Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T09:30:51.418Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Children's disputes in three speach communities1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 December 2008

Laura Lein  and
Donald Brenneis
Laura Lein
Affiliation:
Center for Research on Women, Wellesley College & Pitzer College
Donald Brenneis
Affiliation:
Center for Research on Women, Wellesley College & Pitzer College
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Despite considerable recent research on child discourse, there has been little controlled cross-cultural work. Numerous valuable studies of children's speech events in specific societies are available, but comparisons are largely anecdotal and informal. Similarly, several analytical schemata have been developed to deal with particular types of discourse in particular societies (see, for example, Sinclair & Coulthard 1975; Sacks, Schegloff & Jefferson 1974 Brenneis & Lein 1977; Watson & Boggs 1977), but their applicability in other contexts has not been tested. Comparative research is necessary both to test the generality of interpretations of child discourse based on research in one society and to explore the cross-cultural utility of analytical methods.

Type
Articles: Sequencing in Children's Discourse
Information
Language in Society , Volume 7 , Issue 3 , December 1978 , pp. 299 - 323
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1978

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

Brenneis, D. & Lein, L. (1977). ‘You fruithead’: A sociolinguistic approach to children's dispute settlement. In Ervin-Tripp, S. and Mitchell-Kernan, C. (eds.), Child Discourse. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Chaturvedi, M. & Tiwari, B. (1972). A Shorter Hindi English Dictionary. Delhi: National Publishing House.Google Scholar
Gumperz, J. & Hermasimchuk, E. (1973). The conversational analysis of social meaning: A study of classroom interaction. In Shuy, R. (ed.), Report of the 23rd Annual Round Table Meeting on Linguistics and Language Studies. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1972) Rules for ritual insults. In Sudnow, D. (ed.), Studies in Social Interaction. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Philips, S. (1976). Some sources of cultural variability in the regulation of talk. LinS 5, 81–95.Google Scholar
Reisman, K. (1974). Contrapuntal conversations in an Antiguan village. In Bauman, R. & Sherzer, J. (eds.), Explorations in the Ethnography of Speaking. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A. & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language 50, 696–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sinclair, J. McH., and Coulthard, R. M. (1975). Towards on Analysis of Discourse: The English used by Teachers and Pupils. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Watson, K. A. (1975). Transferable communicative routines. LinS 4, 53–72.Google Scholar
Watson, K. A. & Boggs, S. (1977). From verbal play to talk story: The role of routines in speech events among Hawaiian children. In Ervin-Tripp, S. & Mitchell-Kernan, C. (eds.), Child Discourse. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar