|
Part I: Language Processing and First-Language Learning
Content made available by Georgetown University Press, DigitalGeorgetown,
and the Department of Linguistics.
in girls’ groups. (This explanation might hold up in other discourse contexts—for ex-
ample, with adults engaged in more reflective forms of talk.) Speech act–level
causals did not have less “because” marking than content-level causals or any other
type. For all four types of causal relationship, the rate of “because” marking was the
same: 50–60 percent. Therefore, the high incidence of speech act–level causals pro-
duced in boys’ friendship group talk, and the lack of production of causal construc-
tions in other domains, do not explain why boys’ groups produced less “because”
marking. Because the action-level versus content-level uses did not explain the dif-
ference between girls’ and boys’ talk in “because” marking, the analysis next looked
at how “because” was operating in the marking of participation frameworks.
“Because” in Participation Frameworks
The most salient aspect of use of “because” in these girls’ groups’ narratives seemed
to be in terms of its use in marking a participation framework of solidarity or collabo-
ration. Schleppegrell (1991) describes a use of “because” as a discourse marker for
indexing a positive stance toward the partner. Namely, the speaker would use “be-
cause” to continue a partner’s idea across speaker turns. In this study, “because” was
used in this way, as when one child made a proposal (e.g., “[it would be] so ugly and
gross”) and the other provided a reason the proposal was a good idea (“because in-
side of me looks uglier than outside”). In addition to this use, we observed two fur-
ther, related ways that justifications could continue or validate a partner’s idea across
speaker turns; we termed all three of these uses “validating.” The first of the two ad-
ditional uses was when “because” marked a justification that followed the speaker’s
own agreement with a partner proposal (indicated through “yeah”). For example, if
child 1 said, “and I say, let *you be in Raggedy Ann’s home,” and child 2 said, “Yeah//
because I *hate being poor,” we considered this use a validating use of a justification
because the justification provides a reason for agreeing with the partner. The second
of the two additional uses was when a justification followed a speaker’s own elabora-
tion of a partner proposal in the speaker’s own turn. For example, in one instance,
child 1 proposed that the prince and the princess were in love. Child 2 elaborated this
idea (“I’m sure glad that we’re both handsome and pretty”), then provided a reason
why this elaboration was a good idea (“because if *I married Raggedy A::nn/ *I
would have a really dumb life”). These three types of “because” use all involve the
use of a justification to affirm a partner proposal (either by providing a justification
for it or by providing a justification for agreement to or elaboration of it). “Because”
seemed to occur with just such validating uses of justifications. In these ways, “be-
cause” seemed to be used to mark support of the partner.
Figures 4.1 and 4.2, considered together, demonstrate that the use of “because”
to mark validation is a good explanation of the gender difference in use of “because.”
Girls used more validating justifications. Moreover—for girls and for boys—the
context of validation was the one that favored use of “because.” Figure 4.1 shows the
overall rate of validating, oppositional, and neutral justifications produced by the
girls’ and boys’ friendship groups. The three girls’ groups are shown on the left; the
two boys’ groups are shown on the right. As figure 4.1 shows, the three girls’ groups
used justification for validation more frequently than the two boys’ groups in this
“BECAUSE” AS A MARKER OF COLLABORATIVE STANCE IN PRESCHOOL CHILDREN’S PEER INTERACTIONS
53
Content made available by Georgetown University Press, DigitalGeorgetown,
and the Department of Linguistics.
54
Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: |
