A Multi-modal Conversation Analytic Study on Child-initiated Directives in Family Iteractions

LIU Qinyu; WU Yaxin

doi:10.19979/j.cnki.issn10082689.2022110091

Volume 39 Issue 3

Jun. 2023

Turn off MathJax

Article Contents

Article Navigation > Journal of University of Science and Technology Beijing ( Social Sciences Edition) > 2023 > 39(3): 289-298

LIU Qinyu, WU Yaxin. A Multi-modal Conversation Analytic Study on Child-initiated Directives in Family Iteractions[J]. Journal of University of Science and Technology Beijing ( Social Sciences Edition), 2023, 39(3): 289-298. doi: 10.19979/j.cnki.issn10082689.2022110091

Citation:

LIU Qinyu, WU Yaxin. A Multi-modal Conversation Analytic Study on Child-initiated Directives in Family Iteractions[J]. Journal of University of Science and Technology Beijing ( Social Sciences Edition), 2023, 39(3): 289-298. doi: 10.19979/j.cnki.issn10082689.2022110091

Citation:

PDF( 1022 KB)

A Multi-modal Conversation Analytic Study on Child-initiated Directives in Family Iteractions

doi: 10.19979/j.cnki.issn10082689.2022110091

LIU Qinyu,
WU Yaxin

College of Foreign Languages, Ocean University of China, Qingdao 266100, China

Received Date: 2022-11-21
Accepted Date: 2023-03-06
Publish Date: 2023-06-25

Abstract

Abstract

Parent-child interaction is a key site for children’s socialization. Mainly based on the macro-sociological perspective, existing research on parent-child interaction has not paid sufficient attention to the minute details of the interaction. To further explore child socialization in family, the current study has conducted a multi-modal conversation analytic study on child-initiated directive sequences, investigating how children initiate directives, how parents respond, and what are oriented to by both parties. It is evidenced that children can take the contingency of parents’ compliance into consideration and design their directives correspondingly. Besides, cross-cutting preferences are noticed in parents’ responses due to their orienting to several contradicting social norms. As for children’s socialization, instead of passively being socialized, children indeed, together with their parents, actively practice socialization in parent-child interaction.
- directives,
- parent-child interaction,
- conversation analysis,
- preference organization,
- socialization.

FullText(HTML)

References(36)

References

[1]	CLAUSEN J A. Socialisation and Society [M]. Boston: Little Brown and Company, 1968.
[2]	JAMES A & PROUT A. Constructing and Reconstructing Childhood: Contemporary Issues in the Sociological Study of Childhood [M]. London: Falmer Press, 1990.
[3]	左鹏,史金玲. 农村留守儿童的成长障碍与社会支持系统构建−来自四川W县的调查[J]. 北京科技大学学报(社会科学版),2010,26(1):32-36. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1008-2689.2010.01.007
[4]	李伟,孔凡靖. 家庭教育权在预防未成年人沉迷网络行为中的实现路径−以《家庭教育促进法》第二十二条为中心[J]. 北京科技大学学报(社会科学版),2022,38(6):695-705.
[5]	GOODWIN M H. Participation,affect,and trajectory in family directive/response sequences [J]. Text and Talk, 2006, 26(4-5):515-543. doi: 10.1515/TEXT.2006.021
[6]	BROWN P & LEVINSON S C. Politeness: Some Universals of Language Usage [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987.
[7]	GOFFMAN E. Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face to Face Behavior [M]. New York: Doubleday, 1967.
[8]	GOODWIN M H. He-Said-She-Said: Talk as Social Organization among Black Children [M]. Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1990.
[9]	于国栋. 什么是会话分析[M]. 上海: 上海外语教育出版社, 2022.
[10]	ERVIN-TRIPP S. Is Sybil there? The structure of some American English directives [J]. Language in Society, 1976, 5(1):25-66. doi: 10.1017/S0047404500006849
[11]	SEALEY A. ‘Don’t be cheeky’:requests,directives and being a child [J]. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 1999, 3(1):24-40. doi: 10.1111/1467-9481.00061
[12]	CURL T S & DREW P. Contingency and action:a comparison of two forms of requesting [J]. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 2008, 41(2):129-153. doi: 10.1080/08351810802028613
[13]	DREW P. Asymmetries of knowledge in conversational interactions [C] // MARKOVA I & FOPPA K. Asymmetries in Dialogue. Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1991: 21-48.
[14]	HERITAGE J. Epistemics in action:action formation and territories of knowledge [J]. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 2012, 45(1):1-29. doi: 10.1080/08351813.2012.646684
[15]	STEVANOVIC M & PERAKYLA A. Deontic authority in interaction [J]. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 2012, 45(3):297-321. doi: 10.1080/08351813.2012.699260
[16]	STEVANOVIC M. Deontic Rights in Interaction: A Conversation Analytic Study on Authority and Cooperation [D]. Helsingin: Helsingin yliopisto, 2013.
[17]	ANTAKI C & KENT A. Offering alternatives as a way of issuing directives to children:putting the worse option last [J]. Journal of Pragmatics, 2015, 78:25-38. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2015.01.004
[18]	CRAVEN A & POTTER J. Directives:entitlement and contingency in action [J]. Discourse Studies, 2010, 12(4):419-442. doi: 10.1177/1461445610370126
[19]	GOODWIN M H & CEKAITE A. Calibration in directive/response sequences in family interaction [J]. Journal of Pragmatics, 2013, 46(1):122-138. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.07.008
[20]	WARING H Z. Conditional granting in Parent-child interaction at mealtimes [J]. Journal of Pragmatics, 2020, 167:116-130. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2020.05.014
[21]	KENT A. Compliance,resistance and incipient compliance when responding to directives [J]. Discourse Studies, 2012, 14(6):711-730. doi: 10.1177/1461445612457485
[22]	FRICK M & PALOLA E. Deontic autonomy in family interaction: directive actions and the multimodal organization of going to the bathroom [J/OL]. Social Interaction. Video-Based Studies of Human Sociality （2022-02-21） [2022-11-13]. https://tidsskrift.dk/socialinteraction/article/view/130870.
[23]	STEVANOVIC M. Participants’ deontic rights and action formation:the case of declarative requests for action [J]. Interaction and Linguistic Structures (InLiSt), 2011, 52:1-37.
[24]	POMERANTZ A & HERITAGE J. Preference[C]// STIVERS T & SIDNELL J. The Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 2012: 210-228.
[25]	BRUMARK A. Behaviour regulation at the family dinner table. The use of and response to direct and indirect behaviour regulation in ten Swedish families [J]. Journal of Child Language, 2010, 37:1065-1088. doi: 10.1017/S0305000909990201
[26]	JEFFERSON G. Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction [C] // LERNER G. Conversation Analysis: Studies from the first generation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2004: 13-31.
[27]	MONDADA L. Conventions for Multimodal Transcription [Z/OL]. （2019-11） [2022-11-13]. https://www.lorenzamondada.net/_files/ugd/ba0dbb_986ddd4993a04a57acf20ea06e2b9a34.pdf.
[28]	CASTELFRANCHI C & FALCONE R. From automaticity to autonomy: the frontier of artificial agents [C] // HEXMOOR H, CASTELFRANCHI C, & FALCONE R. Agent Autonomy. Boston: Springer, 2003: 103-136.
[29]	POMERANTZ A. ‘Telling my side:“Limited Access” as a “Fishing” device’ [J]. Sociological Inquiry, 1980, 50(3-4):186-98. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-682X.1980.tb00020.x
[30]	CLIFT R. Conversation Analysis [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016.
[31]	SCHEGLOFF E A,JEFFERSON G & SACKS H. The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation [J]. Language, 1977, 53(2):361-382. doi: 10.1353/lan.1977.0041
[32]	SCHEGLOFF E A. Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007.
[33]	ROBINSON J D. Accountability in Social Interaction [M]. New York: Oxford University Press, 2016.
[34]	GEORGE Y. The Study of Language [M]. Cambridge University Press, 2000.
[35]	NINIO A. Language and the Learning Curve: A New Theory of Syntactic Development [M]. Oxford; England: Oxford University Press, 2006.
[36]	TOMASELLO M. Do young children have adult syn-tactic competence? [J]. Cognition, 2000, 74(3):209-253. doi: 10.1016/S0010-0277(99)00069-4