Referring in detail to the transcripts and relevant ideas from language study, analyse the language used by the child and caregiver.

The transcripts contain a 3 year old child and her mother, Jess’s language is very typical for a child of her age for example her language shows a lot of repetition of her mother’s lexical choices. Jess’s utterances are very simple and when her mother corrects her, or makes Jess’s sentences correct or more complex Jess tends to copy this “j: Heads together m: Putting their heads together…. J: Put their heads together” to start with Jess’s sentence is simple and lacks the verb and pronoun from the phrase, but with her mother’s corrections it becomes a better sentence and the fact that she repeats it may show that she understands slightly what to do with this type of sentence next time. At this point, being 3 years old, Jess will be in the telegraphic stage and this is defined by the ability to turn take and being able to pronounce words in a similar way to adults. Turn taking is very clear in both transcripts, but in the first conversation Jess also ask questions rather than just the mother “where” “what you do like that” as she is trying to gain a lot of information with her new found ability to communicate and talk in such a way.

In the second transcript it is clear that although Jess is quite competent with turn taking and talking to her mother, there are certain words that she struggles to say fully "gloo" instead of igloo and in the first transcript she struggles to say policewoman and instead says piswomen missing out the first syllable, these may be difficult for Jess to say, but she does understand what she is trying to say as when her mother replies to her igloo comment "igloo and what lives in igloos" she knows what is meant by the word. This is very similar to the Berko/Brown study with the "fis" in which the child could not yet say the word but fully understood the context and meaning of it. Jess uses a lot of possessive words in her speech especially the word I, "I not know", "i not have no eating" although the sentences do not really make sense, it shows that Jess has a sense of possession and can identify herself in speech, she also knows that the car is "mummy's". 

According to Jean Piaget, Jess would be in the pre-operational stage, which is defined by over explanation of what is obvious. Jess does do this slightly in the first conversation, where she tells her mu what she is doing "i put em in the middle" "i get head together" this is almost her expansion of turn taking and interacting with her mother. Jess enjoys singing nursery rhymes, when her mum starts saying the rhyme Jess immediately joins in and carries on, rhymes such as these help children learn words and repeat them in a simple format and be able to recite them easily. The language in these rhymes may also help teach the way to use the words, the context and pronunciation. 

The mothers language in these texts is very interrogative and mainly questions and correcting Jess. The questioning format of the mothers speech, would not fit into a normal adult conversation as it would be seen as rude or overbearing, but with a child this age it helps develop turn taking and being asked questions means that you have to answer so Jess' speech will be improved as she talks back to her mother. The mother also uses a lot of repetition, this is mainly to correct Jess' speech "J: it go in middle M: in the middle" this may also be used to confirm that what Jess said was correct or just to reassure her that yes it does go in the middle.

The mother also uses a lot of child directed speech by using the word "horsey" she is lowering her lexis to Jess' level so that she will understand, the mother obviously knows that this is how Jess identifies a horse and so she says it in a way that Jess will get. The mum also uses diminutives, for example using the nickname "Jessie" makes her language more friendly, without it her phrase may just be a simple "where does this one go" which is perfectly fine but by adding the "Jessie" it makes it nicer and seem more happy and less demanding. She also alters words, for example she changes "bee" to "busy bee" this phrase is common when talking to children it may be used in children's books and tv shows and Jess will be familiar with it. 

the WUG test:

I think that, through the use of imaginary words, Jean Berko was trying to show that the child does know the rules regarding tense and can apply them "wugging", "wugs" and "zibbing", "zibber" but when it comes to identifying titles of jobs, whereas the adult would know that someone who 'zibbed' was a 'zibber' but the child would say zib man as this is quite an adult term and one they wouldn't recognise as yet. 

I runned- this overgeneralisation is due to the child recognising how to use to "ed" rule but not yet knowing where to use it so they add it to words such as runned as they havent learnt that some words alter when they are pluralised as run tuns into ran.

two mouses- again with this word they child has not learnt to say mice, and adds and s on to the words as it is added to dog(s) and cat(s) etc

my foots- this is the same as above. child had not yet learnt to say feet

he feeled shy- the child has generalised the "ed" to feeled as they have not recognised it should be felt

he satted on the truck-

he drived himself-

Explain some of the difficulties a child might encounter in its acquisition of vocabulary from the time it speaks to the age of seven. You can also refer to some phonological features, as well as considering ideas such as the use of concrete and abstract nouns, overextension, acquisition of grammar words etc.

In the first stage of language acquististion, the sensorimotor stage, the child doesn't especially focus on language, more on experienting what they can do with their mouth and bodies. Much of this stage is phonological, playing with mouth movement and moving their bodies language is physical. Imitation is found at this point, when the baby is opening their mouth and playing around with sounds they may hear from caregivers. The context of where these sounds should be made will also be learnt, this stage will last until the child is around 2. During this one or two word stage mainly concrete nouns will be used as abstract ideas will not be familiar to the child.

The next stage, the preoperational stage, focuses very much around talking. Over talking is seen, as the child seems to say everything, even the things that people who are watching the child can see that they are doing, but the child describes it anyway. there is little distinction between thinking and talking aloud at this point. Difficulties during this stage, when the child is talking a lot, may be over extension seeing that a ball looks like an apple so calling it that and seeing that apple is a fruit so calling all fruit "apple". Abstract nouns will most probably be unused during the beginning of this stage as abstract ideas are not seen and concrete nound are easier to learn and the child can see them.

Response to 'Jean Piaget's theory on child language development' article

I think that her 4 stages of language development links to the order a child learns language, as there are a high amount of concrete nouns in a child's first 50 words and there are not many abstract feelings and nouns, they are all items you can see along with action words and personal and social words. 
the use of concrete nouns links to the Jean Piaget theory as she states that a child only really starts to use abstract idea when they get to ages 11 or 12 and before then language is only used to express specific ideas, ones that the child can see, "ball" "apple" etc.

summary

Chomsky:

Chomsky believes that we are all 'hardwired' to learn language,  as children use grammatical and linguistic structures that would not be learned through imitation alone. He believes that each child had an LAD or a language acquisition device, which allows them to posses the knowledge of sentence structure and linguistic devices. the idea of over generalization may back this up, this shows that children have the knowledge of affixes and tenses but use them in the wrong way, for example "Child: Me drawed a cat." could not have been learned from parents or caregivers and shows the child understands the grammatical rule but has applied it to the wrong setting. For example this sentence "Child: When Daddy coming home?" is ordered correctly (in terms of the subject verb and object) which shows that a child may have this innate device, as parents may not always speak with the correct grammar, yet the child will always say things in the correct way.

quotes taken from: http://aggslanguage.wordpress.com/chomsky/

Skinner:

He believed that language was learnt by imitation, by conducting experiments on rats and pigeons he stated that language was just a learnt behaviour and that children picked up language from there environment rather than possessing it a birth. When a child speaks to their parent they pick up words from their sentences and repeat them, "that's disgusting" "gusting" the child repeats what the caregiver says, he believes all language is learnt this way.
He also believed that language was learn by positive and negative reinforcement, he conducted experiments showing how positive and negative reinforcements, the skinner box, he said that if a child were to say something and it was incorrect the parent would correct them, and the child might repeat which would end with the parent confirming this was right which would then result in the child using the correct word next time.


http://www.tutorhunt.com/resource/569/

Jonny Depp on Ellen:

E: Please welcome for the first time on this show (.) Jonny Depp

[clapping/ cheers]

E: how are ya?

J: I’m good

[clapping voices indistinct]

E: we we took into account there’s gonna be a lot of that so we accounted for the time (2) now I know uh that your –y a pretty private guy a pretty quiet guy and most of your off time is spent being very quiet so is this kind of like stimulation overload when you have to promote a movie [audience laughs]

J: it’s always- I mean it’s always a little (.) strange when you (.) you know end up (.) out there in the world i-i- kind of stay home a lot [over audience hubbub] don’t go out much

E: right I I I also stay home a lot but I do this every day so I’m used to it but I would assume for someone like you and this is part of it (.) because a movie set is very different from the press part and the press part is (.) and people love you (.) and they go crazy when they see you so theres a lot of noise

J: it’s a its a very different thing when you’re playing a character when you’re playing a character you can do virtually anything (.) but as yourself (.) you know

E: awkward? [Audience laughs]

J: yeah very awkward

Jonny Depp on the Graham Norton show:

Jonny Depp on the Graham Norton show, joined by Carey Mulligan, ed Byrnes and Ricky gervais

G: how are you sir?

J: I’m fine

G: [points to the screaming audience] presumably presumably is that’s that enjoyable (.) that must be blissful

J: sort of unexpected it’s a sort of a yeah no it’s a pleasure yeah

G: just come from the premiere how was that (.) went well

J: it was good yeah (.) very good

G: and the crowd showed up and did that (.) the screaming

J: there was a bit of crowd yeah

G: yeah yeah yeah (2) does it get out of hand (.) there’s a picture I’m sure you’ve seen the picture of the new York premiere of the rum diary what [shows the picture] (.) what went on what what’s happening in that picture

J: it’s the Heimlich manoeuvre (.) I had something lodged [audience laughs]

Ricky: what for real

J: no no

G: were you just being manhandled by somebody for some reason

J: I was (.)/

G:          /okay fair enough/

J:                                       /I have pressed charges/

G: were delighted you’re here (.) I’m surprised you’re here so quickly (.) because it seems you are so lovely to your fans (.) the story of you as captain jack going to see that little girl in Greenwich/

J:                                                                                                                                                               /oh in Greenwich yeah/

G:                      /that’s an amazing story/ (3) for people who aren’t familiar tell us what happened

J: I got a letter you know I got this sweet little letter from a (.) little girl who was going to school (.) like 3 minutes away from where we were shooting (.) and she said you know we need to escape we need pirates to help us out so I thought well on lunch break we’ll go over bring about 12 pirates and go ape [graham laughs] and we did (2) and uh it was it was really fun and really sweet and the kids were you know (.) some were cared (.) some were scared

Analysis of sample data:

I predict that I am going to find more talk of feeling in the Ellen Degeneres' interview, due to Tannen's difference theory and my experience of watching her show has shown me she uses these techniques when talking to someone, as a multiple guest show Graham Norton may have more humour and other guests interrupting.

ethical:

as my data is from a public source is may not be necessary to ask for permission to use, as it has been broadcast on TV, but i will state in my final piece that these are not my own transcripts, they have been made by me watching a ready recorded source. privacy is not really an issue in this area for the same reasons as stated above.

reliable:

to make my data reliable, I will get about 4 transcripts from each interviewer, for the sample data I used Ellen and Graham Norton, this may not be reliable as previously stated, Graham Norton is a multiple guest show and Ellen is not which although i picked interviews with the same person, is not in the same situation. i used the same time frame (2:31) for both interviews, one was exactly this length so i matched it to the other one (which was considerably longer)

comparable:

again, I might have to change the interviewers I am using, due to the difference in their formats. this would make the data comparable. As well as this, I will use the same guest (male) and another guest (female) to compare the interviewers techniques only, and how they change with gender, and for genders. 

Possible investigations:

Gender differences in conflict resolution:

For this I would look at mixed gender parliamentary debates, and transcribe them and look at the different techniques used to by genders to resolve conflict and argument. I thought it would be interesting to see how people in power –namely prime ministers such as David Cameron, Tony Blair compared with Margaret thatcher who had quite a lot of controversy and conflict in her time.

I also thought maybe I could look at big brother, as although this is on TV and made to be watched (which may ruin the validity) it isn’t filmed and is very spontaneous, which is what would make the data genuine and not distorted which maybe a problem in other samples e.g. the apprentice

I would then study the transcripts and see what techniques they use to resolve/how they resolve and what their response is to conflict.

This may pose a problem, with lack of data sources and lack of comparability between my two data sources.

Male and female use of taboo language in conflict:

For this area of study I could again look at big brother as this is spontaneous, i could alsp look at shows such as TOWIe which are "unscripted lines but in a structured way" so this would allow me to see how big brother and TOWIE compare as being made of TV but presented in different ways, but with the only way is Essex having some kind of structure and big brother just being an observation shown on TV.

Interview techniques of male and female interviewers:

To study this I could look at different interview shows and see how male and female interviewers ask questions or interact with the guest differently. hows such as Jonathon Ross, Ellen Degeneres, Graham Norton and Oprah could be studies and transcribed. I could also look deeper into how they interact with different gendered guests and same sex guests and more than one guest etc.

ANALYSIS OF TRANSCRIPT:

In the transcript from the Apprentice, it is clear that Alan Sugar has the instrumental power over the rest of the people in the room. Almost every time anyone else speaks either he interrupts or someone else in the room does. This is not very surprising in this setting, as in the boardroom type situation it is a constant struggle for power and who gets the floor and is able to share their views, which when Alan sugar interrupts this is probably him trying to get his views across, almost forcing them upon the other people. The most interesting thing I found in this piece, was that he interrupted Nick, who (from watching the show myself) is normally seen by Sugar as a right hand man, reporting back to him and someone whose views he appreciates and values, but by interrupting him when he is talking to Claire he may seriously change the dynamic of their relationship, and lower Nicks status, but in this way interrupting does not increase his, it lowers it as he as compromised his face needs -to be liked (not that he seems to be worried about this) and Nicks face need -not to be imposed upon. The presence of Claire in this situation seems to put a strain on Alan Sugars temper when she asks can she “please” ask something, it doesn’t really allow him to say no, and then she starts to talk about feelings "a vulnerable position", which is the female approach as stated by Tannen that women use feelings to build relationships whereas men use communication of information to build a conversation with someone. When he kicks her out the boardroom, he may have felt threatened by her being there and seen her as competition for the power over the group and got rid of her, therefore displaying his instrumental power and his ability to do so, almost showing her who’s really in charge, when in fact he is avoiding conflict and getting round having an actual discussion with a verbal power struggle by using actions. It’s very interesting to see how the different genders go about conflict, and how they act within a power struggle in this format.

Simon: I was the project manager i lost money (.) but the reason i lost money and i could have made a fortune in that shopping center this /morning
Claire:                                                                  /yeah
Simon: if /we'd started this morning because /I'm good at-
Alan:      /could've yeah could've/                  /could've/ could've yeah could've should've would've yeah but you didn't (.) right
Simon: no sir Alan i /didn't
Alan:                       /no you didn't/ yeah (4) i think I've heard enough to make a very difficult decision here today
Claire: Sir Alan may i say one more thing please
Alan: (3) if you insist
Claire: I think in this whole competition (.) if you sit back and remain quiet and under the radar (.) people assume they're safe (.) and I've been bold and i know I'm vocal and that puts me/
Alan:                                                                                                                                /oh you have been bold alright/ (.) don't worry about that/
Claire:               /and in puts me in a vunbel-/ in a vulnerable position I'm sorry I'm sat here/
Nick: trouble is you know you never back off even when your calling/
Alan:                                                                                                     /you know what ill tell you what I'm going to do with you (.) ill tell you what I'm going to do with you I'm getting sick and tired of you denying all this (.) you know (2) I'm sick of looking at you at the moment get out that door (3) get back to the bloody house (.) okay (.) get back to the house (.) yeah because you're going to be the next team leader I'm sick of looking at you at the moment (.) get out that door (.) and get back to the house [waits for her to leave] Simon if i asked you to build me a wall (.) you'd build me a wall I'm pretty sure of it if i asked you to dig me a trench (.) i think you'd dig me a trench (.) and I'm not that sure (2) that if i gave you my (.) investment portfolio you'd be able to run that very well (.) I'm sorry my friend i think (.) you're a bit out your depth here (.) with regret (.) you're fired
Simon: thank you for a wonderful opportunity (2) thank you sir Alan (.) goodbye