Hostname: page-component-669899f699-tzmfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-26T08:30:26.768Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Object transfer, intersubjectivity and third position repair: early developmental observations of one child*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 September 2008

Anthony J. Wootton
Anthony J. Wootton*
Affiliation:
University of York
*
Department of Sociology, University of York, Heslington, York YO1 5DD, UK.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Interaction sequences are explored which are initiated by either child requests or adult offers of objects. The focus is on those sequences in which the child does not want an object that is passed to her, and on how the child manages such an interactional contingency. Throughout the age range in question, 1;0 to 1;8, the child uses re-requests where this contingency occurs in request sequences. The analysis traces the development of these re-requests and compares them with other forms of re-request. In addition, differences are uncovered as between request and offer sequences concerning the child's ways of dealing with an unwanted object that is passed to her. Linkages are made between these themes and work on third position repair within conversation analysis. Home based video-recordings of one child between the ages of 1;0 and 1;8 constitute the data base for the study.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 21 , Issue 3 , October 1994 , pp. 543 - 564
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1994

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

[*]

A version of this paper was presented at the conference on ‘Current work in ethnomethodology and conversation analysis’ at the University of Amsterdam in July 1991. I am grateful to John Local of the Department of Language and Linguistic Science at the University of York for his assistance with phonetic transcription, and to Clare Tarplee of the National Hospitals College of Speech Sciences for her helpful comments on an earlier draft.

References

REFERENCES

Barrett, M. D. (1985). Children' single-word speech. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
Bruner, J. (1983). Child's talk. Oxford: O.U.P.Google Scholar
Carter, A. L. (1975). The transformation of sensorimotor morphemes into words: a case study of the development of ‘more’ and ‘mine’. Journal of Child Language 2, 233–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carter, A. L. (1979). Prespeech meaning relations: an outline of one infant's sensorimotor morpheme development. In Fletcher, P. & Garman, M. (eds), Language acquisition. Cambridge: C.U.P.Google Scholar
Clark, E. V. (1982). Language change during language acquisition. In Lamb, M. E. & Brown, A. L. (eds), Advances in developmental psychology. Vol. 2. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Drew, P. (1994). Conversation analysis. In Asher, R. E. & Simpson, J. M. Y. (eds), Encyclopedia of language and linguistics. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Gallagher, T. (1977). Revision behaviours in the speech of normal children developing language. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 20, 303–18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Golinkoff, R. M. (1986). ‘I beg your pardon?’: the preverbal negotiation of failed messages. Journal of Child Language 13, 455–76.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Griffiths, P. (1985). The communicative functions of children's single-word speech. In Barrett, M. (ed.), Children's single-word speech. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
Hamlyn, D. (1983). Perception, learning and the self. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. (1984). Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: C.U.P.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pea, R. D. (1978). The development of negation in early child language. Unpublished D.Phil. thesis, University of Oxford.Google Scholar
Pea, R. D. (1980). The development of negation in early child language. In Olson, D. (ed.), The social foundations of language and thought. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (1979). Repair after next turn. Paper presented at the Conference on practical reasoning and discourse processes,St Hugh's College,Oxford.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (1992). Repair after next turn: the last structurally provided defense of intersubjectivity in conversation. American Journal of Sociology 97, 1295–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A., Jefferson, G. & Sacks, H. (1977). The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language 53, 361–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trevarthen, C. & Hubley, P. (1978). Secondary intersubjectivity: confidence, confiding and acts of meaning in the first year. In Lock, A. (ed.), Action, gesture and symbol. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Wootton, A. J. (1989). Remarks on the methodology of conversation analysis. In Roger, D. & Bull, P. (eds), Conversation: an interdisciplinary perspective. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Zukow, P. G., Reilly, J. & Greenfield, P. M. (1982). Making the absent present: facilitating the transition from sensorimotor to linguistic communication. In Nelson, K. (ed.), Children's language. Vol. 3. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.Google Scholar