RASAL Lingüística

Issue 2024 - Vol. 1
Artículos

The linguistic realization of requests in speech addressed to little children in Argentina

PDF (Español (España)) HTML (Español (España)) XML (Español (España))
  • M. Laura Ramírez,
  • Celia R. Rosemberg,
  • Carla De Benedictis
M. Laura Ramírez
CIIPME-CONICET
Celia R. Rosemberg
CIIPME-CONICET
Carla De Benedictis
CIIPME-CONICET
DOI: https://doi.org/10.56683/rs241031

Published 2024-03-18

Keywords

  • linguistic realization,
  • requests,
  • child directed speech,
  • pragmatic function,
  • home interaction

How to Cite

Ramírez, M. L., Rosemberg, C. R., & De Benedictis, C. (2024). The linguistic realization of requests in speech addressed to little children in Argentina. RASAL Lingüística, (1), 27–52. https://doi.org/10.56683/rs241031

Copyright (c) 2024 M. Laura Ramírez, Celia R. Rosemberg, Carla De Benedictis

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

Abstract

In daily at home interactions, children have been reported to be addressed with an important amount of requests (Jackson-Maldonado et al., 2011; Kuchirko et al., 2020) of actions or verbal response. Although various researches have analyzed the linguistic realization of requests, these studies have focused on interactions between adults (Schamne, 2020) or on family interactions in populations that differ linguistically and culturally from the Argentine population (Antaki & Kent, 2015; Arosson & Cekaite, 2011; Becker, 1994; Blum-Kulka, 1990; Takada, 2013). We conducted a qualitative analysis (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Strauss & Corbin, 1991) of the linguistic realization of requests for action and for verbal response in speech addressed to Argentine children between 8 and 36 months of age in at home interactions. The results revealed the use of both direct forms –imperatives– and indirect forms –questions, declarative statements– for the formulation of requests addressed to children. These results are compared with the previous literature.

PDF (Español (España)) HTML (Español (España)) XML (Español (España))

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

  1. Altinkamis, F. (2017). Linguistic politeness in Turkish child-directed speech. International Journal of Language Academy, 5(20), 30-42. http://dx.doi.org/10.18033/ijla.3798
  2. Antaki, C. y Kent, A. (2015). Offering alternatives as a way of issuing directives to children: Putting the worse option last. Journal of Pragmatics, 78, 25-38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma .2015.01.004
  3. Aronsson, K. y Cekaite, A. (2011). Activity contracts and directives in everyday family politics. Discourse & Society, 22(2), 137-154. DOI: 10.1177/0957926510392124
  4. Becker, J. A. (1994). Pragmatic socialization: Parental input to preschoolers. Discourse Processes, 17(1), 131-148. https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539409544862
  5. Blum-Kulka, S. (1990). You don't touch lettuce with your fingers: Parental politeness in family discourse. Journal of pragmatics, 14(2), 259-288. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(90)90083-P
  6. Blum-Kulka, S. y Olshtain, E. (1984). Requests and apologies: A cross-cultural study of speech act realization patterns (CCSARP). Applied linguistics, 5(3), 196-213. https://doi.org/10.1093/ applin/5.3.196
  7. Boretti de Macchia, S. H. (2001). Aspectos de la cortesía lingüística en el español coloquial de Argentina. Oralia: Análisis del discurso oral, (4), 75-102.
  8. Boretti de Macchia, S. (2002). Cortesía, imagen social y contextos socioculturales en la variedad del español de Rosario, Argentina. En Bravo, D. (ed.) Actas del Primer coloquio del Programa EDICE: La perspectiva no etnocentrista de la cortesía: identidad sociocultural de las comunidades hispanohablante, 110-120.
  9. Bravo, D. (1999). ¿Imagen "positiva" vs. imagen" negativa"?: Pragmática socio-cultural y componentes de face. Oralia: Análisis del discurso oral, 2, 155-184.
  10. Bravo, D. (2001). Sobre la cortesía lingüística, estratégica y conversacional en español. Oralia: Análisis del discurso oral, 4, 299-336. https://doi.org/10.25115/oralia.v4i1.8480
  11. Brumark, Å. (2006). Regulatory talk and politeness at the family dinner table. Pragmatics. Quarterly Publication of the International Pragmatics Association (IPrA), 16(2-3), 171-211. https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.16.2-3.06bru
  12. Brown, P. & S. Levinson (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage, Cambridge University Press.
  13. Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (2da ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA. Sage.
  14. Creswell, J. W. y Plano Clark, V. L. (2017). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Sage publications.
  15. Dambrosio, A. (2021). Fórmulas de tratamiento y consignas en español bonaerense: usos y percepciones en el ámbito educativo [Tesis Doctoral, Departamento de Humanidades, Universidad Nacional del Sur]. https://repositoriodigital.uns.edu.ar/handle/123456789/5600
  16. Di Tullio, A. (2007). Manual de Gramática del español. La isla de la luna.
  17. Ervin-Tripp, S. (1977). Wait for me, roller skate!. In Child discourse (pp. 165-188). Academic Press.
  18. Fasulo, A., Loyd, H., y Padiglione, V. (2007). Children’s socialization into cleaning practices: a cross-cultural perspective. Discourse & Society, 18(1), 11-33. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926 507069454
  19. Glaser, B. y Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Aldine Publishing Company.
  20. Gibaja, R. (1988). Acerca del debate metodológico en la investigación educacional. La educación. Revista Interamericana de Desarrollo Educativo (OEA), 103, 81-94.
  21. Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures: Sellected Essays. Basic Books.
  22. Hernandez, E., Carmichael, K., & Dunsmore, J. C. (2021). Toward integrating research on parent–child emotion talk and linguistic theory: A spotlight on parents’(in) direct communication. Social Development, 30(1), 38-56. https://doi.org/10.1111/sode.12472
  23. Hoff, E. (2003). The specificity of environmental influence: Socioeconomic status affects early vocabulary development via maternal speech. Child development, 74(5), 1368-1378. DOI: 10.1111/1467-8624.00612
  24. Hoff, E. (2006). How social contexts support and shape language development. Developmental review, 26(1), 55-88. DOI: 10.1016/j.dr.2005.11.002
  25. Hoff-Ginsberg, E. (1986). Function and structure in maternal speech: Their relation to the child's development of syntax. Developmental Psychology, 22(2), 155. DOI: 10.1037/0012-1649.22.2.155
  26. Huttenlocher, J., Vasilyeva, M., Cymerman, E. y Levine, S. (2002). Language input and child syntax. Cognitive psychology, 45(3), 337-374. DOI: 10.1016/S0010-0285(02)00500-5
  27. Iglesias Recuero, S. (2001). Los estudios de la cortesía en el mundo hispánico: estado de la cuestión. Oralia: Análisis del discurso oral, (4), 245-398.
  28. Jackson-Maldonado, D., Peña, E. y Aghara, R. (2011). Funciones de lenguaje y tipos de palabra en la interacción de madres y sus hijos e hijas. En Rojas Nieto, C. y Jackson Maldonado, D. (coords.). Interacción y uso lingüístico en el desarrollo de la lengua materna, (pp. 27-62), Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.
  29. Kuchirko, Y. A., Schatz, J. L., Fletcher, K. K. y Tamis-Lemonda, C. S. (2020). Do, say, learn: The functions of mothers’ speech to infants. Journal of child language, 47(1), 64-84. DOI:10.1017/S0305000919000308
  30. Lieven, E. (2010). Input and first language acquisition: Evaluating the role of frequency. Lingua, 120(11), 2546-2556. DOI: 10.1016/j.lingua.2010.06.005
  31. Miles, M. B. y Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Sage.
  32. Migdalek, M. J. y Rosemberg, C. R. (2012). El uso de los gestos en el discurso docente durante la planificación del juego en el jardín de infantes. Bellaterra Journal of Teaching & Learning Language & Literature, 5(3), 25-43. http://revistes.uab.cat/jtl3/article/view/457
  33. Migdalek, M. J., Peralta, N. S., Ramírez, M. L. e Ibañez, M. I. (2020). Argumentar en el jardín de infantes: Análisis exploratorio según la actividad y la función pragmática. Traslaciones, 7 (14), 31-53. https://doi.org/10.48162.rev.5.009
  34. Ramírez, M. L., Ibañez, M. I., Migdalek, M., Stein, A., Mealla, M. y Rosemberg, C. (2019). La función pragmática de las emisiones dirigidas al niño en el entorno del hogar: el impacto de la educación materna. Lingüística, 35(2), 271-288. https://doi.org/10.5935/2079-312x.20190028
  35. Rosemberg, C. R., Alam, F., Ramirez, M. L. y Ibañez, M. I. (2022). Activity Contexts and Child-Directed Speech in Socioeconomically Diverse Argentinian Households. International Journal of Early Childhood, 55(1), 1-25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13158-022-00345-8
  36. Rowe, M. L. (2008). Child-directed speech: Relation to socioeconomic status, knowledge of child development and child vocabulary skill. Journal of child language, 35(1), 185-205. DOI: 10.1017/s0305000907008343
  37. Schamne, D. (2020). Análisis pragmalingüístico de los actos de habla de petición y ofrecimiento en el español de la ciudad de Buenos Aires [Tesis Doctoral, Faculté des lettres et sciences humaines De l’Université de Neuchâtel].
  38. Searle, J. (1994). Actos de habla. Ediciones Cátedra SA.
  39. Searle, J. (1977). Actos de habla indirectos. Teorema: Revista Internacional de Filosofía, 7(1), 23-53.
  40. Shneidman, L. A., Arroyo, M. E., Levine, S. C. y Goldin-Meadow, S. (2013). What counts as effective input for word learning? Journal of Child Language, 40(3), 672-686.
  41. Shneidman, L. A. y Goldin‐Meadow, S. (2012). Language input and acquisition in a Mayan village: How important is directed speech? Developmental science, 15(5), 659-673.
  42. Sirvent, M.T. (2007). El proceso de investigación. Cuadernos de la Oficina de Publicaciones de la Facultad de Filosofía y Letras (OpFyL).
  43. Snow, C. E., Arlman-Rupp, A., Hassing, Y., Jobse, J., Joosten, J. y Vorster, J. (1976). Mothers' speech in three social classes. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 5(1), 1-20. DOI: 10.1007/BF01067944
  44. Strauss, A. y Corbin J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research. Grounded Theory. Procedures and techniques. Sage Publications.
  45. Takada, A. (2013). Generating morality in directive sequences: Distinctive strategies for developing communicative competence in Japanese caregiver–child interactions. Language & Communication, 33(4), 420-438. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2013.03.012
  46. Tomasello, M. (2003). The key is social cognition. En D. Gentner, & S. Goldin-Meadow (Eds) Language in mind: Advances in the study of language and thought, (pp. 47-57). MIT Press.
  47. Weiss, E. (2017). Hermenéutica y descripción densa versus teoría fundamentada. En Investigaciones educativas (Pública educación; 9) (pp. 63-79). Bonilla Artigas Editores.
  48. Weisleder, A. y Fernald, A. (2013). Talking to children matters: Early language experience strengthens processing and builds vocabulary. Psychological science, 24(11), 2143-2152. DOI: 10.1177/0956797613488145
  49. Zerey, Ö. G. (2014). Requests In Turkish-Speaking Pre-School Children: A Classroom Discourse Perspective. Electronic Turkish Studies, 9(6). http://dx.doi.org/10.7827/TurkishStudies.6673