CLA - Zach

Zach's non-standard language:

 

-          Omission of auxiliary, stative, copula verb, ‘am’  -  “I cutting around the edge”

-          Omission of determiners - “you don’t want to eat skins”

-          Non-standard use of tense due to imitation of model – “I think I don’t” (follows “I don’t think you wanted those…”

-          Fis phenomenon present in non-standard pronunciation of lexis – “frough” rather than through, “dose” rather than those, “dere” rather than there etc.  Although these are often repaired by the model, research suggests that the child is unaware they are even pronouncing the word any differently or in a non-standard way

-          Clipping either die to ease or because Zach has misheard/misremembered the way that the model used the word– “bolognay”

-          Over extension by category – “lasagne” for bolognaise over potatoes

-          Non-standard use of plural – “and here’s the skins”

-          Deictic referencing in a non-standard way – “what’s this lasagne” – it is still an effective way of communicating as the parents understand that he is referencing the bolognaise

 

CDS:

 

-          Positive reinforcement through echoing – “nah I think you don’t” (follows “I think I don’t”)

-          Positive reinforcement through praise – “you are a star” “very good” “okay brilliant”

-          Simplified sentences/interrogatives e.g. “what are you doing now?” “Here it is”

-          Repairs – “and bolognay” -> “and bolognaise”, “I got food on the floor” -> “yeah you threw food on the floor”, “frough” -> “through”

-          Talking in 3^rd person to reinforce titles that the parents would like their child to use – “got a feeling this is one of Daddy’s…”

-          Graduating to 1^st person to help his understanding of pronouns – this is important as young children are egotistical  and may otherwise believe that they are the only “I” – “shall I (.) help?”

-          Tag/open/closed questions to encourage discussion and effective cooperative communication – “it doesn’t go through? (.) why not?” (In this case, the model changes her question from closed to open to encourage Zach into further discussion and conversation. If he is thinking about his actions and surroundings, he is more likely to want to find and use suitable language and grow his communicative abilities.)

-          Exaggerated intonation – probably exaggerated because of Cruttendun’s theory that children find tones difficult to pick up/catch

-          High frequency lexis

-          Keeping discourse on local topics – “what are you doing now?” “what can you see?”

-          Time allowed for activities/thinking – we see this in the indicated pauses, which are as long as 12 seconds

-          Terms of endearment to encourage and poisitively reinforce Zach – “what darling?”

 

CDS used by the parents works subtly to encourage the growth of Zach’s language skills without him feeling as though he is being punished for experimenting with techniques/ new terms in a non-standard way. Speech is positive so that Zach feels comfortable enough to try and imitate adult language and learn from it.

 

Fis phenomenon occurs 3 times

The mother uses 32 interrogatives

HR Magazine

Talking language and gender – celebrating the diversity of office conversation

 

Research from English language experts indicates that gender differences may be innate, with neither gender’s approach to conversation being superior or inferior to the other. That being the case, we looked into why conversations had by different genders should garner equal respect in the work place.

According to research conducted in the field, men and women speak in languages so different that they may as well be countries apart. But, contrary to popular belief, this isn’t necessarily a bad thing, just something to make our everyday communications a little more interesting.

As an example, women – who are said by experts to talk in a supportive, cooperative manner – supposedly use more tag questions (rhetorical questions that hang on the end of a statement, e.g. ‘I think we need to order a larger quantity of paper clips next month, don’t you?’). Reportedly, females are far more likely than men to use this technique during the average conversation, and its alleged function is to build relationships. That being so, it’s important that in the future when a co-worker makes use of a tag question, male or female, we look at it as an olive branch, rather than uncertainty or a sign of weakness.

 

Commentary:

I wanted the article to be positive, so I focussed mainly on the difference theory being about variances in the languages of the two genders, rather than one being weaker or more dominant. Because I wanted this feeling, I used the dynamic verb ‘celebrating’ within the title so as to introduce the topic of ‘diversity of office conversation’ in a good light. If it’s worth celebrating, it’s surely worth reading about.

Because I was addressing non-specialists, I tried mainly to use high frequency lexis in this excerpt, for example ‘conversation’ rather than discourse. Where I did use jargon – such was the case with ‘tag question’, I explained myself fully, hopefully without patronising readers who are likely to be mature adults. The use of parentheses means that if readers are familiar with the term, they don’t have to read me definition. When I used an English language term, such as ‘rhetorical’ it was one that I felt was high frequency enough that any reader would know what I meant.

I also tried to steer away from the word ‘theory’ while talking about difference, as I didn’t want this explicitly to be a lesson. I thought that if readers of HR magazine felt they were being talked down to or taught something, they might be less inclined to continue reading.