Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T14:22:42.829Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Behaviour regulation at the family dinner table. The use of and response to direct and indirect behaviour regulation in ten Swedish families

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 December 2009

ÅSA BRUMARK
ÅSA BRUMARK*
Affiliation:
Södertörn University, Sweden
*
[*]Address for correspondance: Department of Communication, Media and IT, Södertörn University, 18 149 Huddinge, Sweden. tel: +46 8 6084221; e-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study explores parents' and children's use of and response to direct or indirect behaviour regulation in a family context. Ten families with two children each were divided into two groups depending on the age of the children (6–7 and 10–11 years or 10–11 and 13–14 years). Video-recorded regulatory dinner talk was transcribed, coded and analysed with regard to directness or indirectness in relation to behavioural outcome. Dinner talk was predominantly direct, but younger children were addressed by direct regulators as two-thirds of all regulators, whereas the opposite was seen with older children. Though children also tended to be direct, younger children used three times as many direct regulators as older ones. Compliance appeared in two-thirds of all direct regulators, but almost one-half of all indirect regulators were not complied with. Differences between groups were furthermore distinguished by instances of compliance: those who were most non-compliant were the children in group 2.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 37 , Issue 5 , November 2010 , pp. 1065 - 1088
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

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

Becker, J. (1988). The success of parents' indirect techniques for teaching their preschoolers pragmatic skills. First Language 8, 173–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bellinger, D. (1979). Changes in explicitness of mothers' directives as children age. Journal of Child Language 18, 41–49.Google Scholar
Blum-Kulka, S. (1987). Indirectness and politeness in requests: Same or different? Journal of Pragmatics 11, 131–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blum-Kulka, S. (1990). You don't touch lettuce with your fingers: Parental politeness in family discourse. Journal of Pragmatics 14, 259–88.Google Scholar
Blum-Kulka, S. (1997). Dinner talk: Cultural patterns of sociability and socialization in family discourse. London: Laurence Erlbaums Associates.Google Scholar
Blum-Kulka, S., House, J. & Kasper, G. (1989). Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies. Advances in discourse processes, vol. 31. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Brown, P. & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Brumark, Å. (1989). Blindness and the context of language acquisition. MINS 31. Doctoral dissertation, Stockholm University, Department of Nordic Languages.Google Scholar
Brumark, Å. (2006 a). Regulatory talk and politeness at the family dinner table. Pragmatics 16(2/3), 171–213.Google Scholar
Brumark, Å. (2006 b). Non-observance of Gricean maxims in family dinner table conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 38, 1206–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brumark, Å. (2008). ‘Eat your hamburger!’ – ‘No, I don't want to!’. Argumentation and argumentative development in the context of dinner conversation in twenty Swedish families. Argumentation 22, 251–71.Google Scholar
Cross, T. G. (1977). Mother's speech adjustments: The contribution of selected child listener variables. In Snow, C. E. & Ferguson, C. A. (eds), Talking to children: Language input and acquisition, 67–86. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
De Geer, B., Tulviste, T., Mizera, L. & Tryggvason, M-T. (2002). Socialization in communication: pragmatic socialization during dinnertime in Estonian, Finnish and Swedish families. Journal of Pragmatics 34, 1757–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ervin-Tripp, S. (1976) Is Sybil there? The structure of some American English directives. Language in Society 5, 26–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ervin-Tripp, S. & Gordon, D. (1986). The development of children's requests. In Schieffelbush, R. E. (ed.), Communicative competence: Assessment and intervention, 61–96. San Diego, CA: College Hill Press.Google Scholar
Ervin-Tripp, S., Guo, J. & Lampert, M. (1990). Politeness and persuasion in children's control acts. Journal of Pragmatics 14, 307–331.Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In Cole, P. & Morgan, J. (eds), Syntax and semantics 3: Speech acts, 41–58. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Hellspong, L. (1988). Regulation of dialogue. A theoretical model of conversation with an empirical application. MINS 30. Doctoral dissertation, Stockholm University, Department of Nordic Languages.Google Scholar
Kalb, L. M. & Loeber, R. (2003). Child disobedience and noncompliance: A review. Pediatrics III(3), 641–52.Google Scholar
Kasper, G. (1990). Linguistic politeness. Current research issues. Journal of Pragmatics 14, 193–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koenig, A. L., Ciccetti, D. & Rogosh, F. A. (2000) Child compliance/noncompliance and maternal contributors to internalization in maltreating and nonmaltreating dyads. Child Development 71(4), 1018–1032.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kuczynski, L. & Hildebrandt, N. (1997). Models of conformity and resistence in socialization theory. In Grusec, J. E. & Kuczynski, L. (eds), Parenting and children's internalization of values. A handbook of contemporary theory, 227–55. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Kuczynski, L., Kochanska, G., Radke-Yarrow, M. & Girnius-Brown, O. (1987). A developmental interpretation of young children's non-compliance. Developmental Psychology 23, 799–806.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (1987). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Murray, A. D. (1990). Fine-tuning of utterance length to preverbal infants: Effects on later language development. Journal of Child Language 17(3), 511–25.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Oshima-Takane, Y. & Robbins, M. (2003). Linguistic environment of secondborn children. First Language 23(1), 21–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patterson, G. R. & Forgatch, M. (1987). Parents and adolescents: Living together. Eugene, OR: Castalia Press.Google Scholar
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn taking in conversation. Language 50, 696–735.Google Scholar
Snow, C. E., Perlmann, R. Y., Gleason, J. B. & Hooshyar, N. (1990). Developmental perspectives on politeness: Sources of children's knowledge. Journal of Pragmatics 14, 289–305.Google Scholar
Thomas, J. (1995). Meaning in interaction. An introduction to pragmatics. Harlow: Longman Group Limited.Google Scholar