Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T16:38:30.519Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Integration of communicative partner's visual perspective in patterns of referential requests*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 October 2008

SEVDA BAHTIYAR  and
AYLIN C. KÜNTAY
SEVDA BAHTIYAR
Affiliation:
Koç University, Turkey
AYLIN C. KÜNTAY*
Affiliation:
Koç University, Turkey
*
Address for correspondence: Aylin Küntay, Koç University – Psychology, Rumeli Feneri Yolu Sariyer, Istanbul 34450, Turkey. Email: akuntay@ku.edu.tr
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

How do Turkish children differ from adults in sensitivity to the commonality of their partner's perspective with their own in producing referential language? Fifteen five- to six-year-olds, 15 nine- to ten-year-olds and 15 adults were asked to tell a confederate to pick up an object across three conditions: the common ground condition, in which two similar objects with one contrastive feature were visible to both the participants and the confederate; the privileged ground condition, in which one of the two similar objects was available only to the participant; and the baseline condition, in which there were no competing objects. Age-related increases were found from preschool ages into adulthood in the production of (a) discriminating adjectives in the common ground trials, and (b) requestive speech acts with verbal constructions, rather than noun-only labels. A follow-up study with preschoolers (N=15) prompted for requestive speech acts, leading to an increase in discriminating adjectives.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 36 , Issue 3 , June 2009 , pp. 529 - 555
Copyright
Copyright © 2008 Cambridge University Press

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.)

Footnotes

[*]

This work has been supported by the Turkish Academy of Sciences, in the framework of the Young Scientist Award Program to Aylin C. Küntay (AK-TÜBA-GEBİP/2001-2-13). Sevda Bahtiyar is currently a graduate student at Queen's University in Kingston, Canada. Some of this work was first published in Chan, Jacob & Kapia (2008). Portions of this research have been presented at the Biennial Meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development (2007), the Boston University Conference on Language Development (2007) and the 15th Australasian Human Development Biennial Meeting (2007) in Sydney. We thank our audiences for their comments. We also thank Gülce Alev and Nihan Alev for their help in data collection. We thank Hande Sungur and Özlem Özdamar in helping us carry out Study 2, and Bengi Keskin for helping with the inter-reliability coding. Thanks to the suggestions of the anonymous reviewers of this manuscript and the Associate Editor and Editor of JCL in leading to a much improved presentation of our work. We owe this work to the cooperation of many children in several preschools in Istanbul, and their parents and teachers.

References

REFERENCES

Ackerman, B. P. (1993). Children's understanding of the relation between referential knowledge and referential behavior. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 56, 385–411.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Aksu-Koç, A. A. & Slobin, D. I. (1985). The acquisition of Turkish. In Slobin, D. I. (ed.), The crosslinguistic study of language acquisition. Vol. 1: The data, 839–78. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Bahtiyar, S. A. & Küntay, A. C. (2007). Preschool children can assess common ground: Effect of (in)definiteness status of referential terms. In Caunt-Nulton, H., Kulatilake, S. & Woo, I. (eds) Proceedings of the 31st Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, 70–80. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Brown, P. & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chafe, W. L. (1976). Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics, and point of view. In Li, C. N. (ed.) Subject and topic, 25–55. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Chan, H., Jacob, H. & Kapia, E. (2008) (eds). Proceedings of the 32nd annual Boston University Conference on Language Development. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Clark, H. H. (1992). Arenas of language use. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Clark, H. H. & Marshall, C. R. (1981). Definite reference and mutual knowledge. In Joshe, A. K., Webber, B. L. & Sag, I. A. (eds) Elements of discourse understanding, 10–63. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dasinger, L. (1995). The development of discourse competence in native Finnish speaking children: A study of the expression of definiteness. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Dede, M. (1986). Definiteness and referentiality in Turkish nonverbal sentences. In Slobin, D. I. & Zimber, K. (eds) Studies in Turkish linguistics, 147–63. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Deutsch, W. & Pechmann, T. (1982). Social interaction and the development of definite descriptions. Cognition 11, 159–84.Google Scholar
Diesendruck, G., Hall, G. D. & Graham, A. S. (2006). Children's use of syntactic and pragmatic knowledge in the interpretation of novel adjectives. Child Development 77, 16–30.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Enç, M. (1991). The semantics of specificity. Linguistic Inquiry 22, 1–25.Google Scholar
Epley, N., Morewedge, C. K. & Keysar, B. (2004). Perspective taking in children and adults: Equivalent egocentrism but differential correction. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 40, 760–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erguvanlı, E. (1984). The function of word order in Turkish grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Ervin-Tripp, S. M., Guo, J. & Lampert, M. (1990). Politeness and persuasion in children's control acts. Journal of Pragmatics 14, 195–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flavell, J., Speer, J., Green, F. & August, D. (1981). The development of comprehension monitoring and knowledge about communication. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development 46, 1–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerrig, R. H., Brennan, S. E. & Ohaeri, J. O. (2001). What characters know: Projected knowledge and projected co-presence. Journal of Memory and Language 44, 81–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glucksberg, S., Krauss, R. & Higgings, T. (1975). The development of referential communication skills. In Horowiz, F. D. (ed.) Review of child development research, Vol. 4, 305–45. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Glucksberg, S., Krauss, R. M. & Weisberg, R. (1966). Referential communication in nursery school children: Method and some preliminary findings. Journal of Experimental Pscyhology 3, 333–42.Google Scholar
Gundel, J. & Hedberg, N. & Zacharski, R. (1993). Referring expressions in discourse. Language 69, 274–307.Google Scholar
Hanna, J. E., Tannenhaus, M. K. & Trueswell, J. C. (2003). The effects of common ground and perspective on domains of referential interpretation. Journal of Memory and Language 49, 43–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hermann, T. (1988). Partnerbezogene Objektlokalisation – ein neues sprachpsychologisches Forschungsthema [Partner-oriented localization of objects – a new psycholinguistic research topic]. (Bericht, Nr. 25). Mannheim: University of Mannheim. Forschergruppe ‘Sprechen und Sprchverstehen im sozialen kontext’.Google Scholar
Horton, W. S. & Gerrig, R. J. (2002). Speakers' experiences and audience design: Knowing when and knowing how to adjust utterances to addressees. Journal of Memory and Language 47, 589–606.Google Scholar
Horton, W. S. & Gerrig, R. J. (2005). Conversational common ground and memory processes in language production. Discourse Processes 40, 1–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horton, W. S. & Keysar, B. (1996). When do speakers take into account common ground? Cognition 59, 91–117.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Karmiloff-Smith, A. (1979). A functional approach to child language: A study of determiners and reference. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Keppel, G. (1982). Design and analysis: A researcher's handbook. Prentice Hall: New Jersey.Google Scholar
Ketrez, N. (2004). Children's accusative case and indefinite objects. Dilbilim Araştırmaları 2004, 63–74.Google Scholar
Keysar, B., Barr, D. J., Balin, J. A. & Brauner, J. S. (2000). Taking perspective in conversation: The role of mutual knowledge in comprehension. Psychological Science 11, 32–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Küntay, A. C. & Koçbaş, D. (2008). Effects of lexical items and construction types in English and Turkish character introductions in elicited narrative. In Guo, J., Lieven, E., Ervin-Tripp, S., Budwig, N., Özçalışkan, S. & Nakamura, K. (eds) Crosslinguistic approaches to the psychology of language: Research in the tradition of Dan Isaac Slobin. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Matthews, D., Lieven, E., Theakson, A. & Tomasello, M. (2006). The effect of perceptual availability and prior discourse on young children's use of referring expressions. Applied Psycholinguistics 27, 403–22.Google Scholar
Matthews, D., Lieven, E. & Tomasello, M. (2007). How toddlers and preschoolers learn to uniquely identify referents. Child Development 78, 1744–59.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Matthews, D., Lieven, E. & Tomasello, M. (under review). Two- and four-year-olds learn to adapt referring expressions to context: Effects of array size and feedback style on referential communication.Google Scholar
Nadig, A. S. & Sedivy, J. C. (2002). Evidence of perspective-taking constraints in children's online-reference resolution. Psychological Science 13, 329–36.Google Scholar
O'Neill, D. K. (1996). Two-year-old children's sensitivity to a parent's knowledge state when making requests. Child Development 67, 659–77.Google Scholar
O'Neill, D. K. & Topolovec, J. C. (2001). Two-year-old children's sensitivity to the referential (in)efficacy of their own pointing gestures. Journal of Child Language 28, 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pechmann, T. & Deutsch, W. (1982). The development of verbal and nonverbal devices for reference. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 34, 330–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piaget, J. (1926). Language and thought of the child. New York: Harcourt Brace & Co.Google Scholar
Roberts, J. R. & Patterson, C. J. (1983). Perspective taking and referential communication: The question of correspondence reconsidered. Child Development 54, 1005–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schober, M. F. (1993). Spatial perspective taking in conversation. Cognition 47, 1–24.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schober, M. F. (1998). Different kinds of conversational perspective-taking. In Fussell, S. R. & Kreuz, R. J. (eds) Social and cognitive psychological approaches to interpersonal communication, 145–74. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Schober, M. F. & Brennan, S. E. (2003). Processes of interactive spoken discourse: The role of the partner. In Graesser, A. C., Gernsbacher, M. A. & Goldman, S. R. (eds) Handbook of discourse processes, 123–64. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Sonnenschein, S. & Whitehurst, G. J. (1984). Developing referential communication: A hierarchy of skills. Child Development 55, 1936–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warden, D. A. (1976). The influence of context on children's use of identifying expressions and references. British Journal of Psychology 67, 101–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warren, A. R. & Tate, C. S. (1992). Egocentrism in children's telephone conversations: Recent evidence regarding Piaget's position. In Diaz, R. & Berk, L. (eds) From social interaction to self-regulation, 245–64. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Whitehurst, G. J., Sonnenschein, S. & Ianfolla, B. J. (1981). Learning to communicate from models: Children confuse length with information. Child Development 52, 507–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar