Aim: To investigate if context has an effect on male and female language.
Hypothesis: Males and females language use will not conform to typical stereotypes in that they use language differently yet this will differ depending on the context.
Data: Looking at extracts from The Hunger Games to test Tannen's difference theory. I will sample multiple quotes from the books and look at the context and the use of language to see if it relates to language and gender theory.
Analysis: Looking at language and gender features in the extracts I find. In particular, difference features but can find deficit and dominance features too.
Reliability: The books are fiction so they are not from a real life situation but it will be interesting to see the authors representation of male and female language in different situations. I could use samples from all three books to get a range of data.
Comparability: The main characters in the books are of similar ages so the males and females will only have one significant difference which is their gender. There may be contextual factors such as emotions or location which could affect the language used by the characters.
Ethicality: The books are published so there are no ethical considerations. I will cite the source and transcribed data accurately.
Thursday, 27 October 2016
Wednesday, 26 October 2016
Analysis of Zach Transcript
Zach drawing a banana 2;4 compared with Zach and the healing robot 3;5
In the Zach and the healing robot transcript, we should expect to see his language more developed such as being in the telegraphic stage yet his language is quite disjointed. This can be seen in the phrase, "now we (.) then it healed and now (.) it will take a little time (.) for the robot to heal again (2)". This could be due to context because he is distracted by thinking about the robot. There are some parts that link to the telegraphic stage such as "an I'm sitting here (.) to (.) for waiting (.) to get (0.5) better (.) for it (0.5)" because this is ellipsis. In the beginning of the transcript he says, "can you do it Mummy?" This can relate to Dore's requesting function because he is asking for something to be done for him. The action of him turning towards Mummy is showing this through gestures as well as words. This is an example of him using an interrogative which is usually done by the mother.
In the Zach drawing a banana transcript, there are 26 interrogatives used asked to Zach by his mother. This shows that his mum is offering guidance to him which could relate to Vygotsky's zone of proximal development because the child can do it with support from the caregiver also know as scaffolding. The number of interrogatives used towards Zach in the healing robot transcript is 16. This is significantly less which could mean that Zach is developing his language so does not require as much scaffolding. In the banana transcript Zach says the utterance, "course you can Mummy". This can be quite humourous as it unusual for a young child to say. It is also a non-standard use of adult language in response to the question, "shall i help?" The can relate to Chomsky's LAD theory as it is about listening to sentences around us and using them. This can lead to over-generalisation which can be seen here since this is not the context you would usually see that utterance.
In the Zach drawing a banana transcript he could be in the iconic stage of Bruner's theory which occurs between 1 to 6 years old. This is where information is stored in the form of images which relates to Zach drawing a banana in the transcript. Zach is learning more about language in the most recent transcript as he over-extends the term "glue sticks" but realises this and self-corrects himself to say "glue (.) spreaders". This shows that his language is developing as in the older transcript he over-extends the term "lasagne" to mean "bolognaise". This can also relate back to the iconic stage as lasagne and bolognaise look similar.
Context is important to consider when looking at language. This is because when Zach says, "this is my little pad (.) and I said (.) and said (.) the (.) train driver" it is not cohesive. This is because he is busy at the time but it could seem like Zach is struggling with the utterance. In the other transcript, Zach uses discourse markers in the utterance, "it's gonna be a long time though (.) but we're not gonna have breakfast still". The "though" and "still" are discourse markers used in response to his mum. This is likely to be because he is sensing that she wants to have breakfast. The utterance, "I cutting round the edge" is used in the oldest transcript. The auxillary verb, "cutting" is elided to create and elliptical construction. This is him over-generalising the grammar when there should be the word "am" between "I" and "cutting".
Skinner's Operant Conditioning Theory says we learn language in three ways through positive reinforcement, negative reinforcement and punishment. In the banana transcript, Zach's mum makes it clear that he has done something wrong. This is when he says, "I got food on the floor" and she changes it to "you threw food on floor". The verb "threw" is emphasising that is a bad thing to which could be a form of negative reinforcement meaning that he is less likely to do it again to avoid this. Similarly, there are examples of positive reinforcement in the same transcript. When Zach recognises the 'Busy Railway' book, his mum says, "you are a star". This is praising him for learning language which means the behaviour is more likely to be repeated according to Skinner.
In the Zach and the healing robot transcript, we should expect to see his language more developed such as being in the telegraphic stage yet his language is quite disjointed. This can be seen in the phrase, "now we (.) then it healed and now (.) it will take a little time (.) for the robot to heal again (2)". This could be due to context because he is distracted by thinking about the robot. There are some parts that link to the telegraphic stage such as "an I'm sitting here (.) to (.) for waiting (.) to get (0.5) better (.) for it (0.5)" because this is ellipsis. In the beginning of the transcript he says, "can you do it Mummy?" This can relate to Dore's requesting function because he is asking for something to be done for him. The action of him turning towards Mummy is showing this through gestures as well as words. This is an example of him using an interrogative which is usually done by the mother.
In the Zach drawing a banana transcript, there are 26 interrogatives used asked to Zach by his mother. This shows that his mum is offering guidance to him which could relate to Vygotsky's zone of proximal development because the child can do it with support from the caregiver also know as scaffolding. The number of interrogatives used towards Zach in the healing robot transcript is 16. This is significantly less which could mean that Zach is developing his language so does not require as much scaffolding. In the banana transcript Zach says the utterance, "course you can Mummy". This can be quite humourous as it unusual for a young child to say. It is also a non-standard use of adult language in response to the question, "shall i help?" The can relate to Chomsky's LAD theory as it is about listening to sentences around us and using them. This can lead to over-generalisation which can be seen here since this is not the context you would usually see that utterance.
In the Zach drawing a banana transcript he could be in the iconic stage of Bruner's theory which occurs between 1 to 6 years old. This is where information is stored in the form of images which relates to Zach drawing a banana in the transcript. Zach is learning more about language in the most recent transcript as he over-extends the term "glue sticks" but realises this and self-corrects himself to say "glue (.) spreaders". This shows that his language is developing as in the older transcript he over-extends the term "lasagne" to mean "bolognaise". This can also relate back to the iconic stage as lasagne and bolognaise look similar.
Context is important to consider when looking at language. This is because when Zach says, "this is my little pad (.) and I said (.) and said (.) the (.) train driver" it is not cohesive. This is because he is busy at the time but it could seem like Zach is struggling with the utterance. In the other transcript, Zach uses discourse markers in the utterance, "it's gonna be a long time though (.) but we're not gonna have breakfast still". The "though" and "still" are discourse markers used in response to his mum. This is likely to be because he is sensing that she wants to have breakfast. The utterance, "I cutting round the edge" is used in the oldest transcript. The auxillary verb, "cutting" is elided to create and elliptical construction. This is him over-generalising the grammar when there should be the word "am" between "I" and "cutting".
Skinner's Operant Conditioning Theory says we learn language in three ways through positive reinforcement, negative reinforcement and punishment. In the banana transcript, Zach's mum makes it clear that he has done something wrong. This is when he says, "I got food on the floor" and she changes it to "you threw food on floor". The verb "threw" is emphasising that is a bad thing to which could be a form of negative reinforcement meaning that he is less likely to do it again to avoid this. Similarly, there are examples of positive reinforcement in the same transcript. When Zach recognises the 'Busy Railway' book, his mum says, "you are a star". This is praising him for learning language which means the behaviour is more likely to be repeated according to Skinner.
Friday, 7 October 2016
"Snotrils and Jumpolines: Kids' Invented Words" Summary
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b07wsmrp#play
This podcast is about how children invent and reimagine words. This is usually something that is similar to the word or the thing that they are describing.
This podcast is about how children invent and reimagine words. This is usually something that is similar to the word or the thing that they are describing.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)