Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-03T15:09:30.811Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Computer methods in child language research: four principles for the use of archived data

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 February 2009

Jane A. Edwards
Jane A. Edwards*
Affiliation:
University of California at Berkeley
*
Institute of Cognitive Studies, T-4, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

With the increasing use of computers in language research, there is a need for caution concerning several new issues of data accountability. This paper presents four principles for archive-based language research: Maximum Readability and Minimum Bias; Consistent Encoding for exhaustive computer search; Systematic Contrastiveness; and Data Comparability in elicitation, transcription and coding. These and related principles are illustrated by examples from existing computer archives, and strategies are suggested for minimizing detrimental effects of violations. Finally, the paper describes some implications of the principles for properties of a field-wide and international standard of transcription of language data.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 19 , Issue 2 , June 1992 , pp. 435 - 458
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1992

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Altenberg, B. (1990). Spoken English and the dictionary. In Svartvik, J. (ed.), The London-Lund Corpus of Spoken English: description and research. Lund, Sweden: Lund University Press.Google Scholar
Bloom, L. (1973). One word at a time; the use of single word utterances before syntax. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Bloom, L. (1974). In F. Schacter, K. Kirshner, B. Klips, M. Friedricks & K. Sanders (eds), Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 39, Serial No. 156.Google Scholar
Bloom, L. (in press). Transcription and coding for child language research: the parts are more than the whole. In Edwards, J. A. & Lampert, M. D. (eds), Talking data: transcription and coding in discourse research. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Bloom, L. & Lahey, M. (1978). Chapter 1. In Bloom, L. & Lahey, M. (eds), Language development and language disorders. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Bolinger, D. (1975). Aspects of language. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
Brown, R. (1973). A first language: the early stages. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chafe, W. E. (ed.) (1980). The Pear stories: cognitive, cultural, and linguistic aspects of narrative production. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Chafe, W. E. (in press) Prosodic and functional units of language. In Edwards, J. A. & Lampert, M. D. (eds) Talking data: transcription and coding in discourse research. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Du Bois, J. W., Schultze-Coburn, S., Paolino, D. & Cumming, S. (in press) Outline of discourse transcription. In Edwards, J. A. & Lampert, M. D. (eds), Talking data: transcription and coding in discourse research. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Edwards, J. A. (1989). Transcription and the new functionalism: a counterproposal to the CHILDES CHAT conventions. Cognitive Science Program Technical Report No. 58. University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Edwards, J. A. (1991). Transcription in discourse. In Bright, W. (ed.) Oxford International Encyclopedia of Linguistics. Oxford: O.U.P.Google Scholar
Edwards, J. A. (in press) Design principles in the transcription of spoken discourse. In Svartvik, J. (ed.) Proceedings from the Nobel Symposium on Corpus Linguistics. Stockholm, Sweden.Google Scholar
Edwards, J. A. & Lampert, M. D. (eds), (in press). Talking data: transcription and coding in discourse research. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ehlich, K. (in press). HIAT: a transcription system for discourse data. In Edwards, J. A. & Lampert, M. D. (eds), Talking data: transcription and coding in discourse research. New York: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Erickson, F. & Shultz, J. (1982). The counselor as gatekeeper: social interaction in interviews. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Fletcher, P. (1985). A child's learning of English. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Gumperz, J. J. & Berenz, N. (in press). Transcribing conversational exchange. In Edwards, J. A. & Lampert, M. D. (eds), Talking data: transcription and coding in discourse research. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Ladd, D. R. Jr., (1980). The structure of intonational meaning: evidence from English. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Lampert, M. D. & Etvin-Tripp, S. M. (in press). Structured coding for the study of language and social interaction. In Edwards, J. A. & Lampert, M. D. (eds), Talking data: transcription and coding in discourse research. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (1991). The CHILDES project: Tools for analyzing talk. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B. & Snow, C. (1985). The child language data exchange system. Journal of Child Language 12, 271–96.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ochs, E. (1979). Transcription as theory. In Ochs, E. & Schieffelin, B. (eds) Developmental pragmatics. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Svartvik, J. & Quirk, R. (eds) (1980). A corpus of English conversation. Lund: C. W. K. Gleerup.Google Scholar
Tannen, D. (1984). Conversational style. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar