Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-ttngx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-30T11:49:08.983Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

‘I beg your pardon?’: the preverbal negotiation of failed messages*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 September 2008

Roberta Michnick Golinkoff
Roberta Michnick Golinkoff
Affiliation:
University of Delaware
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This longitudinal study of how preverbal infants communicate with their mothers utilized the situation in which the infant was seated in a highchair at lunchtime. This situation predisposed infants to use communication as a means, since they were often unable to achieve their goals without assistance. It was found that infants' communicative attempts were often unsuccessful; the present study focussed on how infants and mothers worked to establish the infants' intents after communication failures. In the preverbal negotiation of failed messages infants direct communicative behaviours to their mothers which their mothers fail to comprehend immediately, NEGOTIATIONS occur when mothers help infants make their intents clear. Negotiation episodes have four components: the infant's initial signal, the mother's comprehension failure, infant repairs and episode outcome. Changes in these components provide much information about how infants' communicative skills evolve during the transition to a linguistically based communication system. Negotiation episodes are contrasted with episodes called IMMEDIATE SUCCESSES in which the mother readily comprehends the intent behind the infant's signal, and MISSED ATTEMPTS in which the mother fails to pick up on the infant's signal. Taken together these three types of communicative episode reveal a degree of persistence and creativity on the part of the preverbal infant that is surprising in the light of prior research. Such episodes further reveal that the course of preverbal communication is NOT smooth.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 13 , Issue 3 , October 1986 , pp. 455 - 476
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1986

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

Atkinson, M. (1979). Prerequisites for reference. In Ochs, E.. & Schieffelin, B. B. (eds), Developmental pragmatics. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Bates, E. (1979). The emergence of symbols. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Bates, E., Camaioni, L. & Volterra, V. (1975). The acquisition of performatives prior to speech. MPQ 21. 205–26.Google Scholar
Blank, M., Gessner, M. & Espocita, A. (1979). Language without communication: a case study. JChLang 6. 329–52.Google ScholarPubMed
Bloom, L. (1983). Of continuity and discontinuity and the magic of language development. In Golinkoff, R. M. (ed.), The transition from prelinguistic to linguistic communication. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Bruner, J., Roy, C. & Ratner, N. (1982). The beginnings of request. In Nelson, K. E. (ed.), Children's language, Vol. 3. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Bullowa, M. (1979). Introduction. Prelinguistic communication: a field for scientific research. In Bullowa, M.. (ed.), Before speech. Cambridge: C.U.P.Google Scholar
Carter, A. L. (1979). The disappearance schema. A case study of a second year communication behaviour. In Ochs, E.. & Schieffelin, B. B. (eds), Developmental pragmatics. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Dore, J., Franklin, M., Miller, R. & Ramer, A. (1975). Transitional phenomena in early language acquisition. JChLang 3. 13–78.Google Scholar
Francis, H. (1979). What does the child mean? A critique of the functional approach to language acquisition. JChLang 6. 201–10.Google Scholar
Gallagher, T. (1977). Revision behaviours in the speech of normal children developing language. JSHR 20. 303–18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: essays on face to face behavior. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.Google Scholar
Golinkoff, R. M. (1981). The influence of Piagetian theory on the study of the development of communication. In Sigel, I. E., Brodzinsky, D. M. & Golinkoff, R. M. (eds), New directions in Piagetian theory and practice. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Golinkoff, R. M. (1983). The preverbal negotiation of failed messages: insights into the transition period. In Golinkoff, R. M. (ed.), The transition from prelinguistic to linguistic communication. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Golinkoff, R. M. (1984). Infant social cognition: self, people, and objects. In Liben, L.. (ed.), Piaget and the foundations of knowledge. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Graves, R. & Glick, J. (1978). The effects of context on mother-child interaction. Quarterly Newsletter of the Institute for Comparative Human Development 2. 41–6.Google Scholar
Greenfield, P. M. (1980). Toward an operational and logical analysis of intentionality. The use of discourse in early child language. In Olson, D.. (ed.), The social foundations of language and thought. New York: Norton.Google Scholar