Zach transcript comparison essay

We would expect fluency of speech to improve and develop as the child grows older, although in the second transcript there are instances when Zach's language seems less fluent than the previous year. We could suggest various reasons as to why this is the case in relation to contextual factors such as the fact that in this transcript Zach is playing and being imaginative and therefore a lot of what he is saying is being made up on the spot. We can see an example of this where he says 'an I'm sitting here (.) to (.) for waiting (.) to get (0.5) better (.) for it (0.5)’ where examples of pauses and a false start can be seen. Alternatively it could be due to the fact we know that Zach is ‘home ill’ and it is likely this will affect his language. Despite this, the mean length of utterance (MLU) is noticeably greater in the second transcript, compared to more simple utterances in the first transcript, as we would expect, With an MLU of  0.7 in the first transcript and 1.2 in the second. In addition to suggesting Zach’s language has advanced we can draw attention to the fact that there are slightly more open questions in the second transcript and as these are likely to produce longer, more complex replies and therefore a longer MLU. However, in order to make conclusions about Zach’s language development we would need far more utterances to allow the MLU data to be both comparable and reliable.

 

We can see Zach’s development from telegraphic ‘look (.)/blown away’ to post telegraphic ‘please can you pick it up?’ showing improved ability to sustain a conversation. His language is very developed at both ages although there are occasions where he uses what Naom Chomsky calls ‘overgeneralisation’. For example Zach says ‘bolognay’ rather than ‘bolognaise’ which could be an example of him over applying the rule for making nouns plural, which in this case is an example of non-standard English. Chomsky also believes that children are born with an innate ability to learn any language, although this theory is widely criticised  for ignoring the importance of interaction, for example, Zach would not have known the correct term ‘bolognese’ without communication between him and his mother.

 

Looking at the transcripts we can see that Zach shows general understanding of the structure of a conversation. Despite occasionally needing prompts to expand on his simple utterances he does not interrupt speaker H. He shows comprehension of turn taking and adjacency pairs, for instance when speaker H uses the interrogative ‘what have you eaten today?’ and Zach replies ‘bananas’.  

 

In the second transcript Zach seems as if he is the dominant speaker, supporting most theories concerning language and gender, such as Zimmerman and West’s dominance theory. He is seen to set the agenda in both conversations and even uses back-channelling ‘We don’t need breakfast (.) it’s gonna take a little time now…’ to divert the conversation back to robots. Alternatively it could be argued that this specific example actually contradicts Zach’s dominance within this conversation with his use of a cloaked imperative. Tannen says that is in fact women who use cloaked imperatives and this suggests deficiency in speech. Although with lack of context this is clearly a command and is likely to influence speaker H’s behavior, I would say it is an example of representational speech rather than regulatory speech purely because of the use of a cloaked imperative.

 

It is evident from both transcripts that there are various efforts made by speaker H to aid the child’s language development. On various occasions speaker H, the mother, models the standard form of the word after the child has used the incorrect form. For example, again Z says ‘bolognay’ and the mother repeats back ‘bolognaise’ and the pronunciation of  ‘through’ as ‘frough’ is corrected in order to help the child’s learning. We can relate this to Deb Roy’s well renowned theory that parents adapt their language to be more simplistic around children, allowing them to understand and learn. Speaker H uses very straightforward utterances with few words, and is often seen echoing words that Z has previously used to reinforce them.  Numerous prompts are used throughout both essays to encourage the child to talk and elaborate on what he is saying for example ‘’Z: What are you drawing (.) Zach?” The use of the direct address ‘Zach’ also identifies that the utterance is directed at him and therefore making him more likely to answer.