Evie Mini Investigation

How far does Evie's Grandma's Language support Skinner's Theory?

 

Introduction:

Skinner's Theory suggests this: that children acquire language based on “behaviourist reinforcement” by linking meanings to words. For example if a child says the word “Dog” and their mother smiles or behaves positively then they will continue to link that word to the same meaning. I expect to find evidence that supports this like if her Grandma praises her or tells her "no" if she's done something wrong.

 

The data that I have collected are two transcript and are from the same people, which  makes it reliable. The only difference is that they are talking about a different topic and she's 5 months apart in age. This could influence it's reliability but I will consider this in my evaluation. Also, the data was from 2004, which is over a decade ago but I don't think that it would affect the analysis at all.

 

Analysis:

From looking at the two transcripts I can see that there are a lot of positive behaviour reinforcement in the texts. The table below shows the amount of positive and negative reinforcements.

Behaviour Reinforcements:	Amount:	Does Evie respond?
Transcript 1
Positive	11	11
Negative	1	1
Transcript 2
Positive	4	4
Negative	0	0

In the Table above Transcript 1 is the 'All the things' transcript and Transcript 2 is the 'Castle' transcript.

In the transcripts, Evie doesn’t really reply to her grandma's positive reinforcement however she didn't question it, so I counted that in my quantifications as her responding because she didn’t seem confused as to why her grandma was praising her.

I also counted her grandma repeating what Evie said as positive reinforcement as she was reinforcing what Evie was saying as correct.

I find it interesting that Evie's grandma didn't use much negative behaviour reinforcement. In fact the only negative reinforcement that she used on Evie was telling her: "go on then you find the bath (.) no not that bath the house bath (4) oh yeah that’s it (.) who wants to go in the bath do you think?"

However, this was only a miscommunication and not really something that Evie did wrong. Something else that I found interesting was how the Grandma recovered the negative reinforcement. This is evidence that supports Skinner's theory about behaviour reinforcement.

She  also quickly changed from sort-of telling her off to asking her a question that's linked to get her to talk. I think that this is also evidence of child-led discourse which could also  support Skinner's hypothesis that children's language is influenced by the environment around them.

However, there is no way that I could know whether it worked or not. This is because I have no other data from later on in Evie's life that would show whether her Grandma's language has affected her's.

 

Conclusion:

So, in conclusion, I think that my chosen theory supports my data to an extent. The reason that I found what I found is because I had two transcripts with the same people and so reliable data. I also think that I found it limiting because I only had two instead of more  which could have helped me to either prove or disprove more clearly than I did. In the future, I think I need more reliable data and so more data which would improve my analysis and final conclusion.

Methodology and theories

Methodology

 

What I need to collect is a range of data that shows the caregiver's natural speech to the child and their response to the child's language, both grammatical mistakes and correct use. An example from my sample data that I found interesting was the language and response from the carer.  That is how I came to my conclusion of focusing on the carers' language rather than the child's. Even though the context was them reading a book and spotting the animals, the child copied her telling him what animal it is. Her commenting on him in the future this could lead to him using the word correctly. And so similar data like that, although focusing more on the carer, would lead to really interesting language to talk about. I will get her to do tasks that will able her to interact with the child, like playing, counting and reading through books.

The process that I used to make the sample data and future data comparable, reliable and ethical is making sure that it was as natural as it could be. The only issue with it was that she knew that she was being recorded, which could have influenced her language. However, in my actual data, I will manage this by letting her know to be as natural as she can. The observer’s paradox is an issue in recording someone who knows that they are being recorded. How I plan on overcoming this is perhaps recording more then only using a certain amount of it. An example would be recording for 10 minutes and only using the second half or the middle 5 minutes which could be when her speech is as natural as it can be. I think I will need to keep in mind the reliability of it as well and so make sure that if I record 10 minutes on one and use the last 5 minutes then I will need to do that on all other recordings.

I will collect more recordings, and so transcripts, than I will need in case there is not much data there that would be useful for my investigation. I want to use 3 or 4 recordings and so will collect 5 or 6 so I will have extras. I think that the data will be more reliable as well if I collect more than I need; if I do the same quantifications on each transcript then it will most likely end up more similar than if I didn’t do that.

When I recorded my sample data I made sure that the carer knew that she, and her child, could back out at any time if she was unsure about it. I will let her know this when recording more data. I will also make sure that she knows the only people who will see the data is me, my teacher, peers and exam markers. So, in the end I should end up with data that is reliable, ethical and that shows how the care giver’s interactions and language affects the child’s language.

Theories:

Jean Piaget- Cognitive development:

He said that he was interested in the reasons that children gave for their wrong answers to the questions that required logical thinking. Piaget said that the incorrect answers exposed important differences between the thinking of adults and children. He stated that children are born with a basic mental structure, which had been genetically inherited and evolved. And that all consequent learning and knowledge from them is based on it. He believed that a person’s childhood plays a vital and active role in their future development; this idea is commonly known as a “developmental stage theory”. This theory talks about the nature of knowledge and how we slowly acquire, construct, and use it.

He said that our cognitive development was a progressive restructuring of mental processes that has resulted from biological maturation and our environmental experience, and so from the people around us. He stated that “children will construct an understanding of the world around them, experience discrepancies between what they already know and what they discover in their environment, and then adjust their ideas accordingly.” He also claimed that cognitive development is the centre of all human development and so our language is reliant on knowledge and understanding that is acquired through cognitive development.

Examples:

Piaget conducted an experiment that evaluated the cognitive capabilities of children of different ages through the use of a scale and varying weights. The task that the children had to do was balance a scale by hooking weights on the ends of it. To successfully complete it, the children had to use formal operational that would show the distance of the weights from the centre and the heaviness of the weights both affected the balance. A heavier weight had to be placed closer to the centre of the scale, and a lighter weight has to be placed farther from the centre, so that the two weights balance each other. While 3 to 5 year olds couldn’t comprehend the concept of balancing, children by the age of 7 could balance the scale by placing the same weights on both ends, but they failed to realize the importance of the location. By age 10, children could think about location but failed to use logic and instead used trial-and-error. By age 13 and 14, some children more clearly understood the relationship between weight and distance and could successfully implement their hypothesis.

 

Lev Vyotski- Zone of Proximal development:

Vygotski saw that interaction between peers as an effective way of developing skills and strategies. He suggested that teachers use cooperative learning exercises where less competent children develop with help from more skilful and competent peers - within the zone of proximal development. This is the difference between what a learner can do without help and what they can do with help. It’s a concept that wasn’t fully developed.

He stated that when a student is in the zone of proximal development when completing a particular task, if the appropriate assistance is provided, it will give the student enough of a "boost" to complete the task.

The Zone of Proximal Development has become also been linked to the term scaffolding. When the student, after the benefit of scaffolding, masters the task, the scaffolding can then be removed and the student will then be able to complete the task again on their own.

 

Bibliography:

http://www.simplypsychology.org/piaget.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piaget%27s_theory_of_cognitive_development

http://www.simplypsychology.org/Zone-of-Proximal-Development.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zone_of_proximal_development

Transcript Analyses

Transcript of a 2 years 8 month old

E= Ellie     B= Bailey (the child)   L= Lauren (Bailey’s mum)     *“Udge”= Smudge (Bailey’s pet dog)

B: Ye (.) be geen one (.) I be this wu-wun

E: Okay (.) I’ll be the green

L: Now you’ve got to read it by saying all the pictures

E: Okay (.) now what’s that one?

B: Chick (.) Ken (2) da dog

L: What’s that one?

B: I on’t know (.) dog

E: (laughs) dog

B: Tame as *Udge

L: Yeah (.) same as *Smudge

L&E: (Laughs) (2)

E: And (.) what’s that one?

B: Jraff

E: Giraffe

B: That’s (3) a (2) uh (.) ‘orses

E: Horses

B: Er rat’s (that’s) duck

E: Duck

B: ‘ook all ese

E: Yeah look at all of that

B: Duck

E: Another duck (.) what’s the next one (6)

B: I on’t (.) know

L: Ga (.) go (1)

B: Goat (.) tat (.( tat (.) wut this? (2)

L: Sealion

B: Sea line (5) rock

L: Pardon?

B: Rock (2)

L: Leopard

B: Lepa (.) urd rock

L: A rock?

L&E: (laughs)

L: It’s a rhino

B: Ri (.) yo (5) pig

E: Good (.) a pig

B: Uh dog

L: Baby sheep

B: Bay (.) Bee sheep

L: It’s called a lamb

B: Yeah (inaudible for 3 seconds) uh (.) tow

L: Yep (5)

B: Uh (.) dis?

L: Deer

B: Deer (2) uh

L: Raccoon

B: Wak (.) oon (4) a raddit (.) polar bear

L: Not a polar bear (.) a pa

B: Panda

E: |Panda|

L: |Good| boy

Analyse:

The child's language shows a of multiple non-standard language examples. My first example of non-standard English that I find interesting is "raddit"- he replaces the 'b's' with 'd's' which is odd. It's almost like he didn't know how to say it or add all the letters together to make the word. I find this interesting because he can pronounce the letter in other words like the 'b' in polar bear and in the word 'be'. However these last two examples use the 'b' at the start of the word.
Another example would be this:

"L: Sealion

B: Sea line"
He can't pronounce the sound that the "io" makes. I find this unexpected as he can pronounce the "or" in horses.
Through out the transcript there's grammatically correct words and sentences and incorrect. I think that it could either be because he's never been correct or that he has learned it from the people around him, which could support Skinner's idea of the environment being where we learn our language from.

Another example from the text that I find interesting is the language and response of the carer. For example, at the end when 'L' says: "Good boy". That compliment will tell him that what he just said is correct. Although the context is them reading a book and spotting the animals, he's copied her telling him what animal it is. So, in the future this could lead to him using the word correctly. I'm considering doing about that the carer for my coursework.

Phonics:

 

There are two different types of phonic systems: Synthetic Phonics and Analytic Phonics. Synthetic Phonics is the older approach and easier to explain. It is when the children are presented to 44 phonemes (letter’s sounds), they then will be able to recognise the letters at the start middle and end of the word. Once these are known they are taught to blend the letters into one word.

Analytic Phonics is more concentrated on the children’s experience of books. The way that it is taught is by looking at texts that children are familiar with then look at the initial letter then work to break down the rest of the word. Phonemes associated with particular graphemes are not pronounced alone. The children identify the common phoneme in a set of words in which each word contains the phoneme under study.

 

The article seems more pro synthetic phonics than analytic phonics. It seems like a very positive way of teaching, synthetic phonics, as they can learn up to 8 words in just over two weeks compared to analytic phonics which is one word in one week. Around 5,000 schools are teaching their children synthetic phonics. This is according to Thrass “(teaching handwriting, reading and spelling skills), that presents children as young as three or four with the 120 spelling choices in English via a system of grids, key images and chants.”

There are many advantages for synthetic phonics like: how fast paced it is means that it’s unlikely that the children will get bored and so will be able to read simple books about 11/12 weeks after starting to learn it. Another advantage is that they way that children are taught is by tracing and copy letters as they are learnt and they write correctly spelled words and phrases, will enable them to be more likely remembered. One more advantage is that children learn sounds that are represented by two letters at the same time as those written with one. So, they’re less likely to get confused when they see that individual letters sound different in different words. An example would be that they understand from an early age that an ‘e’ sounds different in ‘let’ than in ‘green’. They’ll also be able to read words like ‘mushroom’ with the same amount of ease as ‘cat’.

However there are some critics who say that even though phonics speeds up how fast a child can read words, it doesn’t help their understanding of what the words mean.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/the-sound-and-the-fury-of-the-phonic-boom-1096076.html

http://www.getreadingright.com.au/analytic-phonics-vs-synthetic-phonics/

http://www.childrens-books-and-reading.com/synthetic-phonics.html

Evie Questions

To what extent is this an example of child-led discourse? What is characteristic of the two participants' language?

I think that the video, to an extent, is a great example of child-led discourse. An example is when Evie’s grandma keeps the conversation along.

“G           two cats (2) how many things have we got now in the picture?

E              (inaudible)

G             how many? count them”

There’s over 16 of these strategies that show Evie’s grandma moving the conversation along. It is used to keep Evie talking instead of letting her just be quiet. These are important because it is a great example of child-led discourse. It’s also important because it shows that it triggers Evie to talk which could lead to her talking more and so getting a grasp on correct language. This is another example of the video showing that it is child-led discourse: her grandma trying to get her to understand language. She adds words to make a sentence that Evie will understand, although it might not be grammatically correct. The below section of the transcript shows this:

“E            (2) cat

G             cat           

E              in the picture

G             we want cat in the picture okay”

By repeating what Evie is basically saying, but in a sentence, she’s showing Evie what to say in the future. This could lead to Evie learning language quicker than she might have on her own.

 

I think what’s characteristic of Evie’s language is that she’s trying to take charge of the conversation instead of her grandma leading it, although she does at points during it.

“E            some more

G             some more things

E              (.) sho-o-o-w

G             you choose

E              (2) this

G             what’s that? (2) who is it?

E              tigger”

This shows that she’s trying to choose what to do. She attempts to say “show” which shows that she’s trying to understand language. Her grandma is characteristic to trying to get her lead and talk. I have explained this above.

Coursework Ideas

I am currently choosing between two ideas for my investigation. My first idea is something to do with children’s language- I’m thinking about how a 2 years olds’ language supports the stage that they should be in. For this idea I’m considering linking the hypothesis from Skinner that says that “children acquire language based on behaviourist reinforcement by linking words to meanings.” I feel like this will be an interesting theory to explore and test, considering more people believe Chomsky who is his opposite, although I don’t completely believe in his theory. I am planning to collect at least three recordings (and then turned into transcripts) to see if they support my hypothesis. I will attempt to get the child to talk about different subjects that I know they will respond positively too so that the recordings aren’t too similar. I think that one of the only difficulties is that as it is a child that I am testing, he (the child) might not want to cooperate.

The sample data that I have collected show me that he definitely has some grammatical mistakes and errors like mispronounced words, so I will have something to talk about and investigate.

I am considering using additional data but am not sure what and how to link it to my investigation.

As mentioned before there will definitely be difficulties, like the child not cooperating. But I will overcome this by recording at a time that his parents have said he’s at his most talkative. Another difficulty is that I could be subconsciously biased as the child is a relation of mine. I will have to make sure, from my peers, that I don’t do this. I will also handle this in my analysis/evaluation by mentioning what went wrong and why it went like this. In addition, I’ll explain what I could have done instead to have made it work.

 

My second idea for my investigation is to do with children reading. I’m not sure what hypothesis to test for this idea. I’m thinking maybe Uta Frith’s theory; “she proposed that the earliest stage, which she termed the logographic stage, involves children being able to recognise written words on the basis of remembering certain key characteristics of the printed word.” I am planning to collect at least three, maybe four, recordings of the child (5 years old) reading. I will get probably 2 books that the child recognises and maybe 1 or 2 books that the child doesn’t recognise. I think that it’ll be interesting to see if the child will already say the words on the next page before turning the page. I also think that it will be good if the child doesn’t know a book and attempts to read it.

My sample data shows that the child can read quite well. However she takes a while to read and takes a lot of pauses between longer words compared to words like “in” and “is”. I think I could maybe include additional data like a questionnaire to either the child or the parents to see how well they think she can read and when she started reading etc.

I will come across difficulties/issues like the child not being willing to cooperate, like in the first idea.  And perhaps that the child can read quite well and so there might not be many mistakes. In the evaluation, I will do exactly like my first idea, I’ll explain what went wrong, why and what I would do to change it.

 

I’m not sure what my media text will be about but it will be linked to my coursework idea, something linked to children’s language or reading. I think the question that I have is which idea do I do, I think I’m leaning towards the first idea.

The Stages of Language Acquisition

Children's Language Development- Spoken

 

Stage One: Babbling:

Babbling is the first stage of Children's Language Acquisition. It isn't a major stage but some theories say it's the first as it is the first stage where children attempt to talk. Babies recognise their mother's own voice after the first few weeks of being born. It's usually at 8 months that the baby begins using it's vocals to talk. Babies tend to learn by imitation and babbling stage is just like that. Within the first few months the baby hears sounds surrounding them and tries to reproduce them, albeit with limited success. The babies attempts at creating and matching the sounds which is what we call babbling. After babbling for a few months, it begins to link the words or sounds it's making to objects or actions. From 8 months-12 months the baby gains more and more control over not only it’s vocal communication but physical communication as well, like body language and gesturing.  When the baby uses both verbal and non-verbal means to communicate, only then does it move on to the next stage of language acquisition.

 

Holophrastic / One-word stage:

In this stage, children are around 12-18 months and learn to produce single words to mean phrases or sentences. An example would be "play" which could mean I want to play or "Teddy" if they want their teddy. During this stage, nouns make up around 50% of the vocabulary compared to verbs and modifiers which make up around 30% and questions and negatives which make up the rest. The reason that this stage is called the holophrastic stage, is because sometimes children's production of speech is longer and is considered as being only one unit or a whole phrase, which is called a Holophrase. An example would be "Gosleep".

Children learn the ability to distinguish between interrogative, declarative and imperative phrases, and despite their limited grammatical structuring, are able to aid their communication more effectively. For example: 'Dada?' said with a rising tone, would imply a question. 'Dada' said with a falling tone, would imply declarative statement.  'Dada!' said in an exclamation, would imply imperative statement. Children also learn words usually in a certain order. The most common are nouns first, particularly the names of objects directly involved in the baby’s life e.g. ball and doll. The second most frequent is action words often used to get attention. E.g. “bye-bye”, “up” “look”. Describing words, personal, social and function words usually come later on.

 

Two word stage:

The two word stage is around the age of 18-24 months and is made up of primarily two word sentences. These sentences contain 1 word for the predicate and 1 word for the subject. . 'Baby chair', 'Mummy eat' and 'Cat bad' are all examples of utterances at this stage and as it may be obvious, require interpretation. During this stage we see the appearance of single modifiers e.g. “That dog”, two word questions: “Mummy eat?” and the addition of the suffix onto words to describe something that is happening : “Baby Sleeping.” Context of an utterance can help the ambiguity behind such statements. For example: 'Baby chair' could mean:

·         Possession: 'this is baby's chair'.

·         Request/command: 'put baby in chair'.

·         Statement: 'baby is in the chair'.

 

The Telegraphic Stage:

This stage is between the age 2-3 and could be considered the most important. The stage is named this because it is similar to what is seen in a telegram; containing just enough information for the sentence to make sense. This stage contains three and four word sentences. Sometime during this stage the child begins to see the links between words and objects and some of the children's utterances are grammatically correct, for example: "teddy looks tired."  However others have grammatical elements missing: "This shoe all wet"- it's missing is to make it correct.

Children are more likely to keep hold of content words (nouns, verbs and adjectives, that refer to real things) and function words (that have grammatical function: pronouns and verbs) are often lost.

Overgeneralisations are also found at this stage, which is when children make errors in their allowance of variety. For example:

§  The inflection -s to mark plurality is seen to be added to irregular verbs: sheep: sheeps

§  The inflection -ed to mark past tense is seen to be added to irregular verbs: go: goed

Such examples would suggest that children try to figure out grammar by themselves,  not by hearing them from the people around them in their environment. Children would not hear 'goed' from the adults around them. 

 During this stage a child’s vocabulary expands from 50 words to up to 13,000 words. At the end of this stage the child starts to incorporate plurals, joining words and attempts to get a grip on tenses.

As a child’s grasp on language grows it may seem to us as though they just learn each part in a random order, but it's not the case. There's a definite order of speech sounds. Children first start speaking vowels, starting with the rounded mouthed sounds like “oo” and “aa”. After the vowels come the consonants, p, b, m, t, d, n, k and g. The consonants are first because they are easier to pronounce then some of the others, for example ‘s’ and ‘z’ require specific tongue place which children cannot do at that age.

As all human beings do, children will improvise something they cannot yet do. For example when children come across a sound they cannot produce they replace it with a sound they can e.g. "Wun" instead of "Run." 

Reference:

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCEQFjAAahUKEwjaw_HTn-rHAhXDltsKHbQlCNI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thestudentroom.co.uk%2Fattachment.php%3Fattachmentid%3D25709%26d%3D1151420036&usg=AFQjCNHQ-68vokbrzro4t3msVWF0nTtsmQ&bvm=bv.102022582,d.bGg

https://sites.google.com/a/sheffield.ac.uk/all-about-linguistics/branches/language-acquisition/what-is-child-lanuage-acquistion

https://enlsac2max.wordpress.com/stages-of-language-acquisition/

Reading Log

Source One:

The Guardian. 2015. ICYMI, English language is changing faster than ever, says expert. [Online]. [Accessed 11 July 2015]. Available from: http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/may/01/icymi-english-language-is-changing-faster-than-ever-says-expert (In this article the writer explains that the English Language is evolving quicker lately due to social media and instant messaging. The Language Change can be found greatly in "text speak" terms. The writer explores terms like ICYMI (in case you missed it) and modern terms like "fleek" and "bae". They surveyed 2,000 people to see if they knew what these terms meant, and the results were very low.)

Source Two:

Hill, A. 2011. Singing to children may help development of language skills. [Online]. [Accessed 11 July 2015]. Available from: http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2011/may/08/singing-children-development-language-skills (The article explains that singing to children could actually help their language development. Sally Goddard Blythe, a consultant developmental education director has said that singing traditional lullabies and nursery rhymes to babies and infants before they learn to speak is essential in later educational success. It's a special type of speech which prepares the babies voice, brain and ear for language that it will soon be taught. Hill explains that there have been significant numbers of children that enter school and nursery that have inadequate language skills as their parents haven't helped to develop them.)

Source Three:

Sample, I. 2014. Talking to babies boosts their brain power, studies show. [Online]. [Accessed 22 July 2015]. Available from: http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/feb/14/talking-to-babies-brain-power-language (In the article, she (Hill) explained that reading bedtime stories to babies improves their brain power and so sets them up for school success. A developmental psychologists has said that parents shouldn't just use simplistic baby talk and should expand the language they use to talk to their child. The psychologist described a series of experiments in which she tested children's language processing skills. It found that when parents chatted more with their children, their language processing improved and they learned new words more swiftly.

Source Four:

Gill, M. 2013. Have we literally broken the English language? [Online]. [Accessed 30 July 2015]. Available from: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/13/literally-broken-english-language-definition (Throughout the article she (Gill) talks about how language is changing by how the word "literally" has changed. The original definition is "in a literal manner or sense" now, it means "to acknowledge that something is not literally true but is used for emphasis or to express strong feeling". It then states that we can't do anything about it as people would be surprised if it is used in the original sense of the word. Also if it isn't literally it's another word.

Source Five:

Kleinman, Z. How the internet is changing language. [Online]. [Accessed 25 August 2015]. Available from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-10971949 (In the article Kleinman writes about the different ways that internet is changing our language. An example would be 'to Google'. Years ago this phrase would have no meaning, now it means to search something on Google's search engine. Other ways are super slang in computers (Control, Alt, Delete) and Word play. An example of Word play is Lolcats. There would be a picture of a cat accompanied by a deliberately grammatically incorrect caption. She overall shows that this could be the future of our communication and language.

Mini Investigation

Hypothesis: Older people (usually males) will hold the most power.

Transcript of separate conversations from Gogglebox from the same working class family:

-------- =separate conversations

J= Jonathan (Dad)        N= Nikki (Mum)       Jo= Josh (Son)       A=Amy (Daughter)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jo: Is that how you danced with your wrists dad at |bar mitzvahs|

J:                                                                                        |I know|

 N: Don’t criticize (.)  you’re father’s dancing  (.) he is fabulous

Jo: Is it (2) (dances) is |it| yeah

N:                                   |I| would never ever married someone who can’t dance (1) it’s such a turn off

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

N: He is so stunning (.) you’ve got to admit he’s so good looking

J: You really like him don’t |you|

N:                                            |He’s| one of the best looking men on this Earth

J: Uh |huh|

N:      |He| |is|

A:               |Apart | from dad (3) after |dad|

N:                                                                 |He’s| stun|ning|

A:                                                                                       |After|dad

N: Yeah after dad

J: Yeah she really meant that didn’t she

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

A: Dad (.) then their gonna come back at us (2)

J: Well unfortunately (.) they hate the west anyway (2) if don’t (1) if someone doesn’t have the ideology (.)

N: Then they |think|

J:                     |then| they’re going to destroy them just the same (1)

A: So then why don’t we just stay out of it and not get involved and |then|

N:                                                                                                                     |No because we can’t (.) they

J:                                                                                                                       |Because they will still all (.)

N: need| they need the support of countries like us and| America|

J: they’ll still attack us|                                                           |They| need (.) that’s why they are called allies (1) countries get |together|

A:                                     |So what’s| gonna |happen|

J:                                                                         |It’s| good fighting bad (.) it’s good fighting evil

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

·         Interruptions: J=5    N=5    Jo=0    A=3

·         Sentence length: J=70    N=70    Jo=17    A=34 

 

Through all three conversations, interruptions were a constant factor. There were 13 interruptions overall: 2 in the first conversation, 5 in the second conversation and 6 in the last. The higher amount of times that someone interrupts could suggest that they are the more powerful participant within a conversation. Stereotypically males are more likely to interrupt than women. This is from Zimmerman and Wests ‘Dominance Theory’.  Another theory that could support interruptions as a significant feature in analysis is Fairclough’s ‘Unequal Encounters’. One person supposedly is more dominant than the others in a conversation, although it can change; if one person is interrupting more than others, they could hold the influential power, and they may appear to seem more dominant.

The parents interrupt the most and equally which was what I had originally expected, although I did think that ‘J’ was going to interrupt the more as he’s the dad of the family. In the last conversation ‘J’ interrupts 4 times, which is the most in the conversation. In the second conversation ‘N’ interrupts the most (3 times) which could suggest that between them 'J' is more dominant.

 

Another attribute that could show who has the most power is sentence length. If someone has the most power and dominance then they most likely would have longer air time. The data shows that overall in all three conversations, oddly, both parents had an equal amount of sentence length. 'J' spoke 10 times and 'N': 11. The reason behind this could be that they both spoke  lot when explaining to 'A' in conversation 3.

'Jo' isn't surprising to have spoken the least words considering he only spoke twice. 'A' spoke nearly half the amount as her parents which does prove my hypothesis. However it disproves The Dominance Theory when comparing her to 'Jo', who should have spoke more than her.

 

Goes against the theory/hypothesis:

·         'A' interrupts 'N' which is odd as 'A' is 'N's' daughter and so it is expected that the mother would have more dominance and power so her daughter would be expected to not interrupt.

·         'A' also interrupts 'J'-who is also her parent which again is surprising as she would be expected to 'respect her elders' and act like 'J' has the highest power overall, which he should do.

·         So, overall 'A' acts completely unexpected to as she should do, according to theory.

·         What is also unexpected is that 'Jo' surprisingly doesn't speak that much. H is present in all conversations, yet only speak in one. The Dominance Theory states that males will interrupt more and hold more power, so theoretically he should at least contribute to show his power.