Variation in child-directed speech: standard and ......2nd person singular + can Je mag een lepel...

Variation in child-directed

speech: standard and

vernacular pronouns of

address in control acts

Eline Zenner & Dorien Van de Mieroop

When referring to this work, please use the following details:

Zenner,E., D.Van De Mieroop. (forthc.). The alternation between

standard and vernacular by Belgian Dutch parents in child-oriented

control acts. Submitted to A.Ghimenton, A.Nardy, J.Chevrot (eds.),

Sociolinguistic Variation and Language Acquisition across the

Lifespan. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Mother Would you please move that water please?

(…)

Move that water, so that, euhm, it doesn’t matter if she

lifts it or not.

Child1 I can’t, it sticks!

Mother Just lift the water, will you!

This study:

study variation between standard and vernacular pronouns of

address in Belgian Dutch caregivers’ control acts to their

children

Outline

1. Control acts (in families)

2. Standard/vernacular variation in CDS

3. The Belgian Dutch laboratory

4. Data and variables

5. Results: quantitative + qualitative

6. Discussion & conclusion

Control acts

“utterances designed to get someone else to do something”

Goodwin (2006)

Grammatical form != social action

Ervin-Tripp (1976); Craven & Potter (2010)

Type of directive Example

Need statements I need an ice cream

Imperatives (Give me) an ice cream

Embedded imperatives Could you give me an ice cream?

Permission directives May I have an ice cream?

Question directives Gotta-n ice cream?

Hints The ice creams are all gone.

The choice of directives

Ervin-Tripp (1976); Craven & Potter (2010)


Need statements

The choice of control acts depends on a

complex interplay of a wide array of relevant

factors, such as urgency, politeness, social

status, spatial configuration…

Imperatives

Embedded imperatives

Permission directives

Question directives

Hints

Socialization in the family home

Ochs & Schieffelin (1984), Ochs & Shohet (2006)


Need statements

This is often studied in the context of the

family home

Imperatives



Question directives

Hints

socialization

politeness language use

Socialization to use language

Ochs & Schieffelin (1984), Ochs & Shohet (2006)


Need statements

standard/vernacular variation in control acts

in child-directed speech

Imperatives



Question directives

Hints

Outline







Surge of attention for the topic

• Developmental sociolinguistics

• Variation between standard and vernacular forms in CDS

• More vernacular language:

o For parents with lower SES

o For older children (and pre-verbal ones)

o In relational contexts (vs. transactional contexts)

• Implicit socialization towards community norms

De Vogelaer & Katerbow (2018), Foulkes et al. (2005), Preston (2013)

How about control acts?

Direct Indirect control acts

Authoritative Democratic parenting

= current Western-European ideal

“mutuality model”

Where to position standard and vernacular?

Pećnik 2007 on the mutuality model, see also Schaffer 1996

Outline







The Belgian Dutch laboratory


- Delayed standardization

(due to French monopoly

in public discourse)

- Eventually exonormative

orientation: (attempt at)

adherence to Netherlandic

Dutch norm

- Strong language policy

- Nevertheless endogenous

informal norm orientation

(tussentaal ‘Colloquial

Belgian Dutch’)


- Standard Dutch:

low solidarity, high prestige

- Colloquial Belgian Dutch:

high solidarity, low prestige

Hyperstandardization?


- Standard Dutch:

low solidarity, high prestige

- Colloquial Belgian Dutch:

high solidarity, low prestige

The standard =

the best language







the best language for the best type of parenting








standard for indirect CA’s, vernacular for direct


Pronouns of address

Register type Standard Dutch CBD

casual speech nominal, SV je/jij ge/gij

nominal, VS je/jij ge/gij/-de/-degij

possessive je/jouw uw

This study:



children, to verify whether caregivers reserve the best

language for the best type of parenting

This study:



children, to verify whether caregivers reserve the “best”

language for the “best” type of parenting

Outline







Data

• Self recordings (+/- 4 hours per family)

• Five Flemish families from the same region

• Parents 31-39 years old

• At least one parent in pedagogical working context

• All children

Response variable

• Focus on control acts containing pronouns of address

• 452 pronouns of address (273 vernacular, 179 standard)

Excluded (near

exclusive use

of CBD in CA)

How to explain

the variation?

Predictors

TOPIC

Class Example

Personal hygiene Nu moeten wij jouw handje en jouw

gezichtje een beetje wassen.

Eating & drinking Dan doede [: doet ge] de patatjes een

beetje weg vant [: van het] groen.

Table manners Gij moet mooi op u(w) stoeltje gaan zitten

he.

Other Zeg zeg zeg zeg zeg wa zijde [: zijt ge] daar

nu weer aant [: aan het] doen?

Predictors

PRONOUN TYPE

subject forms vs. object forms

Gij moet mooi op u(w) stoeltje gaan zitten he

Predictors

CLASS OF CONTROL ACT (modification of Ervin-Tripp)

Class Example

imperative, infinitive, no verb Doe maar snel u(w) broekje aan.

2nd person singular + have to Gij moet mooi op u(w) stoeltje gaan

zitten he

2nd person singular + can Je mag een lepel gaan halen

2nd person singular +

question

Zeg zeg zeg zeg zeg wa zijde [: zijt

ge] daar nu weer aant [: aan het]

doen?

2nd person singular + other Dan doede [: doet ge] de patatjes

een beetje weg vant [: van het] groen.

all other cases Nu moeten wij jouw handje en jouw


Predictors

MITIGATION/BOOSTER

Mitigation/booster Example

Booster Zeg zeg zeg zeg zeg wa zijde [: zijt

ge] daar nu weer aant [: aan het]

doen?

Mitigation & booster Doe maar snel u(w) broekje aan

None Je mag een lepel halen.

Mitigation Nu moeten wij jouw handje en jouw


Predictors

REPETITION/PRIMING

Level

First occurrence

Repetition, no pronoun prime

Repetition, vernacular prime

Repetition, standard prime

Outline




4. Data



Quantitative analyses

Random forest

C-value of 0.971; the forest predicts 83% of the cases correctly (baseline 60%).

Conditional inference tree

C-value > 0.82, the tree predicts 77% of the cases correctly (baseline 60%).

Qualitative analyses

Disclaimer


Focus on cases in which:

(1) there is repetition and the possessive is used;

(2) cases in which boosters occur.


Focus on cases in which:

(1) there is repetition and the possessive is used;

(2) cases in which boosters occur.

An example of both cases

Analysis by means of multimodal discourse analysis,

scrutinizing:

- The sequential and multimodal features of the interaction as

discussed in multimodal conversation analytic studies (see

e.g. Mondada 2011);

- The discursive characteristics of the fragments (see e.g.

Holmes, Marra & Vine 2011).

Case 1: CBD in repetition of control acts

• Situation: the mother is putting the food on the table and the children are inquiring about today’s menu

• Start of the fragment: Child 1 says he only wants ‘potato balls’ and no vegetables

1 CH1 alleen aardappelbolletjes

only potato balls

2 M £nee nie alleen£ aardappelbolletjes he

£no not only£ potato balls hey

3 M aardappelbolletjes

potato balls

4 CH2 mama da is heet

mum that is hot

5 M oppassen want das warm he

be careful because that is hot hey

-> 6 M schuif jij je bord een beetje dichter alsjeblieft

will you ((SD)) move your ((SD)) plate a little closer please

7 CH3 ( ) ik kan nie meer ( )

( ) I can no more ( )

8 F we gaan van alles een beetje proeve e mannen

we are going to taste a bit of everything hey men


only potato balls




potato balls


mum that is hot









Ch1’s request

M’s refusal, mitigated

by £smile voice£

F’s general instruction

to ‘taste everything’

Downplayed refusals to

child 1’s request


only potato balls




potato balls


mum that is hot









Scooping up food

M warns children

multi-activity


only potato balls




potato balls


mum that is hot









This control act in SD is softened, as it takes

the form of a question directive, it is mitigated

(‘a little’) and politely formulated (‘please’)

Dual function: getting

the plate + the child in

correct position


only potato balls




potato balls


mum that is hot









Part 1: regular multi-activity at the dinner table, during which the

preferred food (i.c. potato balls) was distributed

Now: Part 2, during which the disliked food (i.c. beans) will be

distributed

[few lines omitted, in which child 3 started requesting ketchup]

10 CH3 ( ) ik heb dat hier ketchup

( ) I have that here ketchup

11 ( [ )

12 M [eerst nog een boontje

[first still a bean

13 CH3 ketchup ketchup ketchup ketchup ketchup

ketchup ketchup ketchup ketchup ketchup

14 ik wil nog wa van diets

I want more of that

15 M goed zo ((ch2)) je hebt dat [goed gesneden

well done ((ch2)) you ((SD)) have [cut that well

16 CH1 [maar nie zo vee:::l

[but not so mu:::ch

17 AAAAAAAAAAA[AAAAAAAAAAAH

18 M [alles is nog warm

[everything is still warm

19 CH1 [nee:::: [NIE ZOVEEL] BOO:NTJES

[no:::: [NOT SO MUCH] BEA:NS

20 M [( )]

21 CH3 [( )]

-> 22 M kom uw bord

come your ((CBD)) plate



11 ( [ )


[first still a bean




I want more of that




[but not so mu:::ch






20 M [( )]

21 CH3 [( )]

-> 22 M kom uw bord


M distributes beans

Ch3 utters a ketchup-

mantra

M compliments on

Ch2’s table manners

Ch1 objects to the

beans

Chi1 wails

M utters a warning

Ch1 objects again

M utters a control act

Again:

multi-activity for M



11 ( [ )


[first still a bean




I want more of that




[but not so mu:::ch






20 M [( )]

21 CH3 [( )]

-> 22 M kom uw bord




11 ( [ )


[first still a bean




I want more of that




[but not so mu:::ch






20 M [( )]

21 CH3 [( )]

-> 22 M kom uw bord


Control act in CBD, using the imperative form

after a build-up of the refusal of this food item

+ overall heightening of

noise, movement and

drama



11 ( [ )


[first still a bean




I want more of that




[but not so mu:::ch






20 M [( )]

21 CH3 [( )]

-> 22 M kom uw bord


Ketchup-child is waving his

arms, M’s spoonful of beans

is suspended in the air

Overall: case 1

Part 1: regular multi-activity at the dinner table, during which the

preferred food (i.c. potato balls) was distributed

Control act in SD

Part 2: the disliked food (i.c. beans) is distributed, ketchup-child is

heightening the drama and there is some urgency with the food

suspended in the air

Control act in CBD

Case 2: CBD in co-occurrence with a booster

Situation: Child 2 has particular food-related predilections. His parents

already jointly refused more of one food item (viz. meatballs) on the

grounds of the child not having touched another (viz. rice).

In this fragment, Ch2 wants to have more sauce.

2 CH2 µ+mama::

mu::m

m µ downward eye-gaze -->

f +looks at ch1 and ch4 -->

3 M ((nods))

4 CH2 ma ma ma ma ik wil *da * nog*( )

but but but but I want that still ( )

ch2 *points* *crosses his arms -->>

5 #(4.2) + #

m #puts down her cutlery and takes a spoon of sauce #

f -->+ gaze to m -->>

2 CH2 µ+mama::

mu::m



3 M ((nods))




5 #(4.2) + #


f -->+ gaze to m -->>

Ch 2 addresses M

M nods but does not

look at Ch 2

Ch2 requests sauce

M wordlessly complies

with request

F shifts gaze to M

2 CH2 µ+mama::

mu::m



3 M ((nods))




5 #(4.2) + #


f -->+ gaze to m -->>

M continues her downward gaze throughout the fragment

F shifts his gaze to M at the end and starts reprimanding

M in the next line…

6 F #komaan mama nee zegt ns ↑nee

come on mum no say ↑no for once

m #scoops sauce on ch2’s plate-->

7 F tis goe hij gaat da nooit opeten#

it’s okay he will never finish that

m -->#

-> 8 M voila hup en nu gade stoppen me zeuren

voila hup and now you ((CBD)) will stop nagging

9 ik wil u nie meer horen en µ

I don’t want to hear you ((CBD)) anymore and

m -->µ

-> 10 µ dan gade verder µ eten

then you ((CBD)) will continue eating

m µ eye-gaze to F µ downward eye-gaze -->>






m -->#





m -->µ



m µ eye-gaze to F µ downward eye-gaze -->>

F reprimands M

M utters control acts

to Ch 2, but looks at F

Focus on the

control acts






m -->#





m -->µ



m µ eye-gaze to F µ downward eye-gaze -->> CBD-control acts serve dual function:

- instructing the child to behave in a better way

- retorting the father’s immediately preceding reproach

Hence: M’s gaze to F

Overall: case 2

The mother is challenged in two ways here:

• by the child who continues to non-verbally mark his bad-temperedness even though his request for sauce is granted

• by her partner who displays irritation with the mother’s compliance that is inconsistent with a norm that was previously agreed upon


These two fragments are situated in a different node of the regression

tree, yet they demonstrate quite some similarities.

a shared situation of increased pressure or tension, as was already identified as an important factor in early studies on this topic (Ervin-

Tripp 1976: 36).

tension may have various causes, which may be very

idiosyncratic (e.g. the involvement of the father in fragment 2),

Tension results in an increased level of irritation and a lesser concern about the child’s autonomy in making their own decisions

(cf. mutuality model)

On the linguistic level, this is reflected in a drop in SD-use, and a turn to CBD.

Outline







This study:





The standard language effectively

seems more tied to implicitness

This study:





Window into language regards

Standing questions

• How about the excluded family with near-exclusive CBD?

• Why do parents not always display their “best” parenting?

• “Irritation” as mitigating factor how to study from a bird’s eyeperspective?

• Socialization to use language What do children pick up from theattested variation?

• Study children’s behavior as well

“children’s well-established tendency to regularize does

not prevent them from learning sociolinguistically

conditioned variation” (Samara et al. 2017)

Families are CofP’s (Lanza 2007)

When referring to this work, please use the following details:

Zenner,E., D.Van De Mieroop. (forthc.). The alternation between

standard and vernacular by Belgian Dutch parents in child-oriented

control acts. Submitted to A.Ghimenton, A.Nardy, J.Chevrot (eds.),

Sociolinguistic Variation and Language Acquisition across the

Lifespan. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Thanks for listening!

[email protected]

[email protected]

Variation in child-directed speech: standard and ......2nd person singular + can Je mag een lepel...

Documents

Transcript of Variation in child-directed speech: standard and ......2nd person singular + can Je mag een lepel...