: R e s u l t s of MANOVA the F i v e Language Table G2: Summary of ANOVAs Sub-Functions A n a l y s i n g P r o p o r t i o n a l Use of Func t i o n s i n Follow-up A n a l y s i s of Table G3: Means, Standard D e v i a t i o n s and F S t a t i s t i c s f o r Use of Sub-Functions of Fun c t i o n 1 ( C o n t r o l l i n g ) f o r Two Audiences Table G4: Means, Standard D e v i a t i o n and F S t a t i s t i c s f o r Use of Sub-Functions of Fun c t i o n s 2 ( R e l a t i o n a l ) f o r Two Audiences Table G5: Means, Standard D e v i a t i o n s and F S t a t i s t i c s f o r Use" of Sub-Functions of Fun c t i o n 4 ( T h e o r i z i n g ) f o r Two Two Audiences Table G6: Means, Standard D e v i a t i o n s and F S t a t i s t i c s f o r Use of Sub-Functions of Fun c t i o n 2 ( R e l a t i o n a l ) at Two Grade L e v e l s Table G7: Means, Standard D e v i a t i o n s and F S t a t i s t i c s f o r Use of Sub-Functions of Fun c t i o n 3 (Informing and I n t e r p r e t i n g ) at Two Grade L e v e l s Table G8: Means, Standard D e v i a t i o n s and F S t a t i s t i c s f o r Use Sub-Functions of Fun c t i o n 4 ( T h e o r i z i n g ) at Two Grade L e v e l s Table G9: Means, Standard D e v i a t i o n s and F S t a t i s t i c s f o r Use of Sub-functions of F 1 ( C o n t r o l l i n g ) f o r Two T o p i c s 1 45 Table G10: Means and Standard D e v i a t i o n s and F S t a t i s t i c s Use of Sub-Functions of F 3 (Informing and I n t e r p r e t i n g ) f o r Two T o p i c s f o r Table G11: Means and Standard D e v i a t i o n s and F S t a t i s t i c s f o r Use of Sub-Functions of F u n c t i o n 4 ( T h e o r i z i n g ) f o r Two T o p i c s 1 46 Table G1 R e s u l t s of MANOVA A n a l y s i n g P r o p o r t i o n a l Use of the F i v e Language F u n c t i o n s E f f e c t M u l t i v a r . F E Grade 12.78 <.01 Topic 20.32 <.01 Grade X Topic .60 .701 Audience 5.98 <.01 Audience X Grade 1 .39 .235 Topic X Audience .30 .912 Aud X Grade X Topic .23 .951 147 Table G2 Summary of ANOVAs i n Follow-Up A n a l y s i s of Sub-Functions Func Sub-Func Aud Grade Topic p 1 ( j ) ** * ** ( i i ) ** * T K T 2 ( i i i ) ** * ** ( i v) ** * ** (v) T<F * T K T 2 p 2 ( i ) ** ** * ( i i ) ** 6>11 * ( i i i ) T<F 6>11 * ( i v) ** ** * F 3 ( i ) * ** T K T 2 ( i i ) * ** T K T 2 ( i i i ) * ** ** ** ** ** ** ( i v ) * (v) (v) * 6>11 T K T 2 F 4 ( i ) ** ** T1>T2 ( i i ) T>F 6<11 ** ( i i i ) ** ** T1>T2 ( i v ) ** 6<11 T1>T2 (* Not Analysed) (** Not S i g n i f i c a n t ) 148 Table G3 Means, Standard D e v i a t i o n s and F S t a t i s t i c s f o r Use of Sub-Functions of F u n c t i o n 1 ( C o n t r o l l i n g ) f o r Two Audiences Sub-Function Audience Follow-up ANOVAs Teacher F r i e n d F p_ 1 ( i ) <.01(.02) .01(.02) .87 .353 1 ( i i ) .03(.07) .04(.09) .18 .670 1 ( i i i ) .01(.07) <.01( .01 ) 4.27 .041 1 ( i v ) <.01( . 04) .01 (.07) 2 .10 . 1 50 1 (v)' • O K . 0 4 ) .02(.07) 14 .30 <.01 1 ( i ) : D i r e c t i n s t r u c t i o n s to reader 1 ( i i ) : Attempts to c o n t r o l reader 1 ( i i i ) : Requests f o r d i r e c t i o n 1 ( i v ) : Requests f o r a t t e n t i o n 1 ( v ) : Requests f o r c o l l a b o r a t i o n Table G4 Means, Standard D e v i a t i o n s and F S t a t i s t i c s f o r Use of Sub-Functions of F u n c t i o n 2 ( R e l a t i o n a l ) f o r Two Audiences Sub-Function Audience Follow-up ANOVAs Teacher F r i e n d F p 2 ( i ) .01(.05) .02(.08) 2.72 .102 2 ( i i ) .01(.03) ,01(.04) 4.46 .036 2 ( i i i ) . O K . 0 3 ) .02(.05) 9.83 <.01 2 ( i v ) . O K . 0 3 ) . O K . 0 6 ) 4.03 .047 2 ( i ) : A s s e r t i n g negative o p i n i o n s 2 ( i i ) : A s s e r t i n g p o s i t i v e o p i n i o n s 2 ( i i i ) : R h e t o r i c a l requests f o r o p i n i o n or d i r e c t ion 2 ( i v ) : I n c i d e n t a l c o n v e r s a t i o n a l e x p r e s s i o n s Table G5 Means, Standard D e v i a t i o n s and F S t a t i s t i c s f o r Use of Sub-Functions of Fu n c t i o n 4 ( T h e o r i z i n g ) f o r Two Audiences Sub-Funct ion Audience Follow-up ANOVAs Teacher F r i e n d F 2 4 ( i ) . 1 1 (.13) .10(.13) 2.36 . 1 27 4 ( i i ) ,36(.26) .28(.26) 13.38 <.01 4 ( i i i ) .01(.03) .01(.04) 1 .43 .234 4 ( i v ) .08(.10) ,07(.10) 1 .36 .246 4 ( i ) : Recognizing c a u s a l and dependent r e l a t i o n s h i p s 4 ( i i ) : Surveying p o s s i b i l i t i e s , a n t i c i p a t i n g problems, s o l u t i o n s and consequences, drawing c o n c l u s i o n s 4 ( i i i ) : R h e t o r i c a l q u e s t i o n s i n v o l v i n g p r e d i c t i o n 4 ( i v ) : R e f l e c t i n g on reasoning, e v a l u a t i n g ideas 151 Table G6 Means, Standard D e v i a t i o n s and F S t a t i s t i c s f o r Use of Sub-Functions of F 2 ( R e l a t i o n a l ) at two Grade L e v e l s Sub-Function Grade Follow-up ANOVAs Six Eleven F E 2 ( i ) .03( .09) .01(.04) 4.54 .035 2 ( i i ) .02( .05) .01(.02) 7.05 <. 01 2 ( i i i ) .02( .06) <.01(.02) 1 0.86 <. 01 2 ( i v ) .02( .07) .01(.02) 4.68 .033 it 2 ( i ) : A s s e r t i n g negative o p i n i o n s 2 ( ' i i ) : A s s e r t i n g p o s i t i v e o p i n i o n s 2 ( i i i ) : R h e t o r i c a l requests f o r o p i n i o n or d i r e c t i o n 2 ( i v ) : I n c i d e n t a l c o n v e r s a t i o n a l e x p r e s s i o n s T a b l e G7 Means, S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n s and F S t a t i s t i c s f o r Use of S u b - F u n c t i o n s of F 3 ( In forming and I n t e r p r e t i n g ) at two Grade L e v e l s Sub - F u n c t i o n Grade F o l l o w - u p ANOVAs S i x E l e v e n F E 3 ( i ) . 03 ( .08 ) . 05 ( .10 ) 5.43 .022 3 ( i i ) . 01 ( . 03 ) . 02 ( .07 ) 5:19 .025 3 ( i i i ) <.01(.01 ) < . 0 1 ( . 0 1 ) .43 .515 3 ( i v ) . 06 ( .10 ) •04( .08) 3.09 .082 3 ( v) . 01 ( . 03 ) . 01 ( .02 ) 1.16 .207 3 ( v i ) . 19 ( . 20 ) .05( .09) 65.48 <.01 3 ( i ) : R e p o r t i n g the presen t 3 ( i i ) : R e c o r d i n g the past 3 ( i i i ) : Making comparisons 3 ( i v ) : Making g e n e r a l i z a t i o n s 3 ( v ) : R h e t o r i c a l r e q u e s t s for i n f o r m a t i o n 3 ( v i ) : In forming about assignment T a b l e G8 Means, S tandard D e v i a t i o n s and F S t a t i s t i c s f o r Use of S u b - F u n c t i o n s of F 4 ( T h e o r i z i n g ) at two Grade L e v e l s S u b - F u n c t i o n Grade F o l l o w - u p ANOVAs S i x E l e v e n F E 4 ( i ) . 1 1 ( .15) . 10( . 1 1 ) .14 .707 4 ( i i ) . 24 ( .25 ) . 40 ( .26 ) 38. 1 7 <.0.1 4 ( i i i ) < .01( .04) . 02 ( .04 ) 3.85 .052 '4 ( i v ) . 04 ( .07 ) . 1 1 ( . 1 1 ) 45.15 <.01 4 ( i ) : R e c o g n i z i n g c a u s a l and dependent r e l a t i o n s h i p s 4 ( i i ) : S u r v e y i n g p o s s i b i l i t i e s , a n t i c i p a t i n g prob lems , s o l u t i o n s and consequences , drawing c o n c l u s i o n s 4 ( i i i ) : R h e t o r i c a l q u e s t i o n s i n v o l v i n g p r e d i c t i o n 4 ( i v ) : R e f l e c t i n g on r e a s o n i n g , e v a l u a t i n g ideas Table G9 Means, Standard D e v i a t i o n s and F S t a t i s t i c s f o r Use of Sub-Functions of F 1 ( C o n t r o l l i n g ) f o r Two To p i c s Sub-Funct ion . Topic Follow-up ANOVAs School Money F rj 1 ( i ) <.01(.02) .01(.03) 3 .71 .057 1 ( i i ) .02(.05) .05(.09) 22 . 1 7 <.01 1 ( i i i ) <.01( .01) .01(.05) 3 .59 .061 1 ( i v ) .01 ( .05) .OK.04) .02 .896 1 (v) .01 .03(.06) 17 .02 <.01 1 ( i ) : D i r e c t i n s t r u c t i o n s t o reader -1 ( i i ) : Attempts to c o n t r o l reader 1 ( i i i ) : Requests f o r d i r e c t i o n 1 ( i v ) : Requests f o r a t t e n t i o n 1 ( v ) : Requests f o r c o l l a b o r a t i o n 155 Table G10 Means, Standard D e v i a t i o n s and F S t a t i s t i c s f o r Use of Sub-Functions of F 3 (Informing and I n t e r p r e t i n g f o r Two T o p i c s Sub-Funct ion Topic Follow-up ANOVAs School Money F p_ 3 ( i ) .02(.05) . 07( . 11) 34.11 <.01 3 ( i i ) <.01(.02) .02(.01) 8.13 <.01 3 ( i i i ) <.01(.01 ) <.01(.01) .21 .646 3 ( i v ) .06( . 1 1 ) .04(.07) 5.00 .028 3 (v) .01(.03) .01(.02) 1 .57 .213 3 ( v i ) * .06(.09) „18(.20) 61 .04 <.01 3 ( i ) : Reporting the present 3 ( i i ) : Recording the past 3 ( i i i ) : Making comparisons 3 ( i v ) : Making g e n e r a l i z a t i o n s 3 (v) : R h e t o r i c a l requests f o r i n f o r m a t i o n 3 ( v i ) : Informing about assignment Table Gl1 Means, Standard D e v i a t i o n s and F S t a t i s t i c s f o r Use of Sub-•Functions of F 4 (T h e o r i z ing) for Two T o p i c s Sub-Function Topic Follow-up ANOVAs School Money F E 4 ( i ) . 16(.15) .06(.09) 69. 1 2 <.01 4 ( i i ) ,34(.25) ,30(.27) 3.01 .086 4 ( i i i ) .02( .04) .01(.03) 9.1 1 <. 01 4" ( i v ) . 09(.11) •05(.09) 23.25 <.0l" 4 ( i ) : Recognizing c a u s a l and dependent r e l a t i o n s h i p s 4 ( i i ) : Surveying p o s s i b i l i t i e s , a n t i c i p a t i n g problems, s o l u t i o n s and consequences, drawing c o n c l u s i o n s 4 ( i i i ) : R h e t o r i c a l q u e s t i o n s i n v o l v i n g p r e d i c t i o n 4 ( i v ) : R e f l e c t i n g on reasoning, e v a l u a t i n g ideas
Thesis/Dissertation
eng
Language and Literacy Education
Vancouver : University of British Columbia Library
For non-commercial purposes only, such as research, private study and education. Additional conditions apply, see Terms of Use https://open.library.ubc.ca/terms_of_use.
Graduate
The Effect of intended audience on language functions in written argument at two grade levels
Text