Advertisement

Journal of Psycholinguistic Research

, Volume 41, Issue 2, pp 83–103 | Cite as

How Do Adults Use Repetition? A Comparison of Conversations with Young Children and with Multiply-Handicapped Adolescents

  • Christine BocéréanEmail author
  • Emmanuelle Canut
  • Michel Musiol
Original Paper
  • 208 Downloads

Abstract

The aim of this research is to compare the types and functions of repetitions in two different corpora, one constituted of verbal interactions between adults and multiply-handicapped adolescents, the other between adults and young children of the same mental age as the adolescents. Our overall aim is to observe whether the communicative (linguistic and pragmatic) behaviour of adults varies according to the interlocutor and, if it does vary, in what ways. The main results show that adults do not use repetition strategy with the same aims according to the interlocutor. When interacting with a child, repetitions form part of a strategy of linguistic ‘tutoring’ which allow the child to take on board progressively more complex linguistic constructions; it also enriches exchanges from a pragmatic point of view. On the other hand, when adults communicate with multiply-handicapped adolescents, their main aim is the maintaining of dialogue.

Keywords

Discourse analysis Comparison between verbal corpora Multiply-handicapped adolescent Linguistic tutoring Repetition function 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bernicot J., Salazar-Orvig A., Veneziano E. (2006) Les reprises: dialogue, formes, fonctions et ontogenèse. La Linguistique 42: 30–50Google Scholar
  2. Bocéréan C., Musiol M. (2009) Mutual understanding mechanism in verbal exchanges between carers and multiply-disabled young people: An interaction structure analysis. Pragmatics 19(2): 161–177Google Scholar
  3. Bohannon J. N. III, Stanowicz L. (1988) The issue of negative evidence: Adult responses to children’s language errors. Developmental Psychology 5(24): 684–689CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bruner J. S. (1983) Le développement de l’enfant: Savoir faire, savoir dire. Paris: P.U.F.Google Scholar
  5. Canut E. (2006) Apprentissage du langage oral et accès à l’écrit. Travailler avec un chercheur dans l’école. Amiens: CRDP d'Amiens/Scérén.Google Scholar
  6. Canut, E. (2009). La syntaxe: un socle indispensable à l’apprentissage du langage. In E. Lesconceptions interactionnistes de la linguistique del’acquisition àl alumière des approches contemporaines. L’exemple de parce que. In E. Canut & M. Vertalier (Eds.), L’apprentissage du langage: une approche interactionnelle. Réflexions théoriques et pratiques de terrain. (pp. 69–125). Paris: L’HarmattanGoogle Scholar
  7. Canut, E., & Vertalier, M. (2005). Un fonctionnement-clé de l’acquisition du langage: essais et reformulations dans les interactions adulte-enfant. Colloque RRR: Répétition, Reprises et Reformulations. Quels usages dans les interactions verbales? Paris: LEAPLE, 1-2 avril.Google Scholar
  8. Chouinard M. M., Clark E. V. (2003) Adult reformulations of child errors as negative evidence. Journal of Child Language 30: 637–669PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Clark E. V. (2006) La répétition et l’acquisition du langage. La Linguistique 42: 67–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Clark E. V., Chouinard M. M. (2000) Enoncés enfantins et reformulations adultes dans l’acquisition du langage. Langages 140: 9–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Clark H. H. (1996) Using language. C.U.P, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  12. Clark H. H., Wasow T. (1998) Repeating words in spontaneous speech. Cognitive Psychology 37: 21–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Curl T. S., Local J., Walker G. (2006) Repetition and the prosody-pragmatics interface. Journal of Pragmatics 38(10): 1721–1751CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. De Weck G. (2006) Les reprises dans les interactions adulte-enfant: Comparaison d’enfants dysphasiques et tout-venant. La Linguistique 42: 115–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Diessel H. (2004) The acquisition of complex sentences. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gallaway C., Richards B. (1994) Input and interaction in language acquisition. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  17. Hudelot C. (1987) Organisateurs discursifs du dialogue adulte-enfant: une esquisse tracée à partir de quelques dialogues (enfants de 5 à 6 ans). Modèles Linguistiques IX(1): 33–51Google Scholar
  18. Karnoouh-Vertalier M. (1998) Évolution du fonctionnement syntaxique et variantes Énonciatives. Observation d’interactions langagières entre adulte et enfant au cours d’activitÉs de narration. Langue Française 118: 84–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Keith E. N., Welsh J., Camarata S. M., Butkovsky L., Camarata M. (1995) Available input for language-impaired children and younger children of matched language levels. First Language 15(43): 1–17Google Scholar
  20. Lentin L. (2009) Apprendre à penser, parler, lire, écrire. E.S.F, ParisGoogle Scholar
  21. Levinson S.C. (1983) Pragmatics. C.P.U, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  22. Lieven E. V. M., Pine J. M. (1993) Exposition et appropriation dans l’acquisition de la langue maternelle. AILE 2: 143–171Google Scholar
  23. Musiol M., Trognon A., Coulon D., Bocéréan C. (2006) Structure de l’Interaction Verbale et Rationalité Argumentative chez l’Enfant Polyhandicapé~: Répétitions, Reprises et Dynamique. Le Langage et l’Homme XXXXI(2): 27–43Google Scholar
  24. Nelson K. E., Kaplan B. J., Denninger M. S., Bonvillian J. D., Baker N. D. (1984) Maternal input adjustments and non-adjustments as related to children’s linguistic advances and to language acquisition theories. In: Pelligrini A., Yawkey T. (eds) The development of oral and written language in social contexts, Vol. XIII. Ablex, Norwood, NJ, pp 31–56Google Scholar
  25. Nelson K. E., Welsh J. M., Camarata S. M., Tjus T., Heimann M. (2001) A rare event transactional model of tricky mix conditions contributing to language acquisition and varied communicative delays. In: Nelson K. E., Aksu-Koç A., Johnson C. E. (eds) Children’s language, Vol. 11. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, pp 165–195Google Scholar
  26. Perrin L., Deshaies D., Paradis C. (2003) Pragmatic functions of local diaphonic repetition in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 35: 1843–1860CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rabain-Jamin, J., Marcos, H., & Bernicot, J. (2006). Reprises de l’adulte et socialisation de l’enfant Wolof (Sénégal). La Linguistique, 42, 81–98.Google Scholar
  28. Rieger C. L. (2003) Repetition as self-repair strategies in English and German conversations. Journal of Pragmatics 35: 47–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Roulet E., Auchlin A., Moeschler J., Rubattel C., Schelling M. (1985) L’articulation du discours en français contemporain. Peter Lang, BerneGoogle Scholar
  30. Salazar-Orvig A. (2000) La reprise aux sources de la construction discursive. Langage 140: 68–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Schegloff E. A., Jefferson G., Sachs H. (1977) The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language 53: 361–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Searle, J. R. (1969/1972). Les actes de langage. Hermann: Paris.Google Scholar
  33. Searle J. R., Vanderveken D. (1985) Foundations of illocutionary logic. C.P.U, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  34. Snow C. E. (1995) Issues in the study of input: Finetuning, universality, individual and developmental differences, and necessary causes. In: Fletcher P., MacWhinney B. (eds) The handbook of child language. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 180–193Google Scholar
  35. Trognon A. (2002) Speech acts and the logic of mutual understanding. In: Vanderveken D., Kubo S. (eds) Essays in speech acts theory. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp 121–133Google Scholar
  36. Trognon A., Brassac C. (1992) L’enchaînement conversationnel. Cahiers de Linguistique Française 13: 67–108Google Scholar
  37. Vanderveken D., Kubo S. (2002) Introduction. In: Vanderveken D., Kubo S. (eds) Essays in speech acts theory. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp 1–21Google Scholar
  38. Veneziano E. (2000) Conversation et acquisition du langage dans les trois premières années. In: Kail M., Fayol M. (eds) L’acquisition du langage. Le langage en émergence de la naissance à trois ans. P.U.F, Paris, pp 231–265Google Scholar
  39. Verhaegen F., Bocéréan C., Musiol M. (2008) Rationalité du processus de répétition chez l’enfant normal et polyhandicapé: aux frontières de la pathologie. Philosophia Scientiae 12(2): 111–128Google Scholar
  40. Vigil D. C., Hodges J., Kle T. (2005) Quantity and quality of parental language input to late-talking todlers during play. Child Language Teaching & Therapy 21(2): 107–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Yont K. M., Hewitt L. R., Miccio A. W. (2002) What dit you say?: Understanding conversational breakdown in children with speech and language impairments. Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics 16(4): 265–285PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christine Bocéréan
    • 1
    Email author
  • Emmanuelle Canut
    • 2
  • Michel Musiol
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyNancy UniversityNancy CedexFrance
  2. 2.Departement of Language SciencesNancy UniversityNancyFrance

Personalised recommendations