1 / 27

Interrogatives in Russian and Lithuanian motherese: Do we communicate with our children in the same way?

Interrogatives in Russian and Lithuanian motherese: Do we communicate with our children in the same way?. RUSSIAN ACADEMY OF SCIENCES. Prof. Dr. Victoria K azakovskaya. INSTITUTE OF LINGUISTIC STUDIES. Dr. Ingrida Bal čiūnienė. Previous investigations.

winston
Download Presentation

Interrogatives in Russian and Lithuanian motherese: Do we communicate with our children in the same way?

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Interrogatives in Russian and Lithuanian motherese: Do we communicate with our children in the same way? RUSSIAN ACADEMY OF SCIENCES Prof. Dr. Victoria Kazakovskaya INSTITUTE OF LINGUISTIC STUDIES Dr. Ingrida Balčiūnienė

  2. Previous investigations • role of questions in developing of communicative competence (Kazakovskaya 2006, 2010, Kamandulytė, 2007, 2008) • questions as a preferable type of reformulations: Austrian German, Frenchvs. Lithuanian, Russian (Pre- and Protomorphology in Language Acquisition (W.U. Dressler))

  3. Hypothesis and aims Hypothesis:parental conversational strategy may be influenced by the type of language and/or some cultural features. Aims: to identify and to compare the variety and distribution of interrogatives in Russian and Lithuanian CDS.

  4. The data (CHILDES, MacWhinney 1991)

  5. Classification of interrogatives: criteria • positional and formal • pragmatic • functional • structural (Kilani-Schoch, Balčiūnienė, Korecky-Kröll, Laaha,Dressler 2008; Balčiūnienė 2009; Kazakovskaya 2006, 2010)

  6. Classification of interrogatives: Position 1) initial questions: Adult: Zdravstvuj, kak dela? ‘Hello, how are you?’ Vanja: Doudom. (2;0) 2) questions-reactions: Vanja: E, e. Adult: “E”, eto chto takoe “e”? ‘“E”, what does “e”mean?’ (2;0)

  7. Classification of interrogatives: Form 1) general (yes/no) questions: Adult: Vanja, net djadi? ‘Vanja, is an uncle not absent?’ Vanja: Ea@c. (2;0) 2) wh- questions: Adult: A gde djadja, policejskij? ‘Where is the uncle who is a policeman?’ Vanja: U-u@c (2;0) 3) alternative questions: Adult: Tak da ili net? ‘So yes or no?’ Sit: Vanja is thinking. (2;0)

  8. Classification of interrogatives: Pragmatic role 1) conversational questions: Vanja: Es't [= est]. ‘To eat.’ Adult: Chto ty esh’? ‘What do you eat?’ (2;8) 2) metadiscursive questions: Monika: Mano puodas.‘My pot.’ Adult: Kaip sakei? “Mano puodas”? ‘How did you say? “My pot”?’ (2;4)

  9. Classification of interrogatives:Function 1) seeking information: Adult: Nu chto, eshche jogurta dat'? ‘Should I give you more yoghurt?’ Vanja: Eshche i [= ne] s'jel. ‘[I] have not finished yet.’ Adult: A, eshche ne s'jel. ‘Ah, [you] have not finished yet.’ (2;4) 2) (pre-)initiating / developing/ repairing a conversation:

  10. Initiation: Sit: Monika plays with her grandmother. A mother enters a room. Adult: Nu, ką čia darote? ‘So, what are you doing here?’ (2;0) Continuation: Vanja: O. Adult: Chto eto budet? ‘What will be here?’ (2;0) Repair: Vanja: Fati [= smotri] ubizjaja [= ubezhala]. ‘Look, [it] run away.’ Adult: Chto? Ne ponjala. ‘What? [I] did not understand.’ (2;8)

  11. Classification of reactive interrogatives: Structure • repetitions • reformulations • expansions • topic continuations and shifts • indirect correction • clarifications Kilani-Schoch, Balčiūnienė et al 2008; Balčiūnienė 2009; Kazakovskaya 2006, 2010

  12. Classification of reactive interrogatives: Structure 1) repetitions: Vanja: Ja tipej [= teper'] akulja [= akula]. ‘I [am] a shark now.’ Adult: Akula? ‘A shark?’ (2;8) Monika: Man duok geti [= gerti]. ‘Give me to drink.’ Adult: Gerti? ‘To drink?’ (2;8)

  13. Classification of reactive interrogatives: Structure 2) reformulations: Vanja: Akulja [= akula] naejas' [= naelas']. ‘A shark has eaten.’ Adult: Naelas' akula? ‘Has eaten a shark?’ (2;0) Adult: Ar gali man dar vieną paduoti? ‘Could [you] give me one more?’ Monika: Nepaduoti. ‘Not to give.’ Adult: Nepaduosi? ‘Will not [you] give?’ (2;0)

  14. Structural classification of reactions 3) expansions: Adult: Esh' buterbrod. ‘[You] eat a sandwich.’ Vanja: Sij [= syr]. ‘Cheese.’ Adult: S syrom? ‘With cheese?’ (2;8) Adult: Ką Monikutė ims? ‘What will Monika:dim take?’ Monika: Kaliuką [= kauliuką].‘A bone:dim.’ Adult: Kauliukus nori imti Monikutė? ‘Monika:dim wants to take bones:dim?’ (2;0)

  15. Structural classification of reactions 4) topic continuations: Monika: Aš noju [= noriu] eiti. ‘I want to leave.’ Adult: Jau viskas? ‘[Is it] finished already?’ (2;4) 5) topic shifts: Adult: Kto verbljud? ‘Who [is] a camel?’ Vanja: Bichjonik [= bel'chonok] ljubut [= verbljud]. ‘A squirrel:dim [is] a camel.’ Sit: Vanja puts a toy into his mouth. Adult: Zachem ty vse igrushki v rot beresh'? ‘Why do you always put your toys into [your] mouth?’ (2;8)

  16. Structural classification of reactions 6) indirect corrections: Vanja: Misjat@err [= meshat'] uu@c. ‘To disturb.’ Adult: Ne nado meshat'? ‘Should not [we] disturb?’ (2;4) Sit: Monika is pointing at a pineapple in a picture. Monika: Ledus galima. ‘[I] am allowed [to eat] an ice-cream.’ Adult: Tu manai, kad čia ledai? ‘Do [you] suppose this is an ice-cream?’ Monika: Ledai. ‘An ice-cream.’ Adult: Aš tai sakyčiau, kad čia ananasas. ‘I would say, this is a pineapple.’ (2;8)

  17. 7) clarifications: Vanja: Fati [= smotri], zjabijsja@unclear [= zabilsja]. ‘Look, [I] hide.’ Adult: Chto sdelal? ‘What did [you] do?’ (2;8) Monika: Aš noju [= noriu] da [=dar] dešytės [= dešrytės]. ‘I want more sausage.’ Adult: Ką nori? ‘What do [you] want?’ (2;4)

  18. Classification of interrogatives

  19. Evolution of adult’s questions (% of all adult phrases)

  20. Distribution of initial and reaction question in CDS

  21. Pragmatic types of question-reactions:distribution

  22. Functional types of questions:distribution

  23. Metadiscursive questions-repetitions Monika: Pimė@err [= pirma], ne pimė@err [= pirma]. ‘The first, not the first’ Adult : Pimė, ne pimė? (2;4) Adult: Ką viščiukas lesa? ‘What [does] a chicken eat?’ Monika: Kaputes@ch. ‘Kaputes@ch.’ (a word created by Monika) Adult: Kaputes? Monika: Kaputes@ch lesa. ‘Kaputes@ch (a word created by Monika) eats.’ Adult: Nežinau, ką jis čia lesa. [I] [do] not understand, what he eats. (2;4)

  24. Dynamic of metadiscursive questionrepetitions (% of all metadiscursive questions)

  25. Dynamic of conversational question repetitions(% of all developing / repairing a conversation questions)

  26. Conclusions The interrogatives in both Russian and Lithuanian CDS are generally used for the same conversational strategies, and their number, position, pragmatic role, function, form and structure seem to be similar. The conversational strategies of our caregivers may be identified as fine-tuning ones though in different aspects. Later on the conversational strategies change in the same way. Thus correlation between parental conversational strategy and the type of language can be identified. Some pragmatic differences can be determined by parental communicative behavior and / or gender differences in interaction and / or particular qualities of communicative competence development (system-language skills vs. conversational skills). The cultural aspect may not be excluded and other languages (especially those which are close typologically, but far apart culturally) are to be the subject of further study.

  27. References Balčiūnienė, I. (2009) Pokalbio struktūros analizė kalbos įsisavinimo požiūriu (Kaunas, VDU). Kamandulytė, L. (2007) ‘Vaikiškosios kalbos ypatybės’, Kalbos kultūra, 79. P.p. 264–272. Kamandulytė, L. (2008) ‘Vaikams skirta kalba – žaidimas ar kalbos atmaina?’, Tarp krypčių ir disciplinų.P.p.64–74. Kazakovskaya, V. (2006) Voproso-otvetnye edinstva v dialoge “vzroslyj – rebenok” (Sankt-Peterburg, Nauka). Kazakovskaya, V. (2010) ‘Reaktivnye repliki vzroslogo i usvoenie rebenkom grammatiki rodnogo yazyka’, Voprosy yazykoznaniya, 3. P.p. 3–29. Kilani-Schoch, M., Balčiūnienė, I., Korecky-Kröll, K., Laaha, S. Dressler, W. U. (2008) ‘On the role of pragmatics in child-directed speech for the acquisition of verb morphology’, Journal of Pragmatics, 41, 2. P.p. 129–159. MacWhinney, B. (1991) The CHILDES project: tools for analyzing talk (Hillsdale: NJ Lawrence Erlbaum Associates).

More Related