THE USE OF EVALUATIVE DEVICES IN THE NARRATIVE DISCOURSES OF YOUNG SECOND-LANGUAGE LEARNERS

Ruth Mason

SIL International

SIL e-Books 13 2008 SIL International Library of Congress Catalog Number: 2008938591 ISBN: 9781556712265 ISSN: 1934-2470

Fair Use Policy Books published in the SIL e-Books (SILEB) series are intended for scholarly research and educational use. You may make copies of these publications for research or instructional purposes free of charge (within fair use guidelines) and without further permission. Republication or commercial use of SILEB or the documents contained therein is expressly prohibited without the written consent of the copyright holder(s).

Series Editor Mary Ruth Wise Volume Editors Bonnie Brown Eileen Gasaway Compositor Karoline Fisher

ABSTRACT The narrative skills of young second-language learners have not attracted much attention from researchers in the field of second language acquisition. This study describes, and seeks to explain, some of the regularities of L2 narrative development and, also, some of the inherent variability which is found in any corpus of L2 performance data. The focus of enquiry is Labovs model of narrative structure and the distinction made between referential and evaluative functions in narrative, especially the phonological, lexical, and syntactic devices young L2 learners use to carry out those functions of moving the plot-line forward and articulating the narrative point. The particular focus is evaluation, but a somewhat broader view of the notion is taken than that of Labov (1972a) and the study draws on, among others, the work of Polyani (1981a), Tannen (1982b), Wolfson (1982), and for child language, Bamberg and Damrad-Frye (1991). The data consist of 45 retellings of six model stories by eight Panjabi-speaking pupils aged 5 years 7 months to 7 years 9 months. It is claimed that the majority of these are uniquely the child-narrators own productions, differing from the originals in interesting and creative ways, particularly in the selection of evaluation devices; the best count as true performances. After a brief introduction, chapters 2 and 3 deal with theories of narrative, a selective discussion of evaluation in narrative, and the emergence of narrative skills. Chapters 4 and 5 describe the collection and analysis of the data, and report on the overall findings, correlating evaluation with other indicators of storytelling ability and comparing the L2 narratives with L1 productions. Chapters 6 and 7 present detailed accounts, with examples, of all devices reported, and chapter 8 presents the conclusions and an appraisal of the model.

- iii -

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The work for this thesis was begun in May 1986 and during the six-and-a-half years that it has been in process many people have offered guidance and support of various kinds; without this help, the task would never have been completed. I am particularly grateful for the encouragement of my two supervisors at the University of Reading, Professor David A. Wilkins and Dr. Paul Kerswill. It was Professor Wilkins who channelled my initial enthusiastic but diffuse interest in child second language production data into a single, manageable topic of study. He then patiently taught me how to apply the same principle to the art of academic writing and argumentation. Paul Kerswill guided me through my final two years, giving me the confidence to believe in the ultimate success of the whole enterprise, and inspiring me with his own infectious enthusiasm for both the topic and the data. He also had the unenviable task of reading through, and commenting on, the completed thesis; these comments were both helpful and illuminating. My special thanks go to the staff and pupils of Oxford Road School, Reading, who allowed me to share in its life and activities for a period of three years: to the Head-teacher, Mr .s Dorothy Arkell, who became a very good friend, as well as providing me with paid employment from time to time; to the Infant School Staff: Angela Langridge, Christine Stokes, Mandy Tutor, and Angela Young, who gave me so much help and friendship, and cheerfully put up with the disruption caused during the recording sessions; and to the delightful children who became the subjects of this thesis and made the collection of the data such fun. I wish to thank friends and colleagues at the British School of the Summer Institute of Linguistics, Horsleys Green, for their encouragement, for access to their facilities (especially the library, photocopier, and the use of the CECIL computer programme and speech box), and for making it financially possible for me to study for a higher degree. Firstly, my thanks go to Dr. Stephen Levinsohn, a former school director, and his assistant director, Ed Hall, for arranging the necessary funding in the form of a staff bursary for the first four years of part-time study and, secondly, to the following personal donors who (with others) raised sufficient support to cover my final years fees and the cost of submitting the thesis: Dr. John and Pam Hollman, Dr. Stephen and Nessie Levinsohn, Liz Magba (Parker) and Mo Perrin.

- iv -

Throughout the project I was given unlimited access to the Hard of Hearing Christian Fellowships word processing equipment. In addition to this kindness, I also wish to acknowledge the generous, and often sacrificial, financial contributions of the following friends in H.H.C.F.: Janet Andrews, Bert and Marie Barritt, Len Critchley, Doris Crump, Dennis Dickens, Ron Elsegood, Cynthia Leeman, Lou McCullough, Dot Mitchell, Harry and Mollie Raiss, Dorothy Smellie, Ray and Betty Spratley, Marjorie Thresher, and Millicent Wells. Other friends who have supported me financially are: Derek and Florence Ames, David and Lindsay Baverstock, Mary Cox, Archie and Jos Day, Noel and Myrtle Gomm, Nairn and Molly McLeish, Gwen Pitt and friends from Butt Lane, Stoke-on-Trent. My love and thanks also go to Tom and Edna Hamblin, friends of long-standing and our son Stuarts in-laws, and to my cousin Theo King. Then I wish to record with loving gratitude the support, lively interest, patience, and understanding of my husband, Don not to mention the numerous occasions when he acted as unpaid chauffeur, or deferred to my demands for instant use of the word processor. His support is especially commendable since, having barely survived my undergraduate years, he knew in advance exactly what would be in store for him! My thanks, too, to our son Stuart Mason and his wife, Sharon; to my brother, Alec Cox, and to his wife, Mary; and to my sister, Carol Stevens, and her husband David, for all their support and encouragement over the past six-and-a-half years. Finally, my special thanks go to Roy Allen for showing me the basics of word processing and for coming promptly to my rescue when I have been in difficulties with the equipment.

-v-

TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT .........................................................................................................................................iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS........................................................................................................... iv LIST OF TABLES............................................................................................................................ xii LIST OF FIGURES......................................................................................................................... xv CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................1 1.1 The Narrative Texts ..............................................................................................................1 1.2 The Art of Storytelling and the Acquisition of Narratives ............................................4 1.3 Narratives as Socially Situated Events ...............................................................................7 CHAPTER 2: SOME CHARACTERISTICS OF NARRATIVE........................................ 13 2.1 Preliminary Remarks .......................................................................................................... 13 2.2 Elements of a Narrative Theory ...................................................................................... 19 2.3 Story Grammars.................................................................................................................. 25 2.4 Evaluation and the Work of Labov ................................................................................ 29 2.4.1 The Structure of the Narrative Clause ................................................................. 29 2.4.2 Evaluation in Narrative........................................................................................... 32 2.4.3 Types of Evaluation................................................................................................. 36 2.4.4 Evaluative Devices and the Labov Model........................................................... 40 2.4.5 A Justification for the Approach........................................................................... 42 2.4.6 Evaluation and Plot Construction......................................................................... 45 2.5 Aspects of Sequencing and Plot Construction.............................................................. 51 2.6 Summary............................................................................................................................... 55 CHAPTER 3: HOW CHILDREN LEARN THE ART OF STORYTELLING............. 56 3.1 Storytelling and Tradition.................................................................................................. 56

- vi -

3.2 Experimental Studies of Narrative Ability in Children ............................................... 58 3.3 The Story as a Speech Event ............................................................................................ 60 3.4 Pictorial and Verbal Elements in Storybooks ............................................................... 62 3.5 The Story as a Set of Stanzas............................................................................................ 65 3.6 The Acquisition and Use of Prefabricated Patterns................................................. 68 3.6.1 Possible Sources of Prefabricated Patterns ..................................................... 68 3.6.2 Stages, Strategies and Individual Differences ..................................................... 70 3.6.3 Nativelike Selection and Nativelike Fluency ....................................................... 73 3.6.3.1 Selection........................................................................................................... 73 3.6.3.2 Fluency............................................................................................................. 75 3.6.3.3 Memorized Sequences................................................................................... 76 3.7 Spoken and Written Discourse: Similarities and Differences .................................... 78 3.7.1 Spoken and Written Stories.................................................................................... 78 3.7.2 Oral and Literate Discourse Styles........................................................................ 81 3.7.2.1 Intraclausal Complements: Prepositional Phrases................................... 82 3.7.2.2 Interclausal Complements and Participant Reference ............................ 84 3.7.2.3 Interclausal Connectives and Causal Relations ........................................ 86 3.7.2.4 Agent Focus .................................................................................................... 87 3.8 Implications for Second Language Acquisition ............................................................ 88 3.8.1 Home and Community Background .................................................................... 88 3.8.2 Storytelling in School and L2 Acquisition of English Storytelling Skills......................................................................................................................... 92 3.9 Summary............................................................................................................................. 103 CHAPTER 4: EVALUATION IN L2 NARRATIVE PRODUCTIONS ....................... 104 4.1 Narrative Skills and Evaluation...................................................................................... 104 4.2 Methodology...................................................................................................................... 108 4.2.1 The Subjects ............................................................................................................108

- vii -

4.2.2 Materials and Procedure........................................................................................ 110 4.2.3 Analysis of the Narrative Data............................................................................. 114 4.2.4 Transcription and Editing of the Data............................................................... 117 4.2.5 Additions and Modifications to Labovs Evaluative Categories ................... 119 4.3 An Example from the Data............................................................................................ 126 4.4 A General Discussion of the Findings ......................................................................... 131 4.5 Evaluative Devices Preferred by Young Speakers ..................................................... 146 4.6 Intensifiers and Evaluative Syntax................................................................................. 151 4.7 Summary............................................................................................................................. 154 CHAPTER 5: EVALUATION AND RELATED ISSUES................................................ 156 5.1 Evaluation in the Wider Context................................................................................... 156 5.2 Plot Construction and Errors, and their Interrelationship with Evaluation ......... 157 5.2.1 Plot Construction ................................................................................................... 157 5.2.2 Errors........................................................................................................................ 159 5.3 L1 and L2 Narratives Compared................................................................................... 164 5.4 L1 and L2 Discourse Errors........................................................................................... 172 5.4.1 An Error Count of L1 and L2 Errors in Story A............................................. 172 5.4.2 Discourse Errors .................................................................................................... 174 5.4.2.1 Errors in the Orientation Section ............................................................. 176 5.4.2.2 Narrative Section.......................................................................................... 179 5.4.2.3 Clausal Connectives..................................................................................... 182 5.4.2.4 Participant Reference .................................................................................. 186 5.4.2.5 Tense-Aspect Relations .............................................................................. 191 5.4.3 Ellipsis ...................................................................................................................... 196 5.4.3.1 L1 Examples of Ellipsis.............................................................................. 196 5.4.3.2 L2 Examples of Ellipsis.............................................................................. 199 5.5 Summary............................................................................................................................. 202 - viii -

CHAPTER 6: A DISCUSSION OF THE EVALUATIVE DEVICES FOUND IN THE DATA: (1) INTENSIFIERS......................................................................... 203 6.1 Introduction....................................................................................................................... 203 6.2 Intensifiers.......................................................................................................................... 205 6.3 Expressive Phonology ..................................................................................................... 206 6.3.1 Length....................................................................................................................... 207 6.3.2 Loudness.................................................................................................................. 208 6.3.3 Pitch.......................................................................................................................... 208 6.3.4 The Transcription of the Data............................................................................. 209 6.3.5 Acoustic Data, Perception and the Attitudinal Function of Prosodic Features................................................................................................................. 213 6.3.6 A Characterization of the Speech Styles of the Eight Subjects ..................... 217 6.3.7 The Evaluative Use of Prosodic Features ......................................................... 222 6.3.8 The Acquisition of Intonation............................................................................. 243 6.4 Direct Speech Data .......................................................................................................... 245 6.5 Interjections, Exclamations, and Direct Address ....................................................... 259 6.5.1 The Use of Oh!................................................................................................... 263 6.5.2 Affirmation and Denial ......................................................................................... 265 6.5.3 Please, Now, Well, and O.K................................................................ 266 6.6 Lexical Intensifiers and Other Lexical Items............................................................... 269 6.7 Foregrounding................................................................................................................... 277 6.8 Quantifiers ......................................................................................................................... 280 6.9 Repetitions ......................................................................................................................... 283 6.10 Single Appositives .......................................................................................................... 287 6.11 Use of the First Language............................................................................................. 289 6.12 Summary .......................................................................................................................... 290

- ix -

CHAPTER 7:

MORE ON EVALUATIVE DEVICES FOUND IN THE

DATA: (2) COMPLEX EVALUATIVE SYNTAX................................................. 292 7.1 The Notion of Syntactic Complexity............................................................................ 292 7.2 Comparators ...................................................................................................................... 293 7.2.1 Negatives.................................................................................................................. 297 7.2.2 Modals, Futures and Quasimodals...................................................................... 299 7.2.3 Questions................................................................................................................. 306 7.2.4 Imperatives .............................................................................................................. 312 7.2.5 Or-clauses................................................................................................................. 315 7.2.6 Comparatives and Superlatives............................................................................ 316 7.2.7 The Conversational Historic Present (CHP) .................................................... 319 7.3 Correlatives ........................................................................................................................ 323 7.3.1 Progressive Be...-ing ................................................................................................. 325 7.3.2 Right-hand Participles and Embedding ............................................................. 327 7.3.3 Compound Phrases................................................................................................ 329 7.3.4 Double and Multiple Attributives ....................................................................... 331 7.3.5 Optional Prepositional Phrases ........................................................................... 333 7.3.6 Double Appositives ............................................................................................... 335 7.4 Explicatives ........................................................................................................................ 336 7.4.1 Causal Constructions............................................................................................. 337 7.4.2 Simple Qualifications............................................................................................. 339 7.4.3 Clarifications............................................................................................................ 341 7.5 External Evaluation.......................................................................................................... 343 7.5.1 Embedded Orientation ......................................................................................... 344 7.5.2 Evaluative Action................................................................................................... 346 7.5.3 Suspension of the Action...................................................................................... 348 7.6 Summary............................................................................................................................. 348

-x-

CHAPTER 8: CONCLUDING ISSUES................................................................................. 350 8.1 The Narrative Task........................................................................................................... 350 8.1.1 Interactive Collaborative/Prompted Discourse versus Monologue ............ 351 8.1.2 Retelling versus Performance............................................................................... 355 8.1.3 The Relationship between Story Structure and Story Content...................... 359 8.2 Evaluation as an Indicator of L2 Development ......................................................... 360 8.2.1 Evaluation, Subordination and Syntactic Complexity..................................... 361 8.2.2 Evaluation and Overall Coherence..................................................................... 363 8.2.3 The Problem of L2 Syntax ................................................................................... 364 8.2.4 L2 Narrative Development and L2 Aquisition................................................. 366 8.2.5 L1 and L2 Narratives............................................................................................. 368 8.3 An Appraisal of Labovs Model and His Notion of Evaluation ............................. 369 8.3.1 Evaluation as a Measure of Narrative Ability ................................................... 372 8.3.2 Good and Bad Stories................................................................................... 373 APPENDIX 1 The Displayed Narrative Texts ....................................................................... 375 APPENDIX 2 Photographs of the Materials used for the Puppet and Drawing Activities ............................................................................................................................. 474 BIBLIOGRAPHY .......................................................................................................................... 476 LIST OF CHILDRENS BOOKS REFERRED TO IN CHAPTER THREE ............... 513

- xi -

LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1.1 The Dyads Involved in the Production of the Narratives ....................................8 TABLE 2.1 The Intersection of Expression and Content and Substance and Form within Narrative................................................................................................................... 21 TABLE 2.2 List of Labovs Internal Evaluation Categories.................................................... 41 TABLE 2.3 The Intersection of the Parameters Evaluation and Plot Construction.......... 47 TABLE 3.1 Influences on Childrens Perception and Construction of Narrative .............. 80 TABLE 3.2 Devices Used to Achieve and Maintain Thematic Cohesion............................ 82 TABLE 3.3 Types of Stories Read or Told to Young Children at School ........................... 96 TABLE 4.1 List of Evaluative Devices and Their Codes ...................................................... 118 TABLE 4.2 List of the Numbers and Types of Clauses Produced in the 45 L2 Narratives Story A ......................................................................................................... 133 TABLE 4.2 List of the Numbers and Types of Clauses Produced in the 45 L2 Narratives Story B ......................................................................................................... 134 TABLE 4.2 List of the Numbers and Types of Clauses Produced in the 45 L2 Narratives Story C ......................................................................................................... 135 TABLE 4.2 List of the Numbers and Types of Clauses Produced in the 45 L2 Narratives Story D......................................................................................................... 137 TABLE 4.2 List of the Numbers and Types of Clauses Produced in the 45 L2 Narratives Story E ......................................................................................................... 138 TABLE 4.2 List of the Numbers and Types of Clauses Produced in the 45 L2 Narratives Story F.......................................................................................................... 139 TABLE 4.3 Total Numbers of Clauses and Ranks for Each Subject.................................. 141 TABLE 4.4 Total Percentages of Subordinate Clauses .......................................................... 142 TABLE 4.5 Total Percentages of Internal and External Evaluation ................................... 142 TABLE 4.6 Combined Scores, Correlations and Significance Levels ................................. 144 TABLE 4.7 Total Numbers of Unevaluated Subordinate Clauses........................................ 145 - xii -

TABLE 4.8 Total Numbers of Internal Evaluation Devices Used in the L2 Data........... 146 TABLE 4.9 Total Percentages of Internal Evaluation Devices Listed ................................ 148 TABLE 4.10 Percentage of Intensifiers Compared with Syntactic Devices....................... 152 TABLE 5.1 Numbers of Perceived Interclausal Pauses and Discontinuities..................... 157 TABLE 5.2 Totals and Ranks for Interclausal Pauses and Evaluation ............................... 158 TABLE 5.3 Total Numbers of Grammatical, Lexical, Phonological and Discourse Errors .................................................................................................................................. 160 TABLE 5.4 Story A: L1 and L2 Comparisons ......................................................................... 166 TABLE 5.5 Story A: Total Scores for L1 and L2 Narratives ................................................ 167 TABLE 5.6 Story A: Unevaluated Subordination.................................................................... 167 TABLE 5.7 Story A: Types of Subordinate Clauses ............................................................... 168 TABLE 5.8 Story A: Internal Evaluation, L1 and L2 Comparisons .................................... 169 TABLE 5.9 Story A: Internal Evaluation, Totals for Each Category .................................. 171 TABLE 5.10 Number of Devices per Clause........................................................................... 172 TABLE 5.11 Story A: L1 and L2 Errors ................................................................................... 173 TABLE 6.1 Pitch: Frequency Range Employed by Each Subject........................................ 213 TABLE 6.2 Length: Duration of the Longest Vowels Recorded for Each Subject ......... 215 TABLE 6.3 Expressive Phonology: Objective Criteria and Subjective Perceptions ........ 215 TABLE 6.4 Direct Speech: Speech Verbs and Margins ......................................................... 251 TABLE 6.5 Direct Speech: Proportions of Well-formed Data Types and Constructions..................................................................................................................... 252 TABLE 6.6 Frequency of Occurrence of Speech Introducers ............................................. 253 TABLE 6.7 List of Interjections and Details of Clauses Coded, Arranged by Subject ................................................................................................................................. 261 TABLE 6.8 The Number of Occurrences of Each Interjection Arranged according to Frequency of Occurrence ........................................................................ 262 TABLE 6.9 Exclamations: Arranged by Subject...................................................................... 263

- xiii -

TABLE 6.10 Direct Access: Arranged by Subject................................................................... 263 TABLE 6.11 Lexical Intensifiers: Arranged according to Frequency of Occurrence and by Subject.................................................................................................................... 269 TABLE 6.12 Evaluative Adjectives: Types and Totals........................................................... 274 TABLE 6.13 Foregrounding Devices: Types and Totals....................................................... 277 TABLE 6.14 Quantifiers: Types and Totals ............................................................................. 280 TABLE 6.15 Repetitions: Types, Totals and Percentages...................................................... 284 TABLE 7.1 Syntactic Complexity and Evaluation: Comparators ........................................ 295 TABLE 7.2 Modals, Futures, and Quasimodals ...................................................................... 299 TABLE 7.3 Categories and Functions of Four Modal Verbs: CAN, COULD, MAY and MIGHT ........................................................................................................... 302 TABLE 7.4 Questions: YES/NO, WH-, Embedded and Echo Questions ...................... 309 TABLE 7.5 Sakanders Story B: Tense-Switching and the Presence of Temporal Conjunctions...................................................................................................................... 321 TABLE 7.6 Syntactic Complexity and Evaluation: Correlatives........................................... 325 TABLE 7.7 Compound Noun Phrases ..................................................................................... 330 TABLE 7.8 Double and Multiple Attributives......................................................................... 332

- xiv -

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2.1 The Narrative Situation................................................................................................ 14 Figure 2.2 Oral Narratives .............................................................................................................. 15 Figure 2.3 The Formal Reading of a Fairy Story or Folk Tale ................................................ 15 Figure 2.4 The Components of Story........................................................................................... 19 Figure 2.5 Narrative Story (Content) and Discourse (Expression)......................................... 22 Figure 2.6 Childrens Oral Narrative Genres: Models of Description and Types of Analysis ................................................................................................................................. 25 Figure 2.7 Aqeels Story B(2): Story Grammar Approach........................................................ 28 Figure 2.8 Two Views of Evaluation: Labov (1972a) and Grimes (1975)............................. 34 Figure 3.1 Spoken and Written Language in Panjab ................................................................. 89 Figure 4.1 The Relationship between Linguistic and Pragmatic Knowledge ..................... 105 Figure 4.2 Labovs Model of a Fully-formed Oral Narrative................................................. 115 Figure 4.3 A Simplification of Labovs Model.......................................................................... 116 Figure 5.1 The Relationship between the Macro- and Micro-syntax within Narrative Structure.............................................................................................................................. 175 Figure 5.2 Martins (1983) View of Reference as a Series of Options ................................. 187 Figure 6.1 Shvinders Story A4: Stress and Frequency............................................................. 211 Figure 6.2 Shvinders Story A4: Raw and Smooth Data......................................................... 212 Figure 6.3 Sakanders Story A23: Active Data (Amplitude Trace) and Points of Change................................................................................................................................. 214 Figure 6.4 Shvinders Story A1: Stress and Frequency............................................................ 224 Figure 6.5 Shvinders Story A5/6: Stress and Frequency ....................................................... 225 Figure 6.6 Shvinders Story A8, First Intonation Group: Stress and Frequency ............... 226 Figure 6.7 Shvinders Story A8, Rest of Utterance: Stress and Frequency.......................... 227 Figure 6.8 Shvinders Story A11/13: Stress and Frequency................................................... 228

- xv -

Figure 6.9 Shvinders Story A14: Stress and Frequency ......................................................... 229 Figure 6.10 Shvinders Story A81: Stress and Frequency ....................................................... 230 Figure 6.11 Shvinders Story A82: Stress and Frequency ....................................................... 231 Figure 6.12 Shvinders Story A10: Stress and Frequency ....................................................... 232 Figure 6.13 Sakanders Story A3: Stress and Frequency ......................................................... 237 Figure 6.14 Sakanders Story A5, End of Utterance: Stress and Frequency ....................... 238 Figure 6.15 Sakanders Story A5, Longer Stretch of Utterance............................................. 239 Figure 6.16 Sakanders Story A11: Stress and Frequency....................................................... 240 Figure 6.17 Sakanders Story A21: Stress and Frequency....................................................... 241 Figure 6.18 Sakanders Story A23: Stress and Frequency ........................................................ 242 Figure 6.19 Direct Speech in Narrative Discourse.................................................................... 247 Figure 8.1 The Relationship between Wolfsons Performance Features and Labovs Evaluative Devices ............................................................................................ 356 Figure 8.2 Shvinders Performed Narrative............................................................................. 358 Figure 8.3 A Prompted Retelling................................................................................................. 358

- xvi -

Chapter 1

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION The focus of this thesis is the development of narrative skills in young non-native speakers of English and, in particular, the place of evaluation in these emerging discourses. How children acquire language is one of the central issues in linguistics: researchers, such as C. Chomsky (1969), Brown (1973), and Bowerman (1973, 1979, 1982, 1985), have looked at syntactic development; others, such as E. Clarke (1983) and Wales (1986), have studied lexical development; some, such as McTear (1985) and Foster (1986), have considered pragmatic development and a few, such as Kernan (1977), Umiker-Sebeok (1979), Peterson and McCabe (1983), Kemper (1984), Bamberg (1987), and Bamberg and Damrad-Frye (1991), have concentrated on narrative development. In choosing one particular aspect of child language acquisition for an in-depth study they are, nevertheless, mindful of one of the main goals of linguistics, which is to discover what it is about language and the human organism that allows almost all children to learn a native language (Foster 1990). Foster and the other researchers cited above were concerned with the acquisition of a first language, whereas our interest is in second-language acquisition, but are the acquisition of a first language and a second language so very different? In making some direct comparisons between evaluations in L1 and L2 narratives from children of comparable ages, we seek to show that they are not; the L1 subjects may be ahead of their L2 counterparts, but both groups seem to be following a similar path. But why choose narratives as a medium for the investigation of language development? The simple answer is that they are relatively selfcontained discourses which are amenable to transcription and analysis and that, as a genre, narratives are known and appreciated by most young children. Whatever model of analysis we care to choose, the basic components of the narrative situation remain the same: we find a tale, a teller, and a hearer. We will take these components in turn and use them as a launching-pad from which to discuss three important strands that will be seen running through this work: (1) the narrative texts and their structure, (2) the art of storytelling and the acquisition of narratives, and (3) narratives as socially situated events. 1.1 The Narrative Texts The data consist of forty-five narratives produced by eight Panjabi second-language English speakers aged five years seven months to seven years nine months, and nine narratives by first-language English speakers of comparable ages. (The actual collection of -1-

Chapter 1 the data will be discussed in section 1.3.) Once recorded and transcribed, the data were analysed using a modified version of Labovs model, often referred to in the literature as high-point analysis. Labov and Waletzky (1967) and Labov (1972a) present an analysis of clause structures which relates them directly to their functions in the narrative; the basic distinction Labov makes is between the referential function of narrative clauses as a means of sequentially recapitulating past events and the evaluative function of clauses as a means of articulating the point of the story from the narrators perspective. It is this evaluative function of particular clauses which is, as the title suggests, the subject of this thesis. According to Bamberg and Damrad-Frye (1991): Evaluative comments not only function as links between sequential events, but at the same time - and more importantly - they point to the global hierarchical perspective from which the narrative gains coherence. Therefore, they give meaning to the individual events and actions. Put more broadly, shifts between action descriptions and evaluative comments signal a shift in narrative orientation from a focus on the organization of the particulars to a focus on the organization of the whole (see Bamberg, 1987, for details on the organization of part-whole relationships). Therefore, from the organization of the whole, one can understand why the reported events are organized the way they are, i.e. what the point of the narrative is at this stage in the conversation/discourse. (Bamberg and Damrad-Frye 1991:691) As with Labov and Waletzky (1967) and Labov (1972a), Bamberg and Damrad-Frye start from the analysis of linguistic forms, but they do not use Labovs four evaluative categories(1) intensifiers, (2) comparators, (3) correlatives, and (4) explicativesfor the treatment of internal evaluation, nor do they differentiate between internal and external evaluation. Instead, they set up five evaluative categories which overlap, rather than coincide, with those of Labov. We follow Labov more closely, for even though, like Bamberg and Damrad-Frye, we extend the notion of evaluation to cover third-person narratives, we do, nevertheless, retain the Labovian categories, simply adding new members to them. What we are seeking to do certainly comes within the realm of discourse analysis and/or text analysis. Crystals Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics (third edition 1991) has the following to say about texts:

-2-

Chapter 1 Texts are seen as language units which have a definable communicative function, characterised by such principles as COHESION, COHERENCE and informativeness, which can be used to provide a FORMAL definition of what constitutes their identifying textuality or texture. (p. 350) He also notes that some linguists see text as a notion which applies to SURFACE STRUCTURE, whereas discourse applies to DEEP STRUCTURE. Others, from the opposite viewpoint,have defined text as an abstract notion, discourse being its REALISATION (p. 350). Clearly, we are dealing with surface structure forms and we are obviously viewing evaluation as a cohesive device, following the Hallidayan approach to grammatical analysis (Halliday 1971, Halliday and Hasan 1976). Halliday uses the term cohesion to refer to those surface-structure features which link different parts of sentences or larger units of discourse together. Comparators, correlatives, and explicatives involve a significant complication in the syntax of the narrative clause, and Labov seems to equate evaluation with syntactic complexity and departures from the fundamental simplicity of narrative syntax (1972a:377). However, there are two important questions we need to ask here; these are: (1) Is there any EVIDENCE in the data for the development of evaluative syntax with age and increasing language experience and proficiency? and (2) How does the development of evaluative syntax correlate with OTHER indicators of syntactic complexity, such as the amount of subordination used for purposes other than evaluation? Then, if we turn from the hierarchical ordering of evaluative clauses to the linear ordering of narrative clauses along a time line, we find that the ability to describe events in sequence is also an essential ingredient of narration. So are there any indications in the data that there is a developmental pattern in the areas of sequencing and plot construction? And how do these correlate with differences observed between subjects in the use of evaluative devices? We seek to address these and other related questions in the chapters that follow. Finally, we need to justify our adoption of the whole notion of evaluation as a discrete entity. Quastoff (1980) criticises Labov for not making clear exactly how evaluative elements are to be identified and categorized; in other words, the implication is that Labov presents us with a brilliantly simple idea without bothering to convince us of its validity by spelling out the details. One of our aims, then, is to validate the Model as a suitable instrument for assessing the narrative texts of young second-language learners. Because of the inevitability of overlap between the referential and evaluative functions in narrative and the problem of deciding what a narrators attitudes and intentions really are, there will -3-

Chapter 1 always be unclear cases; but there will also be many unambiguous examples with which to test the Labovian distinction between evaluative and narrative clauses. 1.2 The Art of Storytelling and the Acquisition of Narratives The ability to tell a good story is clearly an art; Bamberg (1987) considers it a skill because, as he says, some people can obviously do it better than others. But the very use of words such as art and skill suggest an innate ability, a natural talent or gift, as well as an acquired or learned proficiency; it is, therefore, our thesis that successful storytelling is both the product of a natural endowment which is there to be exploited AND an acquired ability which is developed over the years from early childhood into adulthood. However, it is only the latter which can be subjected to empirical investigation so that we can build up a picture of what development typically occurs in childrens narrative ability. Piaget (1926), focusing on the ability of children to recall stories, looked at order, causality, and orientation and noted that his 8-year-old subjects failed in these areas less frequently than his 6-year-old subjects, who often failed to adhere to the chronological order of events, to mark cause-and-effect relations clearly, and tended to orient narrative events to themselves rather than to the characters in the narrative. Peterson and McCabe (1983) looked more generally at structural development in the everyday first-person narratives of 4- to 9-year-olds. They found that the 4-year-olds typically produced leap-frog narratives where the child jumps from event to event unsystematically, leaving out important events (1983:48), plus significant numbers of impoverished narratives with too few events, too often repeated, disoriented narratives which are confused or contradictory, and chronological stories that fulfil the referential function but not the evaluative function of narrative; in contrast, the 7- to 9year-olds more often produced the classic pattern with climax and resolution and significantly fewer chronological narratives. They noted that typically the narratives of the younger children were shorter, contained less structural complexity, and consisted either of a series of actions without any mention of a protagonists motivation for doing them or reactive sequences where something happens that causes something else to happen, although there is no evidence of goals (1983:71); whereas the older children had moved on from simple chronological recapitulation to the production of episodes where there is evidence for some sort of purposeful planned behaviour on the part of the protagonist. However, they also noted the unexpected persistence of reactive sequences

-4-

Chapter 1 which seem to be the best way of capturing the sense of important externally imposed events (1983:99). Another broad trend reported by Peterson and McCabe is the increased use of co-ordination and subordination for the elaboration of details and the production of multi-structure narratives and the embedding of structures within structures. Bamberg and Damrad-Frye (1991) looked specifically at evaluation in third-person narratives. As noted on page 2, they used their own categories and also concentrated specifically on references to frames of mind (which we have included under lexical items); nevertheless, in comparing the narratives of 5-year-olds, 9-year-olds, and adults, their findings do give an illuminating insight into various developmental issues. They discovered, for example, that the adults used three times as many evaluations as the 5-yearolds and two-and-a-half times as many as the 9-year-olds, thus showing that the overall use of evaluative devices increases significantly with age. They also found that the narratives of the 9-year-olds were, if anything, slightly shorter than those of the 5-year-olds, but that the 9-year-olds restricted themselves to relevant story information, while the 5-year-olds occasionally mentioned things that did not seem to be directly relevant to the plot (1991:696). There was no clear preference among the 5-year-olds for any particular device, but Bamberg and Damrad-Frye discovered that both the 9-year-olds and the adults preferred the frame of mind type of evaluative device over any other (p. 697). Perhaps more importantly, Bamberg and Damrad-Frye noted that although all children are able to provide evaluative comments in their narratives, even 9-year-olds are not yet in full command of the adult form-function relationships of particular evaluative devices (p. 705). Initially, children use evaluative devices to highlight and place in perspective particular local aspects of events or persons in the narrative but with increasing age they use the same devices more and more to signal the hierarchical organization of the linear sequence of events (p. 705). They consider this developmental ability to use evaluative comments as part of the skill to de-contextualize (DIFFERENTIATE) particular events, and to rearrange them in a more complex, hierarchical order (HIERARCHICAL INTEGRATION) (p. 706), referring the reader to the work of Fivush and Slackman (1986:95). They also state, evaluative comments presuppose a general distinction between two orders of reality: the world as perceived objects and events on the one hand, and as imperceptible intentions, desires and beliefs on the other, making reference to Piaget (1979 [1929]).

-5-

Chapter 1 We now need to state how the findings reported above relate to the narratives we have collected. Of the nine narratives from native speakers of English, seven follow the classic pattern described by Peterson and McCabe, one ends at the climax, terminating abruptly without any resolution, and the other is not a narrative at all in the Labovian sense of the term; whereas the 45 narratives from the L2 narrators are a mixed bag and contain examples of leap-frog, impoverished, disoriented, chronological and classic narratives, thus indicating that developmentally the L2 narrators are behind their L1 peers by, in some cases, as much as two years. All the narratives, both L1 and L2, contain evaluative devices but only the native speakers give any real indication that they are consciously providing some kind of hierarchical organization to their stories. Most L2 narrators, especially the less able, use evaluations simply as local highlighting devices and not as cohesive devices relevant to the whole text or discourse. Not many L2 researchers have looked specifically at narrative development; Baynham (1988) is a notable exception. Some, such as Godfrey (1980) and Ellis (1992) have collected oral and written narratives, but they have then used them to look at morphological or syntactic variability in L2 performance. Therefore, the work described in this thesis is being offered as a legitimate contribution to child second-language research which, it is hoped, will help to fill the gaps in our knowledge of the development of narrative skills in young second-language learners. Early second-language studies described in the literature were explorations into how children (and adults) acquire a second language, looking at factors such as the language environment, the learners own contribution to the learning process or the actual language material the learner produces. (See Dulay, Burt and Krashen 1982.) These early studies investigated natural L2 acquisition and were not theoretically motivated rather they sought to provide information about how L2 acquisition took place, which could then be used to construct theories, a posteriori (Ellis 1992:5). However, in the last twenty years or so there has been a general trend away from descriptive exploration towards the theoretical explanation of L2 acquisition, and from the study of how learners acquire grammatical competence to how they acquire a knowledge of the pragmatic rules of an L2. Second Language Acquisition (SLA) has thus become established as a field of study in its own right within applied linguistics, no longer related directly to language teaching. Ellis (1992) describes SLA as a rich and somewhat confusing field, encompassing a great range of research interests and employing a variety of research methods (p. 5). Current issues in

-6-

Chapter 1 SLA are: the description of the regularities of L2 development (e.g. Jordens 1988), the explanation of variability in L2 performance (e.g. Tarone 1988, Gregg 1990), the effects of input and interaction on L2 acquisition (e.g. Slimani 1987; Bygate 1988; White 1990), and exploratory research into learning style (e.g. Reid 1987; Willing 1987). This study can be said to contribute to our understanding of the regularities of L2 narrative development and to offer some explanation for the inherent variability present in this corpus of L2 performance data. 1.3 Narratives as Socially Situated Events When we peruse a set of transcribed and analysed narrative texts (cf. appendix 1) with all preceding and following utterances, and other extraneous material, carefully edited out, we may well be forgiven for viewing them as self-contained entities, comprising a formal system of various components, divorced from the real world and the social and cultural contexts in which they were originally created. Toolan (1988) states: They [i.e. narratives] often do stand alone, not embedded in larger frames, without any accompanying information about the author or the intended audience: theyre just there, it seems, like a pot someone has made, and you can take them or leave them. (Toolan 1988:4) This isolationist view of narratives is challenged by Dundes (1968) and Polanyi-Bowditch (1976) and discarded completely by researchers, such as Polanyi (1978, 1981b), Tannen (1979), and Heath (1983), who are interested in stories told in particular societies and what they reveal about a communitys cultural presuppositions and values. One reason for the rejection of this de-contextualized view of narratives is that the role of the hearer, or addressee, is totally ignored. Yet this role is crucial to the whole definition and identification of what constitutes a narrative. To quote Toolan again: Perceiving non-random connectedness in a sequence of events is the prerogative of the addressee: it is idle for anyone else (e.g. a teller) to insist that here is a narrative if the addressee just doesnt see it as one. In this respect at least, the ultimate authority for ratifying a text as a narrative rests not with the teller but with the perceiver/addressee. (p. 8)

-7-

Interlocutor Own group Other

Chapter 1

Monollingual L1

BIilingual

L2

Language abililty in English good good fair good fair fair

SPpeakers

1 NaMr. ata 10.8.81 (11.5.87) Osma 18.6.80 (8.4.87) Asif 14.3.81 (3.6.87) Mahjabeen 25.8.80 (13.5.87) Osma 18.6.80 (21.5.87) Nasir 3.11.79 (20.5.87) Sheiba 27.10.80 (9.4.87) Asif 14.3.81 (14.5.87) (G) (B) Shaid 9.5.80 (9.4.87) Refat 1.11.79 (15.5.87) (B) Khorum 1.4.80 (20.5.87) (G) Shazia 13.8.81 (9.4.87) (G) (G) Zabear 8.12.79 (19.5.87) (B) Nadia 28.1.80 (18.6.87) Nadia 28.1.80 (22.6.87) (B) Shvinder 12.4.80 (15.6.87) (G) Nadia 28.1.80 (24.6.87) (B) Sukhbir 5.2.81 (7.4.87) (B) (Sib) Shaid 9.5.80 (13.5.87) Sukbhir 5.12.81 (15.6.87) (B) (B) (Sikh) (G) Taslem 2.2.81 (23 6.87) Nadia 28.1.80 (23.3.87) (G) (Af-Ca) (G) Jerome 14.5.81 (18.6.87) Victor 9.2.81 (11.5.87) (G) (Af-Ca) David 9.2.81 (23.6.87) (G) (Af-Ca) Victor 9.2.81 (1.7.87) (G) (Ind) David 9.2.81 (12.5.87) (G) (Af-Ca) Shadi 5.1.82 (2.6.87) (B) (Sikh) Victor 9.2.81 (2.6.87) (G) Dharminder 30.12.81 (3.6.87) Mahjabeen 25.8.80 (7.4.87) (G) (Pak) (B) (Sib) Sadia 5.2.82 (15.5.87)

Shvinder (G) 12.4.80 (Ind) VERY GOOD John 22.5.80 (12.5.87) Kenneth 8.11.79 (25.3.87) Julia 11.11.79 (25.3.87) Tammy 12.12.79 (26.3.87) Kenneth 8.11.79 (26.3.87) Tammy 12.12.79 (24.3.87) Tom 19.6.80 (24.3.87) (B) Karl 14.7.80 (5.5.87) (B) (G) Clare V. 11.9.80 (5.5.87) (G) (B) Christopher 29.4.81 (18.5.87) (B) (G) Clare B 17.8.80 (14.5.87) (G) (G) Matthew 4.3.81 (22.6.87) (B) (B) Sophie 19.12.79 (18.5.87) (G) (B) Adrian 28.6.79 (21.5.87) (B)

Nina 5.1.80 (23.3.87)

(G)

Michael 17.7.81 (19.5.87)

(B)

(G) (Pak)

Fariba (G) 15.9.79 (Pak) VERY GOOD

(B) (Af-Ca)

Sakander 15.1.80 GOOD

(B) (Pak)

(B) (Port)

particulars of the dyads involved in the production of the narratives.

Therefore, without going into too much detail here, we need to say something about how

six different interlocutors: two L1 English speakers, two fellow L1 Panjabi speakers, and

the narratives were collected. The eight Panjabi L2 English speakers were each paired with

two from other minority groups using English as their L2. See table 1.1 below for the

Table 1.1

-8-

Humira 2.7.80 GOOD

(G) (Pak)

(B) (Port)

Sheiba 27.10.80 FAIR

(G) (Pak)

(B) (Port)

Aqeel 6.6.81 FAIR

(B) (Pak)

(B) (Port)

Shazia 13.8.81 POOR

(G) (Pak)

(G) (Farsi)

Fehdah 7.2.80 POOR

(B) (Pak)

(B) (Port)

Chapter 1 Key to the abbreviations: Table 1.1 B = boy; G = girl; sib = sibling of speaker Ind = Indian Panjabi L1 speaker, Hindu religion Pak = Pakistani Panjabi L1 speaker, Moslem religion Sikh = Pakistani Panjabi L1 speaker, Sikh religion Af-Ca = Afro-Caribbean L1 speaker, Christian religion Port = Portuguese L1 speaker, Christian religion Farsi = Iranian Farsi L1 speaker, Moslem religion The name, date of birth, and ethnic background of each child is recorded and also the date that each session took place; age-related inferences can thus be made as and when appropriate, although, with such a small sample, no direct relationship can be assumed between age and ability in English as an L2. It was the class teachers who graded the speakers language ability in English as very good, good, fair, or poor; there were no absolute standards applied in the selection and the label was only intended as a very rough guide. Interlocutors were, wherever possible, chosen from among the speakers own immediate peer group so that the dyads would interact well together; they were graded as either good or fair, and this grading reflected present attainment rather than potential ability. The importance of the interactional relationship between speaker and interlocutor(s) has been recognized by researchers such as Kernan (1977), Watson-Gegeo and Boggs (1977), and Cook-Gumperz and Green (1984). Wolfson (1982) listed a number of variable factors which have a direct bearing on the success of an oral narrative production, such as similarity of sex, age, and ethnicity between the teller and addressee, whether the teller and addressee are friends, and whether the speech situation itself is conducive to the creation of a context for the occurrence of spontaneous speech. Romaine (1984) gives an excellent example of what Wolfson (1982) calls a performed narrative (pp. 147148), where the child presents an eye-witness account, whose vividness derives from the fact that a number of events are reported in direct speech (p. 149); but the ten-year-old could only produce such a dramatic narrative because she felt comfortable with her interviewer and perceived her to be a sympathetic listener.

-9-

Chapter 1 Another important factor, of course, is the relative appropriateness of the narrative task. Studies in the growth of productive narrative abilities have employed a number of methods to elicit usable data, such as requesting spontaneous first-person narratives (e.g. Peterson and McCabe 1983), describing events depicted in a wordless movie (e.g. Sleight and Prinz 1985) or wordless book (e.g. Bamberg 1987), or retelling a story told by someone else (e.g. Merritt and Liles 1989). We chose a retelling task, creating six clearly defined characters and weaving six stories around them, but bringing only two or three of these characters into any one story. We devised two other, less demanding tasks, to precede and follow the main narrative task, which would also centre on the same six fictional characters; these were a picture drawing activity and a free conversation involving puppets. The subjects varied in the extent to which they followed the original but most managed to produce narratives that were uniquely their own, adding imaginative touches not present in the Model Story. The most obvious finding to emerge from the data is the simple fact that children are not equally competent at telling stories; whereas, in conversational tasks, this spread of ability is far less apparent. The narratives produced vary considerably in length as well as in content and in their general effectiveness as communicative acts. Those of the more able storytellers stand as clearly defined monologues with minimal intervention from the interlocutors; while those of the less able tend to be collaborations between teller and hearer. Here the teller more often gets stuck and the hearer is either called upon to assist in the telling, or, unbidden, tries to take over the role of teller. In general, the findings seem to indicate that children find the production of third-person narratives of vicarious experience more difficult than conversational types of discourse. Why should this be? What are the particular constraints imposed on a narrator and why is the narrative task so daunting for young speakers? Why are they so reluctant to hold the floor as a storyteller and yet are only too eager to do so when asked to issue instructions to their partners or engage in a free conversation as they manipulate puppet characters? In this thesis we seek to address these and other related questions. In section 1.1, we looked at the presence and function of evaluation in the text, but not at the role of evaluation in the interactional relationship between speaker and hearer(s) during the narrative event. Labov defines this role as one of ensuring that the narrative is appreciated and considered by the hearer(s) to have been worth the telling. As Labov (1972a) puts it,

- 10 -

Chapter 1 every good narrator is continually warding off the question, So what?, with regard to his narrative performance. Good narrators are capable of holding their hearers attention and of conveying to them their own feelings about the story they are telling, and particular events or characters contained in it. They use specific phonological and syntactic devices to indicate the point of the narrative and to bring their hearers more closely into the narration. The evidence that this is more than mere speculation is supplied by hearers who actually verbalize their responses or make appreciative noises immediately following the effective use of such evaluative devices. We are fortunate in being able to provide such evidence in a few specific instances; unfortunately, any non-verbal responses such as facial expressions and gestures, if not noted down at the time, are subsequently lost. One important question which is raised by this brief consideration of the speaker-hearer relationship during a successful narrative event concerns the consciousness of the teller: Does the good narrator make a conscious decision to use a particular set of evaluative devices or is the selection largely subconscious? It is our contention that it is the latter. Peterson and McCabe (1983) suggest that their better narratives have an elusive quality best described as charm (p. 202), and enumerate such things as striking imagery, an amusing insight, the articulation of expectations, an appealing and apt description, and how well the participants in an experience are portrayed, providing telling examples of these factors which all contribute to this indefinable flair that some narrators seem to possess as a natural or instinctive ability. Chapter 2 is a background chapter, dealing with theories of narrative; it also includes a selective discussion on the operation of evaluation in narrative discourse. In chapter 3, we discuss the emergence of narrative skills, first in general terms, and then from the secondlanguage perspective. chapters 4 and 5 belong together: chapter 4 describes the collection, processing, and analysis of the data, and then continues with some general discussion of the findings, particularly the way evaluative syntax correlates with other indicators of language and narrative ability and the evaluative devices preferred by young speakers. Chapter 5 deals with evaluation and related issues, such as plot construction, the incidence of errors (especially discourse errors), and a comparison of L1 and L2 narrative productions. Chapters 6 and 7, presenting a detailed report of the actual evaluative devices found and examples of their usage by the various subjects, also belong together: chapter 6

- 11 -

Chapter 1 is an extended treatment of the Intensifier category, concentrating specifically on the use of Expressive Phonology and Direct Speech; chapter 7 gives an account of the other three evaluative categories, all of which significantly complicate the syntax of the narrative clause. It also deals with External Evaluation. Finally, chapter 8 attempts to draw out some general themes from the findings, some of which have been alluded to above, such as retelling versus performing a narrative and interactive discourse versus monologue, and to correlate these directly with degrees of language proficiency. The chapter concludes by relating the work reported in this thesis to the field at large and by endeavouring to discuss objectively some of its strengths and weaknesses. There is also an evaluation of Labovs model, stating what it captures and what it fails to capture.

- 12 -

Chapter 2

CHAPTER 2: SOME CHARACTERISTICS OF NARRATIVE 2.1 Preliminary Remarks Before launching into a detailed description of the narrative discourses which have been collected, it is important to define the term narrative. A narrative presupposes a narrator and popular dictionaries variously describe it as a tale or story, an orderly account of events, or a recital of facts; the kind of composition or talk that confines itself to these. According to Grimes (1975), to be regarded as narrative, a discourse must be based on the notion of temporal sequence. A simple narrative is one that has wellseparated participants which are clearly and fully identified and the sequence in which events are told matches the sequence in which the events actually happened. But many narratives are obviously not simple. They have so many participants that it is impossible for the reader or hearer to keep track of them all, while others start at the end and then tell the rest of the story in flashback. So, is narrative one single discourse genre, or does it cover more than one genre? Then again, how do you compare a simple folk tale with a full length modern novel? What are the features which unite them? Roland Barthes, in his essay Structural Analysis of Narratives, writes of the plurality and universality of narrative in spoken, written, visual and gestural modes. Narrative is first and foremost a prodigious variety of genres, themselves distributed among different substances - as though any material were fit to receive mans stories. Able to be carried by articulated language, spoken or written, fixed or moving images, gestures, and the ordered mixing of all these substances; narrative is present in myth, legend, fable, tale, novella, epic, history, tragedy, drama, comedy, mime, painting (think of Carpaccios Saint Ursula), stained glass windows, cinema, comics, news items, conversation. (Barthes 1977a:79; 1977b:95) A similar point is made by Wolfson: Genre is here understood as a categorization which is defined on the one hand by the formal properties of the discourse appropriate to it and on the other by situational properties. For this reason narrative itself cannot be considered as a single category; it enters into many genres and serves many goals. (Wolfson 1982:54)

- 13 -

Chapter 2 Therefore, to answer the question, What is a narrative? we must go outside linguistic theory into the area of literary theory and what Seymour Chatman calls the nature of literary objects and their parts. We must ask, as Chatman does, Which are its necessary and which its ancillary components, and how do they interrelate? (Chatman 1978:10). Toolan (1988), in the first chapter of his critical linguistic introduction to narrative, begins his discussion by stating: Narrative typically is a recounting of things spatio-temporally distant: heres the present teller, theres the distant topichence the sense gap. This can be represented diagrammatically thus:

TELLER

TALE

ADDRESSEE

Figure 2.1 (Toolan 1988:2)

In spite of the title, his early chapters are concerned with literary theory rather than linguistics. He differentiates between narrative and other speech events where there is inherently a speaker and something which is spoken, not just by the truism that in narrative there must be a tale and a teller, but by the fact that the teller is often particularly noticeable. However, as we indicated in our opening preamble, there are different ways of telling a story. Some tellers are noticeable to the point of intrusiveness; others are only fleetingly present, enigmatic, removed. Toolan diagrams these contrasting relationships between teller and tale as follows:

- 14 -

Chapter 2

TELLER

TALE

ADDRESSEE

Figure 2.2 Here the teller makes what is distant and absent uncommonly present: there is no sense of gap between the present teller and the tale being told; the two are merged together. The oral narratives of personal experience which we will be discussing later in the chapter come into this category (see p. 29 et seq.). Conversely, a teller may become so absorbed in his self-generated sense of the distant topic that the addressee sometimes has the impression that the teller has withdrawn from him completely. He appears to be totally involved in the removed scene. This relationship, which is captured by the third abstract representation, can be exemplified by the formal reading of a written fairy story or folk tale:

TELLER ADDRESSEE TALE

Figure 2.3 Hawthorn (1985) uses the popular painting, The Boyhood of Raleigh by Millais, to illustrate the role of the teller. In the painting, two boys are being addressed by an aged seaman. They appear to be engrossed in the information being passed on, as the man points out to sea. But the boys eyes are on him, not on the far horizons being described so graphically.

- 15 -

Chapter 2 Narrative focuses our attention on to a story, a sequence of events, through the direct mediation of a telling which we both stare at and through, which is at once central and peripheral to the experience of the story, both absent and present in the consciousness of those being told the story. Like the two young boys we stare at the telling while our minds are fixed upon what the telling points towards. We look at the pointing arm but our minds are fixed upon what is pointed at. (Hawthorn 1985:vii) Because the narrator is the source of narrative, his role is a distinctive characteristic of it. A narrator, or teller, is stared at by his hearers rather than engaged by them in interaction, as he would be in general conversation. In literary narratives, a narrator may even be dehumanized and appear merely as a disembodied voice. However, Hawthorn also observes that stories and storytelling are not confined to a literary context. We live in a world increasingly dominatedand characterizedby the telling of stories; by anonymous communication, by messages notable for what has been termed agency deletion, and by disseminated but disguised authorities and authoritarianism. (1985:x) Toolan (1988) links this ubiquity and universality of narrative production with the fact that narrators are typically trusted by their addressees. In seeking and being granted rights to a lengthy verbal contribution (OK, go ahead, lets hear it/OK, Ill give this story/novel a try) narrators assert their authority to tell, to take up the role of knower, or entertainer, or producer, in relation to the addressees adopted role of learner or consumer. To narrate is to make a bid for a kind of power. (1988:3) Narratives may often be seen to stand alone as self-contained entities, cut off from the surrounding context of their production: they do not necessarily have to be related back to their narrators or to their socio-historical backgrounds for their message to be understood. So how do we define them? What are their essential characteristics? Toolan lists the following (pp. 45): 1. A degree of artificial fabrication or constructedness not usually apparent in spontaneous conversation: narratives are planned, polished and rehearsed by their authors before they are finally presented to their audiences.

- 16 -

Chapter 2 2. A degree of prefabrication: no narrative production is completely novel; they all contain elements which have been seen or heard beforestereotyped characters, such as the gallant prince or beautiful princess, or the rags to riches theme typical of many fairy tales, in which the country boy wins the princesss hand or Cinderella meets her prince charming. 3. Narratives typically seem to have a trajectory: they usually go somewhere; there is a beginning, a middle where problems are created and resolved, and a conclusion, such as the And they all lived happily ever after ending of the popular fairy tale. 4. Narratives have to have a teller, and that teller, no matter how backgrounded or remote or invisible, is always important. This definition places narratives firmly in the realm of language communication, despite their other special characteristics. 5. Narratives are richly exploitative of that design feature of language called displacement (the ability of human language to be used to refer to things or events that are removed, in space or time, from either speaker or addressee). In this respect they contrast sharply with such modes as commentary or description. Toolan does not claim that these are any more than characteristics of narrative; they certainly do not constitute a rigorous definition of what narrative really is. Other commentators appear less reticent. Scholes and Kellogg (1966:4) define narrative as: all those literary works which are distinguished by two characteristics: the presence of a story and a storyteller. This definition makes a distinction between narrative and drama, but is there a clear-cut boundary between the two modes of expression? We have already alluded to the variable nature of storyteller presence: we might also argue, with Toolan, that behind any drama stands an invisible implied teller. Our conclusion is, therefore, that this definition is too narrow. Traugott and Pratt (1980:248) come up with something a little broader; they define narration as: essentially a way of linguistically representing past experience, whether real or imagined.

- 17 -

Chapter 2 This definition is important and particularly applicable to the work which is being presented in this thesis, where we are applying a model developed for the description of narratives of personal experience to narratives which are not real, but imagined. The emphasis on representation of past experience implies a sense of detachment, which cuts narratives off from the external world and even from their authors: we read novels in order to escape briefly from our circumstances into a tale world (the term is Katharine Youngs) inhabited by the characters in the particular tale we are reading. The term past experience needs to be interpreted broadly to include futuristic science fiction, or a novel with future reference, or a novel in the present tense; the reader encounters and grasps all such temporal relationships as events that have already happened. In our second paragraph we referred to Roland Barthes all-pervasive view of narrative; the quotation continues: narrative is present in every age, in every place, in every societyCaring nothing for the division between good and bad literature, narrative is international, transhistorical, transcultural: it is simply there, like life itself. (Barthes 1977a:79) This may seem rather an over-the-top view of the impact of narratives on our lives, which leaves us wondering how in the world we can pin the notion of narrative down to something manageable; however, Barthes does go on to say that narrative is still analysable and can be understood in a systematic way. Toolan takes up this emphasis on systematicity and attempts a minimalist definition of what narrative might be: a perceived sequence of non-randomly connected events (1988:7). Having defined narrative, he is now obliged to say what he means by event: The event itself is really a complex term, presupposing that there is some recognized state or set of conditions, and that something happens, causing a change to that state (1988:7). Chatmans definition of event is somewhat fuller: Events are either actions (acts) or happenings. Both are changes of state. An action is a change of state brought about by an agent or one that affects a patient. If the action is plot-significant, the agent or patient is called a character. Thus the character is narrativethough not necessarily grammaticalsubject of the narrative predicate. (Chatman 1978:44)

- 18 -

Chapter 2 We now need to see how these preliminary considerations fit into other aspects of narrative theory. We will take Chatmans introductory chapter as our basic text. 2.2 Elements of a Narrative Theory Chatman anchors his approach quite firmly to the French structuralist tradition and the work of Roland Barthes, Tzvetan Todorov, and Gerard Genette, and also to the Russian formalists, especially Vladimir Propp, and his work on simple narratives. Structuralist theory argues that each narrative has two parts: a story (histoire) and a discourse (discours); the components of the story can be diagrammed as follows:

Actions Events Story Characters Narrative Text Discourse Figure 2.4 The story is the what of the narrative and the discourse is the how, to use Chatmans terms. Tomashevsky (1925) and Propp (1958 [1928]) used the terms fable (fabula) and plot (sjuzet). Fable is the sum total of events to be related in the narrative, i.e. the narrative content, divorced from the medium of expression. The plot is the story as actually told by linking the events together, i.e. the story expression itself. Bal defines the fabula or story content as: a series of logically and chronologically related events that are caused or experienced by actors (Bal 1985:5). Existents Setting Happenings

- 19 -

Chapter 2 Toolan also uses this quotation and states, This is the level at which we may expect the possibility of total transfer from one medium to another: everything at the level of story in, say, Great Expectations, can and perhaps should appear as easily in a film or cartoon version, or a ballet, as in the original written version. (Toolan 1988:9) Claude Bremond argues that there exists a layer of autonomous significance, endowed with a structure that can be isolated from the whole of the message: the story [recit]. So any sort of narrative message (not only folk tales), regardless of the process of expression which it uses, manifests the same level in the same way. It is only independent of the techniques that bear it along. It may be transposed from one to another medium without losing its essential properties: the subject of a story may serve as argument for a ballet; that of a novel can be transposed to stage or screen; one can recount in words a film to someone who has not seen it. These are words we read, images we see, gestures we decipher, but through them, it is a story that we follow; and this can be the same story. That which is narrated [raconte] has its own proper significant elements, its story-elements [racontants]: these are neither words, nor images, nor gestures, but the events, situations, and behaviours signified by the words, images, and gestures. (Bremond 1964:4) Chatman picks up on this notion of transposability as the strongest reason for arguing that narratives are structures independent of any medium of expression. He takes Jean Piagets view of structure to make his point. Piaget states that any structure has the following properties: wholeness, transformation, and self-regulation. A narrative is a structure because it consists of elementsEvents and Existents; these are single, discrete entities which add up to a sequential composite. Events in narrative tend to be related or mutually entailing and the process by which a narrative event is expressed is its transformation , whether by causal sequence or flashback. Only certain possibilities can occur, so, if irrelevant events and existents are brought in, we label the resultant narrative as ill-formed. Self-regulation, according to Piaget, means that transformations inherent in a structure never lead beyond the system but always engender elements that belong to it and preserve its laws (Jean Piaget 1970:14).

- 20 -

Chapter 2 Todorovs explanation of the term transformation is illuminating and worth reproducing here. The simple relation of successive facts does not constitute a narrative; these facts must be organized, which is to say, ultimately, that they must have elements in common. But if all the elements are in common, there is no longer a narrative, for there is no longer anything to recount. Now, transformation represents precisely a synthesis of differences and resemblance, it links two facts without their being able to be identified. (Todorov 1977:233) If narrative is a structure, does it then convey a meaning in and of itself, which is independent of the actual story it tells? The answer must be yes if the hearer, or addressee, is to perceive it as narrative. Toolan observes that the ultimate authority for ratifying a text as a narrative rests not with the teller but with the perceiver/addressee (p. 8). It is clear that a simple distinction between expression and content does not capture all the elements of the communicative situation; we need also to distinguish between substance and form. Table 2.1 shows how the intersection of these two dichotomies can be used to account for the relationships pertaining to a narrative. Table 2.1. An abbreviation of Chatmans table (1978:24) Expression Substance Media for communicating stories Narrative discourse Content Representations of objects and actions, etc. Narrative story components

Form

De Saussure distinguishes between signifis (or signifieds) and signifiants (or signifiers). The signifieds of narrative are event, character, and details of the setting, and the signifiers are those elements in the narrative statement...that can stand for one of these three, i.e. an action, person, or evocation of time and/or place. A narrative structure only imparts meaning insofar as it can endow an otherwise meaningless ur-text with eventhood, characterhood, and settinghood, in a normal one-to-one standing-for relationship (Chatman 1978:25).

- 21 -

Chapter 2 The diagram we began with (figure 2.4) is incomplete as it says nothing about the components of Discourse; these can now be drawn in to match the four-way distinction outlined in table 2.1.

Actions Events Happenings Form of Content Story (Content) Characters Existents Setting

N A R R A T I V E

People, things, etc., as pre-processed by the authors cultural codes

Substance of Content

Structure of narrative transmission Discourse (Expression) Manifestation

Form of Expression

Verbal, Cinematic, Balletic, Pantomimic, etc.

Substance of Expression

Figure 2.5 (based on Chatman 1978) The oral narratives which we will be discussing later are just one type of manifestation or medium of expression within the abstract class discourse whose principal features are order and selection; order has to do with events in sequence and selection, the capacity to choose which events and objects to state and which only to imply. A narrative is a communication and presupposes a sender (speaker) and a receiver (hearer):

- 22 -

Chapter 2 story author communicated by discourse audience

author responds and interprets discourse participates in narrative transaction draws inferences, etc., from discourse

audience

It is the story, the formal content element of narrative, which is actually communicated by the discourse. In Chatmans words: The discourse is said to state the story, and these statements are of two kinds process and stasisaccording to whether someone did something or something happened; or whether something simply existed in the story. Process statements are in the mode of DO or HAPPEN, not as actual words in English or any natural language (these form the substance of the expression), but as more abstract expressional categoriesStasis statements are in the mode of IS. (1978:3132) Oral narratives, in making process statements, are said to recount their events because they are explicitly presented by a narrator, and not merely enacted as in drama (cf. Platos distinction between diegesis and mimesis). Stasis statements are likewise presented or mediated by the narrator. (Narrative theory distinguishes between the author, the implied author and the narrator and, also, between the audience, the implied audience and the narratee, but these finer distinctions, which really only apply to full length novels, etc., need not concern us here. For our purposes the author and narrator are one and the same person, as also are the audience and the narratee. For completeness, we might also add that Genette (1980), Rimmon-Kenan (1983), and Bal (1985) subdivide Discourse into Text, i.e. ordering of events, presentation of characters, etc., and Narration, i.e. the relations between narrative and posited narrator.) Clearly, the narrator is the someoneperson or presenceactually telling the story to an audience and insofar as there is telling, there must be a teller, a narrating voice. For us the narrator is a real teller and not just an implied presence.

- 23 -

Chapter 2 As we have seen above, narrative discourse has many manifestations and embraces a prodigious variety of genres; we have selected just one to talk aboutchildrens oral narratives. But having selected our narrative genre, we are now faced with a further task of selection: what types of narratives shall we ask for and how shall we view them? Jason (1972) and Young (1983) viewed narratives as belonging to a world other than that inhabited by the listeners; Labov (1972a) defined them as a recapitulation of past experiences in the order in which they are believed to have occurred; and Sacks (1972) regarded them as extended turns at talk in which utterances are sequentially organized. If we take an other worldly approach, we will ask our young subjects for fictional stories, see them as self-contained entities, and analyse them according to their constituent parts. If we are interested in personal experiences, we will ask for real-life adventures and look for the narrative point and evidences of speaker involvement in the accounts which we collect. Again, if we choose to study spontaneous narratives told in conversational exchanges, we will look for the interactive relationship between teller and hearer, and how this contributes to the storys effectiveness as a communicative event. We need to move from the abstract level of narrative discourse, through some of its manifestations and genres, to models of description and the types of analyses on which they are based. We can diagram these relationships as shown in figure 2.6. In this chapter, we will discuss fictional stories and narratives of personal experience, mentioning the conversational narrative briefly in chapter 3. Folk tales and other fictional stories have been analysed using the Story Grammar approach and personal narratives of everyday life by High-point Analysis.

- 24 -

Chapter 2

NARRATIVE DISCOURSE

MANIFESTATION Verbal

GENRES

Folk tale

Personal Narrative

Conversational Narrative

Story Grammar

MODELS OF DESCRIPTION High-point Analysis Turn-taking model

Semantic

TYPES OF ANALYSIS Syntactic

Pragmatic

Figure 2.6 2.3 Story Grammars A Story Grammar is a formal description of the structure of a particular kind of text; the Story Grammar approach was first introduced by Bartlett (1932) in order to study memory for stories and seek to explain why his subjects made so many errors in reproducing a story that they had recently read. He suggested that people develop schemata of what stories are like which, when memory fails at any given point in the story, enable them to reconstruct what might have occurred. His theory did not account for the internal structure of stories; yet stories do have a particularly clear structure, as Propp (1968 [1928]), Colby (1973) and G. Lakoff (1972) have demonstrated for Russian, Eskimo, and other folk tales. Propps morphology of the Russian fairytale is basically an inventory of all, and only, the fundamental events (which he calls functions) that he identifies in his corpus of 115 tales. Recurring elements he calls constants, and random or unpredictable ones he calls variables.

- 25 -

Chapter 2 Morphologically, a talemay be termed any development proceeding from villainyor a lack, through intermediary functions to marriageor to other functions employed as a denouement. Terminal functions are at times a rewarda gain or in general the liquidation of misfortunean escape from pursuit....Each new act of villainy, each new lack creates a new move. One tale may have several moves, and when analyzing a text, one must first of all determine the number of moves of which it consists. One move may directly follow another, but they may also interweave; a development which has begun pauses, and a new move is inserted. (Propp 1968:92) Toolan demonstrates how easily and appropriately Propps grammar can fit simple tales by applying it to the story of a 7-year-old child (p. 17) and describes his work as a fascinating pioneer exploration of the narrative competence that readers seem to share (p. 33). However, it is Rumelharts work on fairy tales which is usually cited in any discussion of Story Grammars. Rumelharts (1975) characterization of story structure is hierarchical. At the highest level, each story consists of a setting followed by an episode and these, in turn, break down into further components such as states and events. The various identifiable parts are welded together by gross relations such as allowing, initiating, and motivating. In 1977, he revised his grammar; it varies in a number of ways from the 1975 version. His work was also expanded by Thorndyke (1977) and Mandler and Johnson (1977) to accommodate a wider range of stories than could be described using Rumelharts 1975 versionas he himself concluded at the time,the grammar has difficulty handling more complex multi-protagonist stories (p. 234). In all these later analyses, a well-formed story is seen to have three essential elements: a beginning, a piece of action, and an ending as part of their event structure. The middle section, often referred to as the development, contains elements such as a reaction, goal, attempt and outcome, which take the action from the initial problem to the protagonists various attempts to deal with that problem and the final conclusion. I experimented with the story grammar approach, myself, first attempting to base my analysis of some of my collected narratives on Rumelhart (1975) and then on the Mandler and Johnson version of the model; see figure 2.7 for an analysis of Aqeels Story B. Apart from the obvious difficulty of trying to fit (in many cases) ill-formed narratives into an

- 26 -

Chapter 2 idealized story framework, the results of the exercise are not particularly revealing; the model was not intended as a tool of text analysis. The literature includes elaborate studies of peoples comprehension of stories, e.g. Stein (1983) and Wimmer (1980 and 1982), and studies of recall, e.g. Glenn (1978) and Stein and Nezworski (1978), and we have nothing new or revolutionary to contribute to the debate. The analysis, such as it is, merely provides a basis for the comparison of the stories with the original model story and with each other. Some subjects followed the original more closely than others, that is all. We can explain, in general terms, why this should be: the list includes lack of expository skills, problems with temporal order or causal relationships and inability to comprehend parts of the original, etc. But within Story Grammar theory, this says more about the structure of the model story than about the actual performances of the subjects themselves! Story grammars are not very useful for a performance study; they are simply not relevant. The tree-diagrams produced by the two sets of re-write rules are representations of story content, rather than its performance and expression; they are idealizations, describing underlying structure, rather than the surface structure, which is really what is interesting about childrens narratives. In Structuralist terms, they have nothing to say about discourse and its manifestations. We can ask the question: How well do the surface manifestations (discourse) convey the content (story)? We may well do so to some extent as we proceed, but the Story Grammar road is not an appropriate one to go down in order to do it. A common criticism of both Narrative Theory in general, and Story Grammars in particular, can be summed up in the term decontextualization: the text or narrative is viewed as an entity in and of itself, totally divorced from both its social and cultural contexts and the circumstances in which it was written down or uttered. Narratives do not come prepacked, nor do they occur in a vacuum; they are created in a given context and the context of their creation is part of their meaning. Dundes, in his preface to Propps Morphology of the Folktale, has the following to say: Literary folklorists generally have considered the text in isolation from its social and cultural context.Clearly, structural analysis is not an end in itself! Rather, it is a beginning, not an end. It is a powerful technique of descriptive ethnography in as much as it lays bare the essential form of the folklorist text. But the form must ultimately be related to the culture or cultures in which it is found. (Propp 1968:xiixiii)

- 27 -

Chapter 2
AQEELS STORY B(2)

SETTING STATE *

(A)

EVENT STRUCTURE EPISODE 1

STATE 1

(A)

STATE 2

BEGINNING

(C)

DEVELOPMENT

(C)

ENDING

EVENT *

SIMPLE REACTION INTERNAL EVENT 5-6

(C)

ACTION EVENT 7

EVENT 3

(A)

STATE 4

EPISODE 2

BEGINNING EVENT *

(C)

DEVELOPMENT

(C)

ENDING

COMPLEX REACTION EVENT 8 SIMPLE REACTION INTERNAL EVENT 9 - 10 (C) [GOAL]

GOAL PATH

ATTEMPT EVENT * EVENT ? 11

(C)

OUTCOME EVENT * EVENT 12 - 13

EPISODE 3

BEGINNING

(C)

DEVELOPMENT

(C)

ENDING EVENT *

EVENT *

[COMPLEX REACTION]

(C)

GOAL PATH EVENT

EVENT 14

(T)

EVENT 15

(T)

EVENT 16

(A)

STATE 16

ATTEMPT EVENT *

(C)

OUTCOME EVENT * EVENT 20 - 22

23

EVENT 17

(A)

EVENT 18

(T)

EVENT 19

Figure 2.7. Aqeel and Kenneth; Aqeels Story (B2).

- 28 -

Chapter 2 Polanyi-Bowditch (1976) voices a similar criticism: Traditional narrative analysts have concerned themselves with narrative as a formal system to be studied without regard to the real world or extra-systematic constraints. They conclude that narrative structure should be described in terms of sequences of changes of state brought about through the actions of a character.To me this seems to be a description of what a narrative may be about and not a description of how it is structured as a form of language encoded discourse. (1976:59) Labovs approach to storytelling is totally different. It is firmly rooted in the real world hence its immediate appeal. The narratives he considers are narratives in black vernacular style which describe and evaluate personal experiences, as speakers are asked to recount (and re-live) situations where they feared for their lives. We will be looking primarily at his essay The Transformation of Experience in Narrative Syntax which appeared as chapter 9 of Labovs Language in the Inner City (1972a), but also at Narrative Analysis: Oral Versions of Personal Experience which was written jointly with Joshua Waletzky (1967). Labovs fully-formed narratives have a very clear structure, which he analyses in the following terms: 1. Abstract 2. Orientation 3. Complicating action 4. Evaluation 5. Result or resolution 6. Coda The Orientation section contains setting-type information as does the Evaluation and the Coda. The Complicating action and the Result or Resolution carry the main events of the narrative, while the Abstract is a summary of the whole narrative, preparing the hearer for what is coming. 2.4 Evaluation and the Work of Labov 2.4.1 The Structure of the Narrative Clause The basic difference between Labovs model (often called high-point analysis) and the story grammars is that Labovs approach is syntactic and Rumelharts is semantic. Labovs units are surface level sentences and clauses, whereas Rumelharts are underlying propositions: a proposition is a semantic term which can be defined as the smallest unit of

- 29 -

Chapter 2 communication, but it is the what of communication, not the how. Labov is primarily interested in the how: We define narrative as one method of recapitulating past experience by matching a verbal sequence of clauses to the sequence of events which (it is inferred) actually occurred.The skeleton of narrative then consists of a series of temporally ordered clauses which we may call narrative clauses.Here is a minimal narrative which contains only two: a. I know a boy named Harry. b. Another boy threw a bottle at him right in the head c. and he had to get seven stitches. The narrative contains three clauses, but only two are narrative clauses. The first has no temporal juncture, and might be placed after b. or c. without disturbing temporal order.Clause a. may be called a free clause since it is not confined by any temporal juncture. (Labov 1972a:359361) Narrative clauses, then, according to Labov, are not free clauses because they involve temporal juncture. What about subordinate clauses? Once a clause is subordinated to another, it is not possible to disturb the original semantic interpretation by reversing it, e.g. a. If you didnt bring her candy to school she would punch you in the mouth. has the same meaning as: b. She would punch you in the mouth if you didnt bring her candy to school. although you might argue that the focus of the two sentences is different. For this reason, he claims, subordinate clauses do not serve as narrative clauses; it is only certain kinds of independent clauses which can function as narrative clauses. Labov describes the narrative clause as a series of eight elements without hierarchical phrase structure; these are: 1. Conjunctions, including temporals: so, and, but, then. 2. Simple subjects: pronouns, proper names, this girl, my father. 3. The underlying auxiliary is a simple past tense marker which is incorporated in the verb; no member of the auxiliary appears in the surface structure except some past progressive was...ing in the orientation section, and occasional quasimodals start, begin, keep, used to, want.

- 30 -

Chapter 2 4. Preterit verbs, with adverbial particles up, over, down. (These particles will occasionally be placed under 6. or 7. by transformations not shown.) 5. Complements of varying complexity: direct and indirect objects. 6. Manner or instrumental adverbials. 7. Locative adverbials. Narrative syntax is particularly rich in this area. 8. Temporal adverbials and comitative clauses. (1972a:376) At this point we wish to pause and mention a valid reservation, voiced here by Toolan, on the Labovian notion of the narrative clause which we have just described. His example is the following which, according to Labov and Waletzky (1967), constitutes a narrative: Well, this person had a little too much to drink and he attacked me and the friend came in and she stopped it. The following version has a presentational reordering through subordination, and would therefore not be regarded as a narrative even though it is an acceptable recapitulation of experience: A friend of mine came in just in time to stop this person who had had a little too much to drink from attacking me. Toolan intends this to be no more than a warning to check Labov and Waletzkys assumptions; the point is taken and we will be coming back to it later. It is the shiftability of subordinate clauses, around the main clause on which they depend, that excludes them from consideration as fully narrative clauses. Toolan continues: The fixity of sequence of properly narrative clauses is quite crucial for Labov and Waletzky. But note that this is not an assertion of the impossibility of reordering narrative clauses as such, but simply the impossibility of doing so while telling the same story. The attraction of their [i.e. Labov and Waletzkys] principles lies in their clarity, replicability, and their search for a basic pattern from which more complex narratives might be derived. (1988:148) Labov stresses the fundamental simplicity of narrative syntax, and especially striking is its simple auxiliary structure. The model works well for our data, although not all the slots are filled: manner or instrumental adverbials are rare, as are temporal adverbials occurring in - 31 -

Chapter 2 clause final position. However, the beauty of the system is that it reflects surface structures without the need to reorder the elements: e.g. Sheiba's Story B(1)
1 1 One day 2 Father Christmas He and He 3 4 woke up looked saw said balls. Where have these come from? in the box 5 6 7 8 early in the morning.

2 3 4/5

Having described the features of narrative syntax, Labov proceeds as follows: Given the existence of this simple organization of narrative clauses, we can ask: where, when, and with what effects do narratives depart from it? Since syntactic complexity is relatively rare in narrative, it must have a marked effect when it does occur. And, in fact, we find that departures from the basic narrative syntax have a marked evaluative force. The perspective of the narrator is frequently expressed by relatively minor syntactic elements in the narrative clause. (1972a:378) Labov equates complexity in narrative with evaluation or evaluative force. So we can state that: evaluation is expressed by greater syntactic complexity and inversely that greater syntactic complexity signals the presence of evaluation. But, clearly, this does not necessarily follow and the claim, therefore, needs to be investigated. At this juncture, we will not embark upon a detailed discussion of the devices themselves; we will leave that until a later chapter. However, we do want to discuss the whole notion of evaluation in its wider context, to justify our interest in it and to show its relevance to the narratives that have been collected. 2.4.2 Evaluation in Narrative So, what is evaluation? In the first chapter, we defined it informally as the ability of a narrator to convey his/her own feelings about the story (s)he is telling, to clue a hearer in

- 32 -

Chapter 2 as to the whole point of the narrative, and to involve him/her in the actual telling. This presupposes that, in the narrators opinion, the story is worth telling in the first place! Polanyi (1981a) has the following to say on the subject of tellability. In order to decide whether a given story is tellable, a would-be-teller must have a model of what is tellable at all and he must have a model of his potential listeners which gives him some idea of what is potentially narratable for them.Speakers will intend their contributions to be something worth listening to and therefore they build their stories around pointsone or more of the set of things interesting enough to be explored at some length. (1981a:165) Once having decided that the story is tellable, the would-be-narrator then has to present it in such a way that the hearer will think so too. To quote Polanyi again: Narrators are under a positive obligation to construct their stories around salient material and also to signal to their hearers what they believe their story to be about, what, if you will, is interesting about it. Since stories are complex discourses with lots of words, many details and incidents of various sorts and degrees of importance, tellers want to emphasize the important at the expense of the less important and therefore they evaluate various aspects of their texts differentially using a variety of conventional evaluation devices to point out particularly important material in the story which they are telling. (1981a:165) As the term evaluation is also used by Chomsky and other linguists (e.g. Chomsky 1965:37 47; Huddleston 1976:1722) to mean something different, we need to point out that when we use the term in this thesis, it is always in the Labovian sense of the word, even though other linguists may be quoted. Labovs own definition of evaluation is placed in the context of narrative theory and it is worth quoting in full. Beginnings, middles, and ends of narratives have been analyzed in many accounts of folklore or narrative. But there is one important aspect of narrative which has not been discussedperhaps the most important element in addition to the basic narrative clause. That is what we term the evaluation of the narrative: the means used by the narrator to indicate the point of the narrative, its raison dtre: why it was told, and what the narrator is getting at. There are many ways to tell the same story, to make very different points, or to make no point at all. Pointless stories are met (in English) with the

- 33 -

Chapter 2 withering rejoinder, So what? Every good narrator is continually warding off this question; when his narrative is over, it should be unthinkable for a bystander to say, So what? Instead, the appropriate remark would be, He did? or similar means of registering the reportable character of the events of the narrative. (1972a:366) Evaluation is difficult to pin down because it is so wide-ranging; yet its significance is beyond dispute. Labov and Polanyi take a broad view of the whole concept, while Grimes (1975) has a much more restricted view; without at this point explaining Labovs categorization of evaluation (see pp. 4042), we can illustrate the differences as in figure 2.8 below. Grimes definition of evaluation appears to be a purely affective one: Evaluations bring the hearer more closely into the narration; they communicate information about feelings to him that goes beyond the bare cognitive structure of what happened or what deduction is to be made. (1975:63) Labov 4 evaluative categories Intensifiers Correlatives Comparators Explicatives Evaluative Information Collateral Information Explanatory Information Performative Information Grimes 4 non-event categories (only one of which is evaluative)

Structural / Functional categories marked in Syntax and Phonology Figure 2.8

Structural / Functional categories, all of which may be at some time evaluative in Labovs terms

Performative information involves the devices used by a narrator or author to relate himself to the audience. Labov would probably include some of these under the evaluation umbrella too. Thus, when we talk about evaluative devices, we are referring to specific syntactic and phonological features which are used deliberately by the narrator to hold his

- 34 -

Chapter 2 hearers attention, to indicate the point of the narrative, and to involve the hearer in the telling of it. We might disagree on the details but not about the usefulness of the concept. Nevertheless, how can we be quite sure that such entities actually exist and that we are not reading them into the narrative text? Can they really be separated out from other non-event information such as the setting, background information, reference or identification? Quasthoff (1980) criticizes Labov for not making clear exactly how evaluative elements in the narrative should be identified and categorized; so there is a problem. In many cases there is an obvious overlap of function where, for example, the same device signals both an evaluation and an identification; in the sentence: Just look at that twit Billy! the word twit identifies Billy and also labels him as a fool in the speakers eyes. Grimes refers to a similar example and has the following to say about it: The addition of internal feelings to other kinds of information (which is not the same as a simple reporting of what ones internal feelings are) involves specific modes of linguistic expression.The reactions that are expressed come from several sources. The most obvious is the speakers own evaluation: Here comes that blackguard Jones not only identifies Jones and sets the action in the speakers immediate environment, but also lets the hearer know what the speaker thinks of Jones.Winograd shows how a word like nice tells us nothing about the object it is applied to, but only about the attitude of the person who uses the word expressively. (1975:61) There is clearly a problem with trying to get at a narrators attitudes and intentions; how do we know for certain when he is using a syntactic feature evaluatively and when the function is purely referential? In some cases we do not and cannot know; we are cast back on our own intuitions as observers. But it is worth the risk of being wrong sometimes, if in the end, we gain a greater understanding of how evaluation operates in narrative. Grimes mentions two other kinds of evaluation which may be indirectly related to the work that we have been doing. The first has a bearing on reported conversations (or thoughts) in discourse:

- 35 -

Chapter 2 Often evaluations are imputed to the hearer or to other people referred to in the discourse. Any participant in a discourse can be assumed to have his own opinions of things, and the speaker may feel that he knows what those opinions are sufficiently well to include them. (1975:61) There is, however, a viewpoint constraint, which has to do with the speakers obligation to connect any evaluation that he gives with the possibility that he can give it legitimately. The second kind of evaluation is that of the culture within which the speaker is speaking and the conventions of the society (s)he represents. (The ancient Greek chorus served this purpose by indicating the values of society and including them in the play.) It is perhaps highly unlikely that we would discover some of these cultural norms overtly expressed in the narratives of young subjects, but it would certainly be noteworthy if we did! The nearest thing to it is the expectation in the minds of British children that Father Christmas will bring them toys at Christmas time if they are good, expressed here by Sheiba in her Story A: 19 20 21 22 23 And who is Father Christmas? he said. Hes the one who gives little children some toys and they be very good.

2.4.3 Types of Evaluation Evaluative devices are not easy to identify and categorize, for, according to Polanyi (1981a:165) there are evaluation devices at every level of language structure and use. Labov identifies four distinct types, or levels of evaluation: 1. External evaluation 2. Embedded evaluation 3. Evaluative action and 4. Evaluation by suspension of the action. With external evaluation, the narrator turns to the listener directly and tells him/her what the point is, thus interrupting the flow of the narrative in order to do so. One of Labovs examples is part of a secretarys account of a hair-raising plane trip in which the plane almost didnt get over the mountains. Her narrative is punctuated with comments such as:

- 36 -

Chapter 2 gg and it was the strangest feeling because you couldnt tell if they were really gonna make it hh if they didnt make it, it was such a small little plane, there was no chance for anybody. We have no examples of external evaluation in our data; no child says, This is a funny story or I like Billy-the-Twit because he is so stupid. But Sakander does say: 1 2 3 4 5 Billy-the-Twit was a cowboy. He was a stupid cowboy. Because he has a name called Billy-the-Twit they call him The Twit. (Story C)

The evaluation is definitely there but it is part of the setting or Orientation, an integral part of the narrative. A possible explanation is given for this in the evaluation section. (See p. 39.) Embedded evaluation involves the narrator describing his sentiments as if they occurred at the time of the happening, rather than at the time of the telling, or attributing them to a third party who acts as observer. Labovs examples include one of a narrator quoting himself as addressing someone else: q I say, Calvin, Im bust your head for that!

Although she is not telling a story about herself, Shvinders Story B: 11 12 13 14 And Father Christmas said, I cant keep them till next Christmas. I must sell them to a worsest team that never won before.

is also of this order. She could have said, Father Christmas wanted to sell them to the worst football team he could find; but to put the words into his mouth brings the situation vividly to life and the listener right into the protagonists dilemma. Wierzbicka (1974) has the following to say about direct speech:

- 37 -

Chapter 2 The person who reports anothers words by quoting them, temporarily assumes the role of that person, plays his part, that is to say, imagines himself as the other person and for a moment behaves in accordance with this counter-factual assumption. (1974: 272) Labovs subjects, in their narratives of personal experience, imagined themselves back in the experience they were describing and so played themselves. Evaluative action is where the narrator describes what people did rather than what they said; in other words, the evaluation is dramatized. This includes actions that reveal the tensions of the actors as well as any less serious but reportable emotions. Labov gives an example of this from the story of the plane trip mentioned above (though only a few clauses are reproduced here): nnn ooo ppp qqq and when we saw that he was really over and then everybody heaved a sigh of relief and everybody came to and put away their prayer beads

We have no problem visualizing the scene; the last clause is particularly telling. In her version of Story A, Shvinder uses both embedded evaluation and evaluative action to indicate her protagonists amazement: 28 29 30 31 32 But when he saw it again he dropped his bowl and his spoon and he said, I didnt know rice could speak!

Evaluation by suspension of the action is where the narrator deliberately breaks off his story to call attention to that part of the narrative and indicate to the listener that this has some connection with the evaluative point. This fourth kind of evaluation demands considerable verbal skill which is perhaps beyond that of young narrators. Shvinder gets near to it in her version of Story A, in an evaluation section which includes the example quoted above. Without reproducing the whole story, the plot can be outlined as follows: Mr. Wong from the Chinese Take-away runs out of rice. He discusses the situation with his wife. They cannot find a solution.

- 38 -

Chapter 2 He sees a snowman at his front door but thinks he is a sack of rice. He goes to get a bowl and a spoon. EVALUATION SECTION 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Suddenly the rice started to talk and Mr. Wong thought that the rice didnt talk and he was talking. But when he saw it again he dropped his bowl and his spoon and he said, I didnt know rice could speak!

There follows a long conversation where the two participants introduce themselves. The snowman tells Mr. Wong about Father Christmas then he departs. Mr. Wong writes a letter to Father Christmas. Father Christmas drops a bag of rice down his chimney. Mr. Wongs customers are satisfied. The action is suspended to explain the main point of the story, i.e. that Mr. Wong thinks the snowman is a sack of rice. The long conversation that follows the section we have highlighted also continues to suspend the action to some extent, as the snowman then tells him exactly who he is. Labov describes these types, or levels, of evaluation as the large-scale, external mechanisms of evaluation. Tannen (1982b) draws the distinction between external evaluation and the rest, which she groups together as internal evaluation. Internal evaluation is within the story frame; external evaluation is outside the story frame. She links external evaluation with written discourse and internal with spoken. Oral storytellers use strategies which build on interpersonal involvement to create the sense of identification, or involvement, with characters and tellers of stories and internal evaluation contributes to this sense of identification, while external evaluation makes explicit what the point isa feature of literate-based strategies. As indicated above, we have found no examples

- 39 -

Chapter 2 of external evaluation in the data. This is what we would expect, as the narration took place in the context of a forty-five minute session, which included two other activities and plenty of free conversation. Thus, in such a setting, the focus was on interaction and interpersonal involvement which influenced the narrators more profoundly than the semi-literary style of the original versions of the stories they were telling. 2.4.4 Evaluative Devices and the Labov Model What of the devices themselves? In section 2.4.2 (p. 32) we briefly mentioned Labovs four evaluative categories without describing them; they are intensifiers, comparators, correlatives and explicatives. As we said then, Grimes takes a narrower view of evaluation; he refers to comparators as collateral information and separates it from evaluative information; similarly, he puts explanatory information under a separate heading. We are taking a broad view of evaluation in this study and making use of Labovs categorization, even though extra subtypes will be included under each major heading; there are additional features in the data which are also considered to be evaluative. Intensifiers, such as expressive phonology and intensive words like very and a lot, select certain events and strengthen, or intensify, the actions in some way. Comparators, such as negative expressions like He didnt go to London, he went to Paris, compare the events which did occur to those which did not occur. Correlatives, such as multiple attributives like, this strange, green, shiny box, bring together two events [or event + description] which actually occurred so that they are conjoined in a single independent clause. Our example, from Shvinders Story B, is the conjoining of: He saw a box. It was strange, green and shiny. Explicatives, such as because-clauses, occur as separate clauses appended to the main narrative clause or to an explicit evaluative clause. However, some explication may be used solely to describe actions and events that are not entirely familiar to the listener, whereas, others may indeed serve an evaluative function, e.g. to explain why a person was frightened or how big someone was. Table 2.2 lists the subtypes included under the four major headings: not all of these are applicable to the narratives of young second-language learners. In fact, in his 1981 essay, Labov suggests that few of them are:

- 40 -

Chapter 2 Narratives of vicarious experience and narratives of young children are often limited to complicating action. Such narratives are often heard as not having a point. As narrators mature, they use an increasing number of evaluative clauses that do not refer to an event that occurred, but rather to one that did not occur. (1981:226) Table 2.2 Intensifiers Gestures Phonology Quantifiers Lexical items Foregrounding Repetitions Ritual WH-exclamations Correlatives Be...-ing Double...-ing Double appositive Double attributive Participle: right Participle: left Nominalizations Comparators Imperatives Questions Negatives Futures Modals Quasimodals Or-clauses Comparatives Explicatives Simple: qual Simple: caus Complex: qual Complex: caus Compound: qual Compound: caus

Our findings are a little more optimistic: ritual utterances are a particular feature of black vernacular style, so are obviously non-applicable; nominalizations and complex and compound explicatives do involve a level of syntactic complexity which is beyond the language of infant school children; but many of the other devices listed are found in the data. Tannen (1982b) refers to all these as features of internal evaluation:

- 41 -

Chapter 2 It [i.e. internal evaluation] resides in all levels of verbalization such as expressive phonology, speeding up or slowing down, repetition, lexical choice and so on. Direct quotation is a common form of internal evaluation. By putting words in the mouth of the characters, the teller communicates what happened from inside the story. Nonetheless, by deciding what words to put in the characters mouth, the teller is building the story towards the desired point. (1982b:8) Labov does not include direct speech/quotation in his table of devices, nor does he mention single appositives which are also clearly evaluative. Before concluding this section, it is important to state that the presence of these particular devices does NOT mean that they are invariably used in an evaluative way. In the transcriptions of the data (explained in chapter 4) they have been recorded as if this were the case, i.e. the transcriptions have been tackled almost as a mechanical exercise. In chapters 6 and 7, we show that sometimes they are used evaluatively, but often they are not, and we hope to be able to justify our conclusions by a detailed discussion of the data and the other factors which are involved in making such decisions about evaluation. 2.4.5 A Justification for the Approach It goes without saying that the Labovian notion of evaluation has not been without its critics; as Bamberg (1987) reports, it does not seem clear as to how exactly evaluative elements in the narrative could be identified and categorized (p. 6). The same point is made in Quasthoff (1980), and it is a valid one. Yet, at the same time, we cannot deny the usefulness of the notion itself just because its manifestations are difficult to pin down and/or quantify. Bamberg also quotes criticisms of the Labov model on a second count: the specialized nature of the data it was produced to handle. Another weak point seemed to have been that high-point analysis is the product of inductive generalizations of personal accounts of very special situations, namely lifethreatening adventures. It has been argued that these kinds of situations do not require any further analyses of the interactive situation and/or the audience, factors that usually contribute to the narratives structure. Thus, high-point analysis seems to leave out the interactive quality of narrative structure. (Bamberg 1987:6) Labov does a bit more than simply draw general inferences from particular instances of a limited type of language behaviour. His model is worthy of wider application. In fact, the

- 42 -

Chapter 2 basic distinction he makes between the referential and evaluative functions of narratives has proved to be a very helpful one in analysing both written and oral texts (cf. Quasthoff 1980; Quasthoff and Nikolaus 1981; Silva-Corvaln 1983; Schiffrin 1981; Wolfson 1982). High-point analysis has also had important impact on the analysis of childrens narratives. So, in a sense we are attempting nothing new, except that we are applying it to the texts of young non-native speakers of English. This would be an appropriate place to discuss in more detail some of the studies which have made use of high-point analysis and to report briefly on their findings: Kernan 1977; Umiker-Sebeok 1979; Peterson and McCabe 1983; Kemper 1984. Kernan analysed eighteen conversational stories from girls between the ages of 7 and 14 according to story components derived by high-point analysis. His findings can be summarised as follows: he noted a general increase with age in childrens ability to demarcate narrative boundaries; the older children seemed to be more interested in elaborating the background information necessary to a proper interpretation and understanding of the narrative than did the younger children (1977:99). Again, only the older children clearly emphasized the complications of their narratives so that these would become more prominent as high-points. Younger subjects more often introduced the characters by name or narrator-perspective tags, such as my neighbour, while older subjects rarely used the name by itself. Umiker-Sebeok (1979) studied spontaneous narratives from children aged 3, 4, and 5 in the context of ongoing conversations within a preschool setting. A narrative was defined as, any verbal description of one or more past events (p. 92), although it had to be clearly signalled that something happened. The 3-year-olds produced narratives of one or two clauses, containing a complication section with a possible introduction. Evaluations were very rare, but if they were used they were either comparisons or intensityquantity characterizations. Most narratives were about events that had just happened and were limited to the immediate environment. The 4-year-olds produced two or three clauses and these narratives often contained an orientation as well as the introduction and complication section. Interestingly, Umiker-Sebeok found less evaluation in the narratives of the 4-year-olds than in those of the 3-year-olds. The narratives of the

- 43 -

Chapter 2 5-year-olds were far more structured: they employed abstracts, result components, and various types of evaluation, as well as those components they had used previously. Also, they no longer confined themselves to events which took place within the school setting. Umiker-Sebeoks study addresses the question of speaker-addressee relationships and how these affect the kinds of narrative structures children produce. She reports that the listeners to the narratives of the three-year-olds most commonly showed a lack of interest both from the point of view of relevance of the story to himself and to the conversational discourse (p. 106). In contrast, the listeners to the 5-year-old narrators often requested more information regarding the events or characters mentioned in the narrative and quite frequently responded to them by producing another narrative of their own. Thus, the speaker-listener interaction becomes a major factor in shaping the structure of the childs narrative, because it requires elaborations of some of the details or the addition of information from the personal experience of the speaker or listener (cf. also the study conducted by Quasthoff 1983). Kempers (1984) analyses of stories told by children between two and ten years of age and Peterson and McCabes (1983) study of the stories of ninety-six subjects between the ages of 3-and-a-half and 9-and-a-half, can be taken together as two parallel studies; they use a variety of methods but come to very similar conclusions about the developmental routes children take in their acquisition of narrative skills: The stories of 2-, 3-, and 4-year-olds do not have identifiable high points; only 33 percent were judged to have such a point. In contrast, for older children, 93 percent of the stories have a central focus, or high point. (Kemper 1984:112) With age, children develop the classic (adult) pattern of narration at least among their longest narratives, so that by 6 years it is the most prevalent form. Prior to this, the youngest children jump from one event to another in telling about what must have been an integrated experience. At age 5, they end their narratives at the high point. But after that, children build to a high point and resolve it in classic form. (Peterson and McCabe 1983:61f) None of these studies deal with evaluation directly or exhaustively, but they do mention it and produce evidence that children as young as 3 may use comparisons (comparators) and intensity-quantity (intensifiers). So if, for the sake of argument, only one in eight of our subjects uses evaluation it is still worth talking about; we then need to explain why the

- 44 -

Chapter 2 other seven do not use it. Labov indicates that evaluation comes late in the acquisition programme: The late development in the use of evaluative syntax appears to be general to all subculturesIt is surprising that this use of complex syntax in narrative should fall so far behind competence in ordinary conversation. (1972a:395) It is clear that every child [presumably over the age of ten] is in possession of the basic narrative syntax: it is also true that children know how to use gestures, quantifiers, repetition, negatives, futures, modals and because clauses. The question is whether they know how and when to use these devices for specific purposes in the course of telling a story. (1972a:393) Thus, he seems to be saying that while the devices appear in syntax early, their evaluative use in narrative only comes later. But how does this apply to second-language acquisition? Schumann (1978), Anderson (1981), and Baynham (1988) note the restricted nature of some L2 syntax.. Anderson refers to it as pidginized and states that: In normal second language acquisition, pidginization is probably, as Schumann describes it, characteristic of all early second language acquisition. But a second language learner who has ample access to native-speaker inputwill pass rapidly through those early stages, and his linguistic development will proceed as depidginization towards the native target. (1981a:193) At what stage in the process does evaluative syntax appear? Is its use an indication of depidginization? These, and other related issues, will be discussed in detail in chapter 8. The effects of the speaker-addressee relationship on the kinds of narrative structures that children produce is also a key factor. Information is being shared: how does the addressee respond? With lack of interest or spellbound attention? Labovs thesis is simple: if the narrative is evaluated, the hearer will listen attentively; if not, (s)he will manifest some degree of non-involvement and fidget with the nearest distracting object that comes to hand. This is too simplistic as we shall hope to demonstrate in the next section. 2.4.6 Evaluation and Plot Construction Labov bases his argument on a comparison between two storiesthe first a typical narrative of personal experience and the other an equally typical narrative of vicarious

- 45 -

Chapter 2 experience; both stories were produced by preadolescents from south-central Harlem. In the narrative of personal experience (which we do not wish to reproduce here) every line and almost every element of the syntax contributes to the point, and that point is selfaggrandizement (1972a:368). But the narrative of vicarious experiencea version of a favourite television programme: the Man from U.N.C.L.E. makes no such point: 17 a b c d e f g h i This kidNapoleon got shot and he had to go on a mission. And so this kid, he went with Solo. So they went and this guythey went through this window, and they caught him. And then he beat up them other people. And they went and then he said that this old lady was his mother j and then heand at the end he say that he was the guys friend. (p. 367) Labov does not stress the obvious fact that the two narrators were performing different tasks, with differing degrees of personal involvement; he puts the contrast down primarily to the difference between evaluated and unevaluated narrative. This [the above] is typical of many such narratives of vicarious experience that we collected. We begin in the middle of things without any orientation section; pronominal reference is many ways ambiguous and obscure throughout. But the meaningless and disoriented effect of 17 has deeper roots. None of the remarkable events that occur is evaluated. (1972a:367) However, that is only part of the picture. True, in Labovs terms, there are no evaluative departures from basic narrative syntax but his 17 is still an example of a poorly constructed plot. Even though the events are temporally ordered, there are too many incomplete utterances and obscure pronominal references for coherence. Labov calls this section of a narrative the complicating action. The complicating action is essential if we

- 46 -

Chapter 2 are to recognize a narrative from any other kind of discourse. So, if the complicating action is not clearly presented, i.e. there are faults in the construction of the plot sequencing, clause structure, pronominal reference, or whateverno matter how many evaluative devices are included, the story will nevertheless be disoriented and meaningless. Our contention, then, is that lack of evaluation and poor plot construction are two distinct but interrelated parameters, and we need to separate them. Lack of evaluation does not equal a poorly constructed narrative nor does the presence of evaluation necessarily guarantee a well-constructed one. Consider table 2.3: Box (a) produces a highly successful narrative, with a good plot which is evaluated; boxes (b) and (c) generate indifferent narratives, with (b) coming out as possibly more intelligible overall than (c); box (d) produces only meaningless and disoriented stories, such as Labovs 17. Table 2.3 (a) + evaluation + good plot (c) + evaluation (d) (b)

evaluation
+ good plot

evaluation good plot

good plot

Poor plot construction is anti-evaluative, not merely neutral as Labov would seem to suggest. It is also far more likely to occur in a vicarious, or second-hand story, than when a narrator is describing a personal experience which he is re-living in the telling. Labov leaves out a second, even more crucial, factor: the actual speech situation and the stimulus, or motivation, for telling the story in the first place. Was the story demanded of the narrator by a superior, or did he tell it to his peers because it was exciting or amusing? Therefore, although valid, is it really fair to make a direct comparison between the degrees of evaluation in the two genres? Table 2.3 gives a reasonable account of the data, even though the subjects are using a second language (English) rather than their mother tongue (Panjabi). The opening section of Shvinders Story B illustrates the kind of narrative we expect to find in box (a): 1 Once upon a time Father Christmas was looking in his cupboard,

- 47 -

Chapter 2 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 and he saw this strange, green, shiny box. He said, I didnt put this in the cupboard. I put something else. So he went and looked in the box and there was six, magic footballs. So he said, Oh! footballs. They were shiny, black and white footballs. And Father Christmas said, I cant keep them till next Christmas. I must sell them to a worsest team that never won before....

There is a clear orientation section (or setting for the story), and events follow one another in sequence, the telling coinciding with the inferred happenings; pronominal reference is clear throughout. After a break in the narrative for a full description of the balls, Father Christmas is then again named. Direct speech is handled effectively, using the correct firstperson-singular pronoun. The narrative is also evaluated. She uses intonational contrasts and change of pace in telling her story, especially in the descriptions of the strange, green, shiny box and the shiny, black and white footballs. These heighten the atmosphere and make us want to hear more. The choice of the words strange and shiny, the use of direct speech and positive-negative contrasts, such as: I cant keep them...I must sell them, are further evaluative devices for holding the listeners attention. She is saying, in effect, Here is a good story; listen to it. And we do. The following opening, from Aqeels Story A, illustrates a non-evaluated narrative with an orientation section and a recognizable event structure. 1 2 3 4 Once upon a time there was a manChinese man. He sold rice and rice um disappeared. And he saw someone else in the morning. - 48 -

Chapter 2 5 6 He saw rice. He opened it.

Apart from 1, the story is told without any expressive phonology or elaboration of detail. It is like a skeleton without any meat on the bones; but we can, at least, see the skeleton. Not so with Shazias version of Story B. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Father Christmas look at box. He didnt find it. He got one blue one one red one. He look as if he want to tidy all things. And he said he look at the wind and hes look at the window because he didnt go there.

It is incoherent and yet it contains features, such as negatives, the conjunction because and quantifier all which would be evaluative in a well-constructed narrative. It is almost as if she is producing prefabricated language chunks which she has learnt as wholes (e.g. because he didnt go there) but has not yet acquired the verbal skills to arrange these chunks into an intelligible narrative sequence. We have no examples in the data of an incoherent narrative completely devoid of evaluation. The opening of Shazias Story C is perhaps the nearest we get to it. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Once upon a time there was grass. There was all grass there - - - (= long pause) a land to go to with grass. And he go to school - - then hego to grassland then hego to school - - go to journey - - long time in the journey - - - ... - 49 -

Chapter 2 The first three clauses form a kind of setting and make some sense, but we are not told who the he refers to nor where he really went. Without having heard the original, it is totally unintelligible. However, in other narratives the quantifier all would be evaluative and so would the repetition of the main verb. But here, Shazia uses go for went and the repetition is meaningless. So, having briefly discussed the four examples from the data, what features would in general come under the heading of poor plot construction? We have taken poor plot construction to include inappropriate forms of expression [communication] and faulty plot construction [syntax]; both defects are violations of Grices Co-operative Principle (Grice 1975). We have noted the following, but this does not claim to be a definitive list: 1. lack of appropriate vocabulary for the telling; 2. hesitations, long pauses and incomplete utterances; 3. lack of orientation or setting; 4. disordered temporal sequencing; 5. ambiguous pronominal reference; 6. meaningless repetition; 7. over- or under-elaboration of details. Number 7 constitutes a violation of Grices Maxim of Quantity which can be summarized as: tell your hearers all they need to know and no more than they need to know; the rest are violations of his Maxim of Manner: be clear; try to avoid obscurity, ambiguity, wordiness, and disorderliness in your use of language. (Cf. also Relevance Theory and the fact that ostensive communicators try to be optimally relevant but that sometimes they fail, Sperber and Wilson 1986:159.) Number 7, over-elaboration of details, is not a fault usually found in the narratives of young subjects, rather it is to be found in the pedantic efforts of boring adults and older children who are obsessed with getting all the details right. Nadia, an Afro-Caribbean girl, used several times as interlocutor, does, in fact, fall into the trap of over-elaborating details and so loses the thread of the story she is endeavouring to tell. But her English is unusually fluent and she has a particularly good memory and imagination.

- 50 -

Chapter 2 Numbers 16 are found in the data; all the subjects had problems with English vocabulary and all the narratives recorded contain some hesitations and incomplete utterances. The question is, how far do these detract from the flow of the story and its effectiveness as a communicative act? In some cases the answer is, very little; in others, intelligibility is seriously impaired. Most narratives begin with an orientation section and only a few begin in the middle of things. Disordered temporal sequencing, ambiguous pronominal reference, and meaningless repetition occur mainly in the narratives of children whose ability was judged by their teachers to be either fair or poor, i.e. the less able. Evaluation and plot construction (narrative structure) are seen as two sides of the same coineffective communication within narrative. In order to adequately characterize the data under discussion, we need to appeal to both notions and so, for the rest of this chapter, we will discuss various aspects of sequencing and plot construction. In our concluding remarks we will put the two sides together again and briefly summarize the main points made in the chapter. 2.5 Aspects of Sequencing and Plot Construction In section 2.4.1 (p. 30) we quoted Labov as stating that the skeleton of narrativeconsists of a series of temporally ordered clauses which we may call narrative clauses and in the previous section (2.4.6) we referred to part of Aqeels Story A as a skeleton without any meat on the bones because, although it is unevaluated, it does describe a temporally ordered series of events. However, using the same metaphor, we would describe Shazias Story C (p. 49) as just a miscellaneous heap of unconnected bones because it is incoherent and there is no temporal backbone running through it. Between clauses 4 and 5 there does seem to be a temporal link but then 6 is a repetition of 4, and 7 is a reiteration of 5. Shazia has obvious performance difficulties on account of her low level of proficiency in English. But what has the literature to say in general terms about the ability of young children to handle temporal relations and other plot-related topics? Clark and Clark (1977) make the following general observations: When children talk about events, they stick closely to the here and now. They focus on what is happening, what has just happened, or what is just about to happen. When they start to talk about events in sequence, therefore, they stick very closely to their actual order of occurrencethey describe the first event first, the

- 51 -

Chapter 2 second event second, and so on. This parallel between order of occurrence and order of mention appears both in production and comprehension. (Clark and Clark 1977:506) When they interpret what others say to them, children also assume that the first event mentioned was the first to occur; so when the conjunctions before and after were introduced to three-year-olds, E. Clark (1971) found that they failed to understand them if the order of mention did not match the order of occurrence. They relied on their orderof-mention strategy and ignored the contrastive meaning in the conjunctions (cf. Ferreiro 1971; Amidon and Carey 1972; H. L. Johnson 1975). Clark found that some children got before right while continuing to make mistakes on after; only later did they finally figure out the correct meaning of after. In Labovs terms, clauses containing before or after are not narrative clauses because the semantic interpretation is not disturbed if you say: a. You must wash the dishes before you go out! or b. Before you go out, you must wash the dishes! Similarly, if you say: c. You must put the dishes away after you have washed them! or d. After you have washed the dishes, you must put them away! These are more difficult to process than independent narrative clauses, and according to Clarks findings, b and c would pose greater problems than a or d. There are no examples of before and after in our data. We have either marked/unmarked temporal sequence, indicated by and or then, or logical stimulus-response relationships, indicated by so, e.g., Shvinders Story A: 29 30 71 72 73 12 13 he dropped his bowl and his spoon and he said, ..... He posted it to Father Christmas. And then, in the night when the fire was out a rice came down the chimney. Theres none rice left. So what can we do?

- 52 -

Chapter 2 The work of Nelson and her colleagues demonstrates that childrens spontaneous sequencing of events shows a mature organization of sequential order if they are presented with familiar material (Nelson 1978; Nelson and Gruendel 1979, 1981; French and Nelson 1981). Other studies, such as Wimmer (1982) and Stein and Trabasso (1982), reinterpret earlier work and prove that apparent sequencing errors are attributable to performance difficulties or confusions introduced by interlocutors. These studies seem to point to the early development of narrative competence when the order of telling matches the order of occurrence. The researchers used a schema approach (as in Story Grammars: see pp. 2527) and, employing an experimental research design, were looking primarily at cognitive development, and tasks involving comprehension and recall skills. Wimmer suggests that meta-cognitive abilities are central to the effective handling of narrative structures (Wimmer 1982:127ff.). Such abilities may be particularly relevant to the beforeafter problem mentioned above and, at a later stage, to the presentation of flashbacks or flashforwards in order to surprise an audience or create an atmosphere of suspense (cf. Chatman 1978:59ff.). Such skills show up very late in developmentand not necessarily equally well in all narrators. Interestingly, Kemper (1984) compares the schema approach and high-point analysis directly, assessing their ability to capture the developmental changes which occur between the ages of two and ten. The conclusions are that the two models have many similarities: both approaches view the development of story structure as essentially complete by the age of ten, although 10-year-olds may be limited in terms of the number of embedded or interactive episodes that they can handle at one time (p. 113); neither model works well for the narratives of the under fives, but they both capture successfully the changes which occur between the ages of 5 and 10. Peterson and McCabe (1983) also conclude that, in the final analysis, both approaches are very similar in the way they deal with fictional stories and, for this reason, the developmental findings of the two do not vary much (p. 108). This is surprising, in view of our own comments recorded on pages 2627. However, we are not engaged in a developmental study as such, and the opinions expressed there were merely related to the finding of a suitable analytical method which would characterize performance data. Conceptually, we would expect some degree of harmony between the two: the schema approach is useful in the assessment of the childs developing cognitive abilities and high-point analysis is best suited to the study of communicative development. Researchers using it have particularly noted the young childs lack of ability to focus on the narrative task without getting sidetracked by interference from their interlocutors. Mandler (1983), in commenting on the results of comprehension/recall and production studies, - 53 -

Chapter 2 suggests that a story schema may be used in encoding and retrieving stories earlier than it can be used to create a new story. Bamberg (1987) talks about the notions of cohesion and coherence and how they relate to the two kinds of abilities under discussion. Cohesion is not confined to a purely linguistic level of connecting interclausal and intersentential relationships, nor is it defined at a purely conceptual level of integrating events into units. Rather it addresses the relationship between the linguistic portrayal in terms of the formal devices at the textual level and the intended story at the conceptual level of uniting events into units, and those units in turn into the whole. (Bamberg 1987:14) The notions of coherence and cohesion are not mutually exclusive, but rather mark two ends of a continuum that can be investigated from both sides. On the one hand, it is assumed that particular forms are used to signal how single propositions relate to each otherboth with regard to how the speaker wants the events represented to be understood as temporally or causally connected, as well as with regard to where the speaker places him/herself in relationship to the plot, its reportability, and the morals or ethics reflected in it. In this sense these particular linguistic forms are the cohesive means for the speaker to be able to construct a coherent product. (1987:15) Bamberg starts with the investigation of particular linguistic contrasts and then explores the narrative functions that they serve. His particular interests are establishing and shifting temporal reference and switching and maintaining [participant] reference. The research method he used was picture book narration and his twenty-five German-speaking subjects were aged between 3:6 and 10:1 years; they were using their mother tongue. His is clearly a developmental study and in introducing it he says: To sum up, we know that a variety of forms that serve the function of contextual cuing in adult narratives, are made use of by children in a similar way in interactive discourse, before such forms are used in monologue-like discourse of narration at the age of three to four. Further, we know that three to four-year old children already have some notions of globally coherent narrative schema [sic], but do not seem to be able to filter this schema down to the level of forming the appropriate sequential segments so that a locally cohesive interpretation comes into existence. This explanatory gap calls for a detailed study of the

- 54 -

Chapter 2 growth of linguistic devices that are used for discursive purposes, and the functions these devices serve as children of different ages begin to strategically employ them in their own productions of cohesive/coherent discourse. (1987:17) Many of his conclusions do not concern us directly. His study of the perfect/present tense contrast and the pronominal/nominal contrast is used as a basis for the investigation of the use of grammatical devices in a variety of contexts for a variety of functions. His aim is to discover the discourse processes that are involved in the making of the childs grammar, as well as in the changes in the reorganization of that grammar as the child matures (1987:202). Our aims are clearly somewhat different; the first is to characterize the data collected, not only in terms of evaluation, but also in terms of temporal sequencing and participant reference. In section 2.4.6 (p. 51) we mentioned disordered temporal sequencing and ambiguous pronominal reference as examples of faulty plot construction which are found in the narratives of the less able subjects. The second aim is to offer explanations for the obvious differences in the narrative skills of the eight subjects. Some of these differences have to do with developmental factors, and these will be discussed in detail as we proceed. Others have to do with factors inherent in the interactive situation, such as interference from the interlocutor and general breakdown in communication because the speaker does not have the necessary expository skills to proceed any further with the task of telling. 2.6 Summary We began this chapter by trying to say what narrative is and then went on to talk about two approaches to the analysis of narrative discourses: story grammars (or schemas) and Labovs high-point analysis with its focus on evaluation. As the latter is the particular model we have chosen to work with, most of the space has been given to a fairly detailed introduction to the operation of evaluation in narrative discourse and its relevance to the data collected. We have also discussed some aspects of plot construction which are not dealt with at all by Labov; these are equally important if we are to provide a credible account of the data. In the next chapter, we intend initially to move away from the subject of narrative and its production to look at the art of storytelling, and how it is acquired, in much more general terms.

- 55 -

Chapter 3

CHAPTER 3: HOW CHILDREN LEARN THE ART OF STORYTELLING 3.1 Storytelling and Tradition The relationship between storytelling and emergent literacy, or what Toolan (1988) calls the childs nurtured receptiveness to writing and reading, is an increasingly well-explored area of child language development. Much current research is based on Vygotskys (1962[1932]) notion of the zone of proximal development and the contention that cultural development, fostered by valued family members, is the dominant factor in a childs cognitive development and orientation to literacy. Heath (1983) found that what actually counts as a story may vary enormously from community to community; she contrasts the storytelling traditions of two neighbouring working-class communities, Roadville (White) and Trackton (Black), in the rural south-east of the United States. Roadville parents provide their children with books; they read to them and ask questions about the books contents. They choose books which emphasize nursery rhymes, alphabet learning, animals, and simplified Bible stories, and they require their children to repeat from these books, and to answer formulaic questions about their contents. Roadville adults similarly ask questions about oral stories which have a point relevant to some marked behavior of a child. They use proverbs and summary statements to remind their children of stories and to call on them for comparisons of the stories contents to their own situations. Roadville parents coach their children in their telling of stories, forcing them to tell a story of an incident as it has been precomposed in the head of the adult. Trackton children tell story-poems from the age of two, and they embellish these with gestures, inclusios, questions asked of the audience, and repetitions with variations. They only gradually learn to work their way into any on-going discourse with their stories, and when they do, they are not asked questions about their stories, nor are they asked to repeat them. They must, however, be highly creative and entertaining to win a way into an on-going conversation. They practice the skills which they must learn in order to do so through ritualized insults, playsongs, and of course, continued attempts at telling stories to their peers. (Heath 1983:187)

- 56 -

Chapter 3 These are, perhaps, somewhat extreme examples of possible storytelling traditions where the form, occasions, content, and functions of the two kinds of stories differ greatly. Put simply, Roadville children grow up with a book-based, adult-oriented, and factual view of what a story is; Trackton children are introduced in infancy to oral storytelling with its emphasis on entertainment, where reality is used only as the germ of a highly creative fictionalized account. In Roadville, stories are used to reaffirm group membership and behavioral norms, while, in Trackton, their purpose is to assert individual strengths and powers (p. 184). Heath concludes: For Roadville, Tracktons stories would be lies; for Trackton, Roadvilles stories would not even count as stories (1983:189). Most English-speaking British children are also introduced to stories and storytelling while they are still in the nursery. Written prose material is presented to them through the spoken performance of the adults and older siblings around them and the colourful pictures which illustrate the text; these are often read to the children too, and such children acquire a sense of description as well as a sense of narrative sequence. Thus, it would seem that the typical British storytelling tradition is a mixture of oral and written modes of expression. But do ALL children acquire the ability to tell stories or is this ability directly dependent on the amount of exposure each child has to storytelling and storybooks? This is but one of the questions we hope to address in this chapter. Much of the research we will be referring to was obviously conducted with subjects who spoke English as their mother tongue. Is the picture so very different for young second-language learners who do not come across English narrative tradition until they start school? There is evidence that it is not. Cook-Gumperz and Green (1984) note that much of the influence on childrens knowledge and experience of story forms is strongly mediated by written prose models of storytelling that are presented in books; but, since children in their early years cannot read, they learn to recognize and appreciate stories through their spoken performance as an oral/aural experience (p. 202). Cook-Gumperz and Green do not view oral and written modes of expression as two separate or even separable entities within the Western tradition of childrens literature, stories, or tales. They conclude that: Children who are exposed very early in life to an adult-centred, albeit child-focused literary culture are likely to be members of an oral and a literate culture simultaneously by experiencing the spoken performance of the written text. Therefore, we can see that the

- 57 -

Chapter 3 linkage between oral and written influences on childrens knowledge of story forms is a complex one. This relationship needs to be analyzed if we are to consider some implications of childrens developing knowledge of the adult world of written language for their progress in many school-based language tasks, such as reading and writing. (CookGumperz and Green 1984:202) Young second-language learners are not introduced to this oral and literate English culture until they reach school age, and so they obviously have a lot of catching up to do. But do they acquire this sense of story more quickly than their monolingual peers and absorb it as part of their total adaptation to the whole environment of school? It would seem that they do. Storytelling, both oral and written, is a foundational activity in the average Infant School. Children are encouraged to produce both factual and fictional stories in oral and written modes. Second-language learners learn fast in order to cope in this new world into which they have so suddenly been plunged. 3.2 Experimental Studies of Narrative Ability in Children Studies of narrative ability in adults have focused largely on the underlying structural forms upon which the particular narrative discourse under discussion has been constructed. Researchers have been interested in such questions as the relationship between the sequence of past events which occurred in real time and the way such events have been presented by the narrator and organized in the discourse (Genette 1980; Rimmon-Kenan 1983; Bal 1985). They have also concerned themselves with the way in which this underlying structure is realized linguistically by choices among syntactic options, i.e. the surface forms which are generated by these abstract underlying structures (Halliday 1971; Burton 1982; Kennedy 1982). Some linguists arrange these structural elements as a hierarchy, where there is a necessary entailment between elements of the story at each level (Rumelhart 1975 and 1977). Others order these same elements in a linear way so that one element grows out of another (Propp 1968). Both of these models of story structure grow out of a literate adult model of written stories. Then there is the sociolinguistic perspective, where research has centred on the particular performance style selected by the narrator, i.e. the verbal delivery of the story (Hymes 1972; Goffman 1974; Wolfson 1982). Here, the speech event of storytelling is seen as an event culturally varying from the everyday flow of conversation. Emphasis is on the context in which the story was narrated and the cultural presuppositions and values which are reflected in it (Polanyi 1979 and 1982a; Tannen 1984b; Schiffrin 1987).

- 58 -

Chapter 3 Work on childrens narratives has typically been focused on the evaluation of the extent to which children are able to recognize or to reproduce a story that corresponds in structure and realization to an adult-centred model of the narrative form. We have already mentioned the Story Grammar approach and the work of Rumelhart (1975 and 1977), Thorndyke (1977), and Mandler and Johnson (1977) in chapter 2. An attempt to analyse our own data using this model proved to be singularly unrewarding; such a conclusion is also supported by Cook-Gumperz and Green (1984) who state that such an adultcentered focus may not be the best basis from which to discover the origin and scope of childrens storytelling abilities (p. 202). They launch off with two general hypotheses: First, no one model is assumed to exist for all narratives on an a priori basis. Rather, the narrative performances of children must be explored for patterns indicative of the childs own model of narratives. Second, children are not assumed to move linearly from an oral model directly to the adult literate (written) model. Rather, the process is more complex with a variety of paths to reach the goal of a literate model. The process of acquisition of narrative ability is not similarly assured for all children. (1984:202203) Maclure, Mason, and Barratz (1979) concerned themselves with the ability of children to remember and reproduce a story sequence correctly, while Applebee (1978) focused on childrens recognition of story structures by requiring his subjects to evaluate good and poor story forms. In both types of studies, children were presented with well-formed stories and, also, those which violated this structure. A well-formed story is defined as one that has the structure and syntactic realization that contain a beginning, an initiating sequence, a series of consequential actions, and a conclusion. The researchers violated these ideal story structures in specific ways in order to explore the effect of this disruption on recall and comprehension. However, work of this nature does nothing to explain how children acquire a sense of story or the ability to produce stories. The reproduction exercise merely compares the childs performance with the adult model, whereas the evaluation exercise calls upon the childs own powers of judgment. It would seem from Applebees work that children need to find certain structural components, like proper introductions and conclusions, within a presented story before they are able to recognize it as the genuine article. They have cognitive models for what a story structure should include and these models approximate to the adult literate model; but in experimental work of this kind, children do not have to make any active storytelling contributions themselves. It is

- 59 -

Chapter 3 their comprehension which is being tested, not their ability to produce or contribute to narratives spontaneously (Cook-Gumperz and Green 1984:204). 3.3 The Story as a Speech Event Oral storytelling is a much more complex exercise than recalling, reproducing and recognizing story structures under experimental conditions. Success does not depend solely on the teller. The whole performance is a two-way interaction between speaker and hearer. Researchers, such as Kernan (1977), in studying childrens performances of storytelling, have noticed how important the audience reaction and participation have been for the storytellers continued success. Watson-Gegeo and Boggs (1977) found that in traditional Hawaiian storytelling, known as talk-story, children produced stories which did not have the structure described by story grammars. But these stories were both long and varied, yet they relied for their success on active audience participation. In fact, the contributions of the audience were actually built into the story structure, although a main storyteller continued as the primary speaker. Ervin-Tripp and Mitchell-Kernan (1977) in their Introduction describe them as follows: The stories have content that is selectively relevant to some members of the audience, and they serve the function of teasing, criticizing, or censuring that individual.Hawaiian talk-story includes dramatic or role-played imitated dialogue. How is this skill learned? Boggs mentions ridicule in disputing. In addition, role-playing with vocal mimicry occurs in early childhood play. Thus there are varied sources for the components of narrative skill. But these sources remain to be explored systematically. (pp. 1516) It would seem that there is such a thing as a folk narrative model which comes midway between spoken stories and formal narratives and combines features of both genres into a single interactive-type structure. Work of this nature recognizes the interactive relationship between teller and audience as an essential part of the storytelling process. Using performance ability, children create a story for a person or group of persons as audience with a minimum of verbal stimuli (Cook-Gumperz and Green 1984:204). Other classroom-based research has shown that interactive relationships between teacher and taught are also crucially important in the whole learning process (Mehan 1980; Golden 1983; Harker 1983). This includes activities such as reading stories to children (Green 1977; Green and Harker 1982; Cochran-Smith

- 60 -

Chapter 3 1984) and teaching children to read (Bloome 1981; Cazden 1981) within a classroom context. More specifically, researchers have studied childrens classroom performances: Michaels and Cook-Gumperz (1979) looked at the teachers role in helping children structure story events, while Green (1977) and Green and Harker (1982) concentrated on the way teacher-directed interactions affect story recall and retelling performance. CookGumperz, Gumperz and Simons (1981) also demonstrated the essential part played by interaction in the learning process and in retelling stories to an audience. This research would seem to indicate that childrens acquisition of a sense of story does not depend solely on their exposure to well-formed and well-told stories. They also acquire knowledge of narratives from participating in ongoing interactions that include instances of spoken stories and from participating in construction of narratives as part of ongoing events in the environment (Cook-Gumperz and Green 1984:205). Therefore, any model of acquisition and development of narrative ability must include the interactional, performance aspects of storytelling as well as aspects of story organization, such as the way the events described are sequenced. Michaels and Collins (1984) examined the contrast between literate and oral discourse styles, (which is an issue we will be discussing later in the chapter). They worked with six first- and second-grade American children, black and white speakers, showing them a sixminute film, designed to stimulate the production of oral narratives. The data were elicited in a one-to-one interview situation in which the narrative was for the record rather than conversationally embedded. However, even though the participant observer tried not to influence the child who was narrating, interaction did take place. They report as follows: She involuntarily provided listenership cues: nodding, back channel vocalizations, laughter, etc. (Erickson 1979). It is interesting to note that more of this listenership interaction occurred with some children than with others, and the timing of these cues was more rhythmic and regular with some than with others. The presence or absence or degree of rhythmicity of those cues may well have had an effect on the amount of talk or even on the complexity of the discourse elicited from the child. Further study on this topic is now in progress. (Michaels and Collins 1984:231) Schiffrin (1987) also focused on the interactional, performance aspects of storytelling when she considered four discourse tasks which figure prominently in conversational storytelling: initiating the story, reporting events within the story, conveying the point of - 61 -

Chapter 3 the story, accomplishing an action through the story. All these tasks require a speaker to attend to several different aspects of talk at one and the same time, and also to actively engage the hearers participation. Consider, now, that these discourse tasksopening a story, reporting events, making a point, performing an actionare accomplished not only through speakers manipulation of different aspects of talk, but through a finely tuned process of hearer participation: by withholding their own turn-incomings, displaying their appreciation and evaluation of the story at critical junctures, responding appropriately to the action, and in general making evident a receptive stance toward the story (Goffman 1974:504), it is hearers of the story who ultimately provide the turn, realize the point, and endorse the action. In short, speakers have only partial responsibility for the construction of narratives: speakers can propose the form, meaning and action of what they are saying, but to be established as part of the discourse, such proposals need hearer endorsement. (Schiffrin 1987:17) Schiffrins subjects were adults; they were also producing spontaneous stories in a conversational setting. So how is all this relevant to our work with childrens retold stories? It is relevant simply because it pinpoints the hearers role so clearly and warns against viewing a set of narratives as self-contained entities. For, in our data, there are examples of inadequate storytellers being prompted by their interlocutors, as well as by me in the role of researcher or participant observer. Therefore, although we shall primarily be looking at the narrative structure and evaluative content of the narratives collected, i.e. story organization, we shall also consider how this organization is influenced/modified by the intervention of interlocutors and observers. 3.4 Pictorial and Verbal Elements in Storybooks Cook-Gumperz and Green (1984) describe a single piece of research which sheds further light on the acquisition of a sense of story and what children themselves might actually regard as a story. We will quote the example in full; the subject is a 3-year-old American child: Alright//I think the truck book I have/new truck book// [loud, declamatory voice] Uh..........The dump truck has miles of...of...of rocks// [voice trailing off] - 62 -

Chapter 3 Wheels/even on fields are...are...like that/like that.....like soft.....like that// [voice rushing] And then/in front it ride upstairs of the...of the...double bus [sing-song voice] and downstairs/fountain/ride downstairs and upstairs of the double-decker bus//Its fun to...to...to look at trucks// The end// At first glance, we would say that this discourse is a descriptive piece, not a narrative. It lacks cohesion, there are no events as such and so it is not a real story. However, it does include the three essential elements of a proper story: a beginning, a piece of action, and an ending. True, the beginning is only marked prosodically by loudness and pitch, and there is no opening formula, such as Once upon a time...; the actions are certainly disjointed, and there appear to be no human characters. But the ending is clear enough: first a summary marked by special intonation and then a formulaic finis. But, as CookGumperz and Green point out: The biggest problem with this story is the disjointed nature of the action sequence, which is not a sequential or consequential unfolding. From the context, we learn that the child was asked by the researcher if he could tell a story. Instead of a yes/no response he queries the request: Like tell a book? So what he produces is a story based on a particular type of book with which he is familiar. Narratives, such as the illustrated books by Richard Scarry, are based not on a series of sequential or consequential events but on a theme which runs through the written text. The pictures can be used to tell independent stories that need not be part of the main text. Hence, there is plenty of scope for adult narrators to add to the text and interpret it in any way they wish. Our own son had several Richard Scarry books. I remember reading the text to him and then pointing out additional details which only showed up in the pictures. Often, these would develop into other small stories. So, perhaps the child who told the researcher about his truck book was making up his own story as if reading the pictorial elements in his mind. Alternatively, he could have been recalling a particular story which he had recently heard. In our experience, children are able to recall descriptive details just as easily as events in sequence. Either way, the frame of what a story consists of includes pictures as well as words. Do young children, then, see books of all kinds as synonomous with stories? If so, their model of storytelling is book based rather than oral. CookGumperz and Green (1984) make the following comment:

- 63 -

Chapter 3 This example [i.e. the story quoted above] indicates that the way in which pictorial and verbal elements combine in the story suggests that there is a special influence of the form of books on the presentation of stories by young children; that is, young children may combine both elements to produce meaning when they tell a book. (1984:207) Returning now to our own data, do these findings of Cook-Gumperz and Green shed any light on the disjointed actions described by Shazia in her Story F? Could she, also, be telling a book by reading the pictorial elements in her mind? This is a distinct possibility, especially as her Story F has no conventional story line at all. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Once upon a time there was Hes buying the drink and Rice Krisps. Then he eat some milik. He eat someer Rice Krips and drink and nice dinner. Then he eat his breakfast. Then he eat someer Rice Krips. Then he eat some milik. Then he eat some cooking.

On the surface this is meaningless gibberish but if, in fact, she is describing the pictorial elements which she can see in her minds eye then the whole thing makes sense. (It would seem rather a futile exercise to produce nonsense and we must credit the child with a more serious intent, especially as her delivery is purposeful, not flippant.) Clearly, there is repetition as she either sees some of the pictures more than once or returns to them more than once in her story. Verbal orientation: Once upon a time there was a person. This person is depicted performing the following actions: Picture 1: a person buying some milk and Rice Krispies Picture 2: a person drinking some of the milk Picture 3: a person eating some of the Rice Krispies Picture 4: a person drinking more milk Picture 5: a person eating a nice dinner

- 64 -

Chapter 3 Picture 6: a person eating breakfast (not Rice Krispies) Picture 7: a person eating more of the Rice Krispies Picture 8: a person drinking more of the milk Picture 9: a person eating some other cooked dish. With this analysis, in which we include both words and pictures as the frame which young children bring to the task of storytelling, we can explain both a sequentially ordered story and one that seems to lack coherence, such as the above. The original Story F which was read to Shazia and her interlocutor, Shadi, was about a Chinese Take-away owner on the lookout for some new culinary experiences because he was bored with cooking Chinese dishes. Shazia has latched onto the underlying themefoodand woven a picture story around it. Maybe, she could not cope with a conventional narrative, or maybe, she realized that Shadis English was even more limited than her own and that Shadi could not cope with a conventional narrative. Either way, what she produces is a very simple mental picture book of the Babys First Picture Book type. This analysis does not explain the repetition. That is a notable feature of all Shazias stories and can be put down to her lack of the necessary verbal skills to communicate her ideas clearly using novel sentences and hence to her need to rely on prefabricated patterns which have been learnt as wholes, e.g. Hes buying ___ and He eat ___ (immature form of He eats or Hes eating). When she gets stuck she simply repeats one of these formulas without varying the inserted item in the frame. 3.5 The Story as a Set of Stanzas Cook-Gumperz and Green (1984) explore an alternative approach to the concept of story which is also based on the type of storybooks available to children. They point out that most books for young children contain both words and pictures and that these elements are arranged in stanza-sized chunks. In childrens books, the stanza format is used extensively and is far from arbitrary; that is, one or more pages have a theme (e.g. zoo, alphabet, foods), a series of pictures spaced at various points on the page, stanzas that are both closely and loosely tied to the pictures, and sometimes a character...that engages in actions with others across the page. In addition, some pages with common themes face each other. The themes cover a limited number of pages and not the entire book; therefore, a book can be said to be composed of a series of subthemes, some related in a way that forms chapters and some only loosely - 65 -

Chapter 3 related. One other characteristic needs mentioning; on a page with a series of stanzas, one or more stanzas may begin with then. The Scarry books are not the only ones with this format. Classic nursery rhymes also use a stanza format. Therefore, there appears to be an interface between at least two genres of childrens literature forms and a stanza oriented analysis. (1984:213) The Stanza Model is applied by Cook-Gumperz and Green to a spontaneously told narrative and includes, as part of the analysis, the various major and minor themes which are contained in it. In our narratives, the themes are pre-set by the constraints of the original story told to the children and so the form of the original is, perhaps, the primary influence on our subjects concept of story. However, it is clear from the data that the more able subjects produce stories which follow the original more closely than those from subjects whose grasp of English is less secure. From this we can hypothesize that the subjects whose performance in L2 is more limited are not able to take so much from what they have just heard and so draw on less immediate sources of influence. Their past experience of books comes to their aid when they are asked to undertake a task for which they feel ill-equipped. They are able to pick out the two main characters and the major themes of the original and so string something together somehow, often using prefabricated patterns. Aqeels Story A can be analysed as a series of five stanzas. STANZA 1 (Beginning: introducing main character) 1 Once upon a time there was a manChinese man - - -

STANZA 2 (actions of main character) 2 3 4 5 6 He sold rice - - a-and riceumdisappeared - - And he saw someone else in the morning. He saw rice. He opened it - - -

STANZA 3 (actions of second character) 7 8 Then the Snowmanhe helped him. Heumtaked a letter to Father Christmas.

STANZA 4 (back to the actions of the main character)

- 66 -

Chapter 3 9 He wanted some Rice Krispies

10 (riceyes, he bunged from the chimney). 11 But he ate it all up on the food. STANZA 5 (conclusion) 12 After all, he did have food for Christmas! Analysed in this way, certain interesting features stand out: in its overall structure, this story has a beginning, a piece of action, and an ending. The piece of action, or body, is divided into three short sections with one thematic participant only in each section: Section 1 (Stanza 2) centres on the actions of the Chinese man; Section 2 (Stanza 3) on the Snowman; and in Section 3 (Stanza 4), Aqeel returns to the Chinese man, with one minor hiccup in 10 where the almost inaudible he bunged seems to refer to another character. However, if we had not heard the original version of this story, we would not have been able to arrive at this analysis. There are so many gaps in the narrative that we cannot work out how the Snowman figures in the story or the significance of the letter to Father Christmas, and then, who threw the rice from the chimney? Did Father Christmas drop the rice down the chimney by any chance? Aqeel has not told us all we need to know, a violation of Grices Maxim of Quantity, and has not been optimally relevant according to Sperber and Wilsons Relevance Theory (1986:50). Also, the pronominal references in clauses 911 are unclear. There is nothing in the actual text to indicate that there are any changes of participantno long pause, extra prominence on he, or use of a full NP, instead of the pronoun. (See also chapter 5, section 5.4.2.4.) When we listen to the tape recording, we discover that Aqeel was not only prompted at this point by the questioning of the observer/researcher, but also by the interlocutor. In fact his interlocutor, David, actually tried to take over and tell the story for him: both voices can be heard very clearly on the tape. Therefore, the stanzas were created by the joint efforts of speaker, hearer, and participant observer (see section 3.3), and it was the hearers who used the pronoun he again in 9, and Aqeel followed suit. Karmiloff-Smith (1980, 1981), working with 170 children between the ages of 4 and 9 on the production of picture narratives, noted that the first developmental phase in the acquisition of pronominal anaphora, appearing at about aged 6, is characterized by the use

- 67 -

Chapter 3 of pronouns in utterance-initial position for the thematic subject only. Other participants and props are referred to by definite nominal forms. Apart from the reference to the Snowman in 7, as well as the pronoun he, Aqeel seems to be using Karmiloff-Smiths thematic subject strategy. Again, we can explain this departure in terms of interference from interlocutors. Also, or alternatively, we could say that Aqeel was using the apposition of the Snowman and he as evaluation, emphasizing the point that it was the Snowman, and no one else, who helped him. However, looking at the situational context of the utterance, we see that there are several factors at work so this may not be the correct analysis; for, although this is not a conversational narrative as such, we are forced to consider the interactive elements of its production, if we are to give a valid account of the data. Clearly, these interactive factors will play a greater part in the narratives of the less able children than in those of the good storytellers. So, is it just a matter of using their knowledge of storybook format, or is it the combination of literate and oral strategies proposed by Cook-Gumperz and Green? If so, oral strategies must include the use of dialogue as well as monologue, and literate strategies must include knowledge of more than one type of storybook format. Do we then define good storytellers as tellers who are able to select from the various options available, both oral and literate, those which most nearly conform to the modes of expression preferred by their teachers, this preference being demonstrated by the types of stories read or told to them? The best of these stories reflect an adult-centred literary culture, towards which the children are systematically being guided throughout their years of formal education. 3.6 The Acquisition and Use of Prefabricated Patterns 3.6.1 Possible Sources of Prefabricated Patterns In the previous section, and elsewhere, we have referred to the fact that some storytellers rely on syntactic patterns which they have learnt as wholes as a means of stringing some of their clauses together; but how have they acquired these communicatively useful chunks of language? Ann Peters (1983) outlines a few sources of this type of language material: Such chunks include (lines of) nursery rhymes, songs, prayers, proverbs, and stereotyped favorite expressions, all of which tend to get presented as non-negotiable wholes, in the sense that reductions, expansions, and other variations are not considered appropriate or necessary. (Peters 1983:63)

- 68 -

Chapter 3 Krashen and Scarcella refer to memorized phrases such as How do you do? and Where is your hotel? (1978:283). Gleason and Weintraub (1978) discuss politeness routines like thank you and, also, even more situationally specific routines such as trick or treat. Now, not all these expressions are memorized correctly. As a teacher, I have been asked what trickle treat means, and as a child, I understood the oath, So help me, God, as Swop me bob, and wondered why anyone would want to exchange shillings. However, it is clear that children do pick up prefabricated patterns or formulas from a whole variety of sources, through familiarity with particular well-loved storybooks and also through games and routines. Ratner and Bruner (1978) discuss the interactive routine of a peekaboo game between a mother and toddler, and the consequent acquisition of Hello! (p. 398). Ninio and Bruner (1978) follow the same child in a picture-book reading game. This is a mini-dialogue, schematized as: 1 2 3 4 Look! Whats that? Its an X. Yes (an X).

With both games, the mother is the initiator and, over a period of time, the child begins to join in as (s)he learns to anticipate the sequence of moves involved. Thus, the child is given a predictable way in which to participate in interaction. (The book-reading game gives him/her, additionally, a means of acquiring new labels.) The routines are fixed at first, both in the sequence of communicative moves and in the content of each line, but they will undergo developmental modifications as the child participates more and more reliably in the interactions. The book-reading game allows for more variation once the child has learnt to produce labels in the proper slot (line 3), and to request them, using lines 1 and 2. Snow (1981) describes a book-reading routine with a slightly older child (two-and-a-half). At this stage, within the well-known format of the routine, the child is able to make progressive use of information he receives from his mother. The routines themselves may be expanded and varied and, therefore, offer an important kind of support for growth in which the learner may even have some control over how fast new information is offered (Peters 1983:69).

- 69 -

Chapter 3 Watson-Gegeo and Boggs (1977) refer to work by Bernstein (1969) on joking routines found in one group of part-Hawaiian adolescents, and they conclude their chapter by suggesting that: children acquire the basic structure of some verbal routines and have the ability to perform them some years before they regularly have an opportunity to practice them or demonstrate their ability to others. (1977:90) 3.6.2 Stages, Strategies and Individual Differences Several studies have looked at ways in which parents request narratives of personal experience (e.g. Tell Daddy what we did today) and how these can provide support for learning not only culturally accepted norms for structuring stories (appropriate sequencing of appropriate topics) but also correct linguistic forms for doing so (Eisenberg 1981; Sachs 1977; Stoel-Gammon and Cabral 1977; see also discussion in Cazden 1979) (Peters 1983:69). Johnson (1980) deals with the acquisition of question words and shows how this can be started with set phrases tied to very specific interaction routines (p. 1), which the children only later learn to segment into their constituent parts. Researchers have noted that some children are productively cautious and prefer to analyse first and talk later. Others are more eager to talk and so rely heavily on formulas and sentence frames which contain constant + variable elements (described by Braine 1963 as pivot constructions). One such child is Wong Fillmores Nora (1976); she produced freely and relied on feedback to guide evaluation of herproductions. Are these differences attributable to childrens innate preferences for processing language in certain ways, or are they based on the uses to which the specific utterances are to be put? Then again, what about the nature of the input speech and the kind of speech expected of the child in response? Surely, these factors influence the strategies a learner employs. Krashen and Scarcella comment as follows: As we have seen in first language and second language acquisition by children, the gestalt route is used by acquirers under similar conditions: where input is complex, and where conversational demands are present, acquirers may tend to use whole utterances in conversationally appropriate places without a full grasp of their internal structure. (1978:295) There are also cultural differences. How relevant are these to input speech and a childs route to language? Nelson (1973), Schieffelin (1979), Ochs (1982), and Heath (1982,

- 70 -

Chapter 3 1983) show that input speech can vary considerably from culture to culture. McLaughlin (1987) discusses some of these findings: Heath (1983) reported that Black children in the working-class community she studied were largely ignored as conversation partners until they became information givers. Parents, older siblings, other family members, and friends simply did not address speech to these children; they learned to speak by taking in and imitating sounds they heard around them. Moreover, the language they heard was well beyond their current level of competence. Research with children from other cultures (e.g., Ochs 1982) points to the same conclusion. In many societies, parents and other caretakers do not use simpler codes in talking to young children. Simplification is viewed as an inappropriate speech behaviour. There is now considerable evidence that many children in the world learn language in a way that is different from the way that American [and British] middle-class White children learn to speak. (McLaughlin 1987:44) Peters concludes her discussion on prefabrication, or fusion, of useful chunks by stressing the need for more information about the processes involved in their production. In particular, since morphophonemic processes seem to be highly automatized in mature speakers of a language, it would be particularly enlightening to document how they get this way. (1983:100) MacWhinney (1978) detailed two stages of acquisition of morphophonology: (1) rote memorization, where inflections are not recognized as separate elements and mistakes in construction do not occur and (2) the early stages of synthesis, which he divides into analogical formation and productive combination. Stage (2) is characterized by errors of overgeneralization. Peters speaks, also, of characteristic signs of relatively laborious production and concomitant reduction in processing capacity available to other tasks in utterance production. As automatization develops and fusion progresses, these signs of difficulty should disappear. This final stage, then, should be characterized by smooth production, lack of hesitations or self-corrections, absence of analogical or combinational errors, evidence of more processing devoted to other aspects of production, and automatic morphophonemic adjustments when speech errors occur. (1983:100)

- 71 -

Chapter 3 We might question whether this explanation would be accepted by psychologists; however, Peters suggests that a study of narratives told more than once might well provide a useful source of data on automatization and fusion. In the first telling the child would be struggling to find ways to report the salient events. These struggles, aided by promptings, questionings, and clarifications from the first audience, would serve as a rehearsal for the second telling, which could be expected to be smoother and more effective. An example of such a repeated narrative can be found in Halliday (1975:112). In my own data I have only the second story in such a sequence. At the time of the first telling, the 4-year-old narrators father had been struck by the difficulty the boy was having in reporting the event, so the next day the father asked his son to tell me the story. This time, to the surprise of the father, the story was told relatively smoothly and easily. (1983:101) In our data we have only two instances of the same story told twice. For example, Sheiba told her Story B to Tammy first and then, exactly two weeks later, she heard the original story again and retold it to Shazia. The second attempt is longer, twenty-two clauses in contrast to fifteen in the first attempt; there are fewer long pauses between clauses, three as opposed to five in her first effort; there is also more elaboration overall. (1) 1 2 3 (2) 1 2 3 4 5 6 One day Father Christmas woke up early in the morning. He looked in the box and saw balls. Father Christmas woke up. His cupboard was in a mess. He had to clear it up. He looked in the cupboard and he found some stocking red balls. The balls were special.

Thus, we have some evidence for the operation of memory in the production of lexical and structural material. The story content is relatively familiar and so Sheiba is able to give more attention to the manner of the actual telling.

- 72 -

Chapter 3 3.6.3 Nativelike Selection and Nativelike Fluency We now want to turn our attention to the wider issue of how it is that young language learners manage to acquire the adult native speakers ability, not only to speak grammatically, but also to converse naturally and idiomatically. To be able to participate in conversational talk, they not only have to produce expressions which are readily understood by their hearers, they have to produce them spontaneously within a very short time span if they are to retain their attention. Their productions also have to be in line with the general flow of talk and be used to initiate, continue, or conclude a conversation as appropriate. Inappropriate contributions will be either ignored or censured. We have already indicated above that this is a tall order, and that one way of coping simultaneously with all these demands is to fall back on prefabricated patterns to save processing time and effort, and so make the encoding task easier. Pawley and Syder (1983) discuss in some detail the twin notions of nativelike selection and nativelike fluency. Selection has to do with idiomatic usage and fluency with the business of encoding speech and the manner of its production. We wish to summarize some of their main points under the two headings.

3.6.3.1 Selection
Nativelike selection is not just a matter of acquiring the syntactic rules of a language but also of acquiring a sense of native speaker preferences. According to Pawley and Syder, these preferences are based on a number of different, and often conflicting, principles. The first is that native speakers prefer the shortest and simplest of any grammatical alternatives. The maxim goes something like this: to speak idiomatically, never use a phrase where a single word will do, and never use a complex sentence where a simple sentence will do (p. 197). Although there may be something in this suggestion, we can find many exceptions; Pawley and Syder state that: In everyday speech Do what I say! and Do what I tell you! are more common than the roughly synonymous Obey me!, while He wont do what hes told is just as nativelike as He wont obey orders, and Thats got nothing to do with it is as idiomatic as Thats irrelevant. (1983:197) The second involves a knowledge of conventional usage: Pawley and Syder cite existing conventions for telling the time in English, and why it is not correct to say Its a third to six as an alternative for Its twenty to six. The third has to do with a knowledge of speech act - 73 -

Chapter 3 theory and discourse context. For example, the expression I want to marry you is a ritual formula, appropriate as a serious proposal of marriage, but the roughly synonymous I wish to be wedded to you is too archaic to be taken seriously. While the fourth involves an understanding of discourse structure and its conventions: for example, in sentences which are unmarked for prominence, there is a preference for the topic (given information) to precede the comment (new information). Another example of judgments about naturalness is the preference with a verb such as want for verbal complements rather than nominalizations, so that I want to marry you is more acceptable as a proposal than I want marriage with you. Pawley and Syder suggest that familiarity will play some role in determining the native speakers judgments about the naturalness of a sentence or utterance (p. 199). They introduce the concepts of memorized sentence and lexicalized sentence stem as elements of linguistic knowledge which are important in fluent discourse and also in nativelike selection. A lexicalized sentence stem has a recurrent collocation, e.g. tell the truth, plus a grammatical frame, together with variable and optional constituents, realized as inflections and expansions. From the sentence stem: NP tell-TENSE the truth can be generated the following: Tell the truth! / Jo seldom tells the truth. / I wish you had told me the truth (see p. 211). A memorized sentence is recalled and produced as a whole; typical examples are: Can I come in? and Its none of your business. Pawley and Syder note that people generally are not goodat performing a number of different mental acts simultaneously or in rapid succession (pp. 217218). Therefore, they suggest that lexicalized sentence stems and other memorized strings form the main building blocks of fluent connected speech (p. 214). Such holistically stored sequences are quickly retrievable, they are familiar to speaker and hearer alike, and they provide convenient ways of referring to culturally salient concepts (p. 218). Labov, in Labov and Waletzky (1967) and Labov (1972a), noted that the most effective narrators are those who are able to speak with great fluency and rhythm, using an extremely simple syntax in relating the narrative action of familiar events. This narrative action has probably been rehearsed many times and the most telling expressions memorized as wholes, so that they trip off the tongue apparently without effort or prior thought. Not only are the events themselves familiar, but also the language used to describe them.

- 74 -

Chapter 3

3.6.3.2 Fluency
Nativelike fluency involves a knowledge of a body of sentence stems which, as we have stated above, consist of a fixed grammatical form and lexical content, and a label for a culturally recognized concept. These sentence stems are either retrieved as wholes or as automatic chains from long-term memory. Pawley and Syder produce evidence for the fact that even an adult native speaker has difficulty in sustaining fluency of speech when required to express his thoughts on an unfamiliar subject, or to deliver an unrehearsed monologue to a silent audience. There is no time to plan the syntactic and lexical content of a whole utterance; only a single phrase, or at most, a single clause can be planned at any one time. Pawley and Syder refer to this limitation as the one clause at a time constraint and explain their findings as follows: There is in fact a sizeable collection of evidence of several different kinds that the largest unit of novel discourse that can be fully encoded in one encoding operation is a single clause of eight to ten words. One kind of evidence pointing to this one clause at a time constraint on the planning of novel speech is the distribution of dysfluencies in spontaneous connected discourse. We find that even the most skilled and consistently fluent talkers regularly pause or slow down at the end of each clause of four to ten words, during a sustained piece of discourse, though they rarely do so in mid-clause. Their fluent units correlate highly with single clauses. (Fluent unit is used here as a technical term to refer to a stretch of pause-free speech uttered at or faster than normal rate of articulationabout five syllables per second in English.) (1983:202) Together with this correlation of fluent unit with single clause, most narrators also employ a particular syntactic strategy, known as clause-chaining. They string together a sequence of relatively independent clauses, clauses which show little structural integration with earlier or later constructions (p. 202). This style contrasts with the clauseintegrating strategy used for academic type discourse, where exactness rather than fluency is most valued. With the chaining style, it is easier to maintain grammatical and semantic continuity because the clauses can be planned more or less independently and so encoded and uttered without internal breaks. Pawley and Syder continue: We may speak, then, of a one clause at a time facility as an essential constituent of communicative competence in English: the speaker must be able regularly to encode whole

- 75 -

Chapter 3 clauses, in their full lexical detail, in a single encoding operation and so avoid the need for mid-clause hesitations. (p. 204)

3.6.3.3 Memorized Sequences

Returning, now, to memorized sentences and phrases, Pawley and Syder draw a theoretical distinction between a morpheme sequence which is memorized and one that is lexicalized: Memorization belongs to the domain of performance and lexicalization to competence, in the Chomskyan sense. In speaking of a word, phrase, etc. as being retrieved as a whole, or by an automatic chaining response, we are speaking of a particular action, performed by an individual, rather than of a piece of timeless knowledge shared by the members of a language community. Not all sequences memorized by individual speakers are lexicalized. What makes an expression a lexical item, what makes it part of the speech communitys common dictionary, is, firstly, that the meaning of the expression is not (totally) predictable from its form, secondly, that it behaves as a minimal unit for certain syntactic purposes, and third, that it is a social institution. This last characteristic is sometimes overlooked, but is basic to the distinction between lexicalized and non-lexicalized sequence. (p. 209) The above suggests that we have two discrete classes of unit, one that is memorized by speakers as individuals and another which is a conventional label for a conventional concept, learnt and understood by the whole community. However, they are quick to point out that there are degrees of lexicalization, and that a native speaker will know this as part of his/her linguistic competence. Clearly, memorized chunks of language are used by all speakers of that language, whether native speaker or second-language learner. Many such expressions are institutionalized to the extent that any variation permitted is strictly limited, e.g. You are pulling my leg not You are pulling my legs. Non-native speakers have to sort out the idioms and epithets from literal expressions and learn how generalized, or restricted, are the variations permitted in nativelike usage. Frequently, they get it wrong and produce an utterance which is grammatical but unidiomatic, e.g. John has a thigh-ache by analogy with headache and backache. The theoretical implication here is that a complex item, such as the above, can be treated either as an unanalysable lexical whole, or its occurrence and meaning can be predicted by the productive rules of syntax and semantics, and that this allows for two kinds of knowing: generalizing and perceiving patterns (analytic knowledge) on the one hand, and processing capacity (holistic knowledge) on the other (see pp. 217218). - 76 -

Chapter 3 Peters (1977, 1980, 1983) mentions the young learners limited processing capacity and contrasts this with his/her excellent long-term memory, and discusses the consequences of these facts for child language acquisition. Pawley and Syder question the role of memory and memorization in the following terms: It is suggested here that the grammar of a language contains, in addition to productive rules, a phrase book with grammatical notes. Does this argue that phrase books such as those widely available as quick introductions to a language for the tourist should become part of a modern teaching programme? How can memorized sentences and lexicalized sentence stems be taught? (1983:226) Clearly, in school classrooms children do pick up, quite unconsciously, certain constantly used phrases and whole sentences, such as, Put your things away and line up, Stop talking and listen to me, What do you think you are doing?, complete with nativelike intonation patterns. Other expressions, such as, Today is Monday, The time is half-past nine, and My name is Joe Bloggs, are taught as part of the normal school curriculum. With young second-language learners in an ordinary English school classroom, phrase book type expressions are taught and learnt naturally and in context (although Ellis (1984) discusses at some length the difference between naturalistic and classroom second-language development, and concludes that what you actually find comes somewhere between the twoimpure classroom SLD). Specific language teaching which might be appropriate for adult L2 learners, such as the rote-learning of dialogues, pre-selected vocabulary lessons, formal class discussion and cross-language comparisons, would not be suitable for, or effective with, young learners. Clearly, the common practice of taking second-language learners out of the main classroom for specific bridging language work with a mother-tongue support teacher is invaluable. Here the teaching is informal and involves interaction, catering for the specific needs of the group. Ellis (1984) stresses the role of classroom interaction in the acquisition of a second language. Hatch (1978) describes how interaction determines the route of second-language development by constraining the forms to which the learner is exposed and by providing the learner with ready-made chunks of language which (s)he can incorporate into his/her utterances. One learns how to do conversations, one learns how to interact verbally, and out of this interaction syntactic structures are developed (Hatch 1978:404).

- 77 -

Chapter 3 If this is so, one also learns how to do stories and develops the syntactic structures necessary for the task. One final discussion question from Pawley and Syder seems to dismiss entirely the possible role of direct imitation in language learning: Language learners are said to build up their grammatical competence in a language through the use of innate principles of language learning (inferencing, generalization, etc.) rather than through imitation. How dothey acquire the ability to produce sentences that are both grammatical and likely or natural, that is, to speak idiomatically? (Pawley and Syder 1983:226) We have to take on board the view outlined above, that young learners use rule-based strategies for the production of novel sentences when these are called for, and fall back on memorized sequences in situations where they are required to produce fluent, connected, and intelligible speech because the need to communicate with a hearer is uppermost. In spite of studies such as those of Heath (1982a, 1982b) and Ochs and Schieffelin (1984), which describe the use of repetition and paraphrase in early language learning, evidence from research generally does not support the idea that children learn directly by imitation or rote learning (e.g. Ervin-Tripp 1964; Bloom, Hood and Lightbown 1978), nor even by reinforcement (e.g. McNeill 1966; Cazden and Bellugi 1969; Brown 1973). However, familiarity, both in terms of subject matter and the language used to talk about it, is a crucial factor in the acquisition of grammatical and idiomatic usage of a second language. Familiarity only comes with constant exposure and absorption into long term memory. 3.7 Spoken and Written Discourse: Similarities and Differences 3.7.1 Spoken and Written Stories Sections 3.4, 3.5 and 3.6 raise important issues of a more fundamental nature which should be aired at this point. So far, we have thought in general terms about oral and literate influences on childrens storytelling, and the fact that children probably develop concepts of narrative which contain a combination of elements from both spoken-oral experiences and written-literate sources. Then we looked at prefabricated patterns, or formulaic language chunks, these having been memorized from constant exposure to both oral and book-based material. From oral models, children get an idea of what a typical story sounds likeits phonological featuresand also the respective roles of listeners and narrators.

- 78 -

Chapter 3 From literate models, they find out what a story looks like on paperits layout and illustrations. Cook-Gumperz (1975) and Ervin-Tripp and Mitchell-Kernan (1977) discuss the influence of graphic form on childrens early written work. They suggest that childrens written work often shows an interrelationship of graphic and syntactic forms included in a single semantic message. Cook-Gumperz example is a signed drawing of what looks like an elephant, with the short verbal explanation: it has a god but its not come, and an indication of the messages intended recipient. Ervin-Tripp and Mitchell-Kernan give examples of emblematic poems from a seven-year-olds notebook which they describe as a written image of dialogue, e.g. the following: people think that you open a door but that is not true you close a door and go out open it and go in close it and go out

Here, the child began with the image, drawing the object at the centre of the page; the language was arranged around the object, with long words being squashed to fit. The first and third lines were always the same being people think that and but that is not true, an idea that may derive from poetry with repeated lines, or song refrains. They describe the content as a dialectic: an assertion of an opinion and its contrary, and, finally, an explanation of the paradox or a synthesis in which both are true. Their main point is that the synthesis is heard as a second voice, which is visually set off at the side like another person conversing. Although poets report that emblem poems are popular with children and these are poems visually emulating the theme, this particular child knew no emblem poems; she invented an emblem of dialogue and continued to create poems until the semantic structure deteriorated (1977:78). The relevance of all this to childrens conception of story is spelled out by Cook-Gumperz and Green (1984). They suggest that while the typical adult forms of narrative, both oral and written are based on the written literate form of stories, in contrast, childrens oral performance of stories often seems closer in many stylistic functions to the folk or oral model, where performance details add to or change meanings of utterances, than to a formal, literate model. Nevertheless, childrens concepts about books and their structure - 79 -

Chapter 3 may be part of the meaning of young childrens stories [our emphasis]. If this is so, then more is involved in the acquisition of and development of narrative than simply learning to transcribe oral language into written form. Cook-Gumperz and Green propose the existence of an EMBLEMATIC PHASE, that is, one in which the knowledge of written or book format influences the oral production of story narratives, and that children developmentally move through this emblematic phase in developing their own notions of story. The implication is that childrens acquisition of narrative may not be a direct process of acquiring the adult form (as used experimentally and in story grammars) but a more complicated process by which children generate for themselves different genres of narratives from the various influences of both forms of speaking and forms of written-graphic expression (1984:207211). Clearly, then, the spoken story is not a version of the written: children see the elements of expression available to them [in storybooks]that is, graphic forms, pictorial elements, character and plot elements, syntactic style, and idiomatic expressionsas all contributing to the development of stories; how much weight they give to each of these will depend on the discourse tradition within their own family-community context (p. 211). Table 3.1: Influences on childrens perception and construction of narrative syntactic patterns idiomatic expressions graphical/phonological patterns pictorial/visual elements or images interactive elements or conventions cultural factors and family-community discourse tradition personal experiences to date imagination and fantasy television, drama, music, etc. Table 3.1 is an attempt to draw together some of the diverse influences and elements of expression which are available to children and contribute, in greater or lesser degrees, to

- 80 -

Chapter 3 the development of stories. It is not intended as a definitive statement, but as an indication of the breadth of knowledge and experience children bring to their narrative creations. 3.7.2 Oral and Literate Discourse Styles Michaels and Collins (1984) set out to compare childrens oral and written narratives directly and to contrast oral and literate styles. An oral discourse style is characterized by the use of prosodic cues, such as duration and contouring (intonation), as a cohesive device, whereas a literate discourse style employs lexical and syntactic devices to signal agent focus, causal connections, old versus new distinctions, and coreference relations. Some of the children (irrespective of age) used a literate discourse style, characteristic of discursive prose and the speech style of middle-class literate adults, in their oral narratives; others relied entirely on prosody to signal the above relationships. Furthermore, this stylistic dichotomy was reflected in their written version of the same narrative. Michaels and Collins particular concern is the educational implications of their findings: we ask how differing discourse devices serve to signal connective links in oral and written narration and how these differences influence classroom interaction. They claim that their research suggests that a child who relies heavily on prosodic cues in oral discourse may be doubly at a disadvantage in making the transition to literacy because in shifting from oral to written language, prosodic cues are lost and, therefore, a child who relies heavily on these cues as cohesive devices is less likely to provide the lexical and syntactic connections required in written discourse. They go even further and claim that this has serious repercussions for the childs whole educational career because nearly all linguistic performance (whether oral or written) is evaluated in school with reference to an implicit literate standard (p. 243). Michaels and Collins findings for oral narratives can be tabulated as in table 3.2 and then usefully compared with our own data. They use the notion thematic cohesion as developed by Gumperz and his collaborators (Gumperz 1982; Gumperz, Kaltman and OConnor 1984) to refer to the processes by which a text, whether spoken or written, is tied together. These include the devices and strategies, at all levels of discourse, by which people present information so as to highlight certain parts and background others, signal topic shifts and establish and maintain perspective within a topic. (1984:231)

- 81 -

Chapter 3 Table 3.2 Devices used to achieve and maintain thematic cohesion Function Linking events together Coreference relations Causal relations Shift of agent focus Oral-style Literate-style

Verbal Complements: adding Nominal Complements: adding information about verbal processes information about nominals Prosodic Cues: vowel elongation and high rise-fall contour Prosodic Cues: then with stressed high fall contour Prosodic Cues: then with low fall contour Complex Nominal Syntax and Lexical/Grammatical Parallelism Lexicalization: so, but, etc. Nominal Complements: prepositional phrases

This is broader than Halliday and Hasans use of the term cohesion as a functional notion to cover some technical aspects of discourse at the level of interclausal and intersentential syntax (e.g. conjunction, reference, lexical cohesion, and substitution). Michaels and Collins thematic cohesion approximates what Halliday and Hasan call texture (i.e. cohesion + textual structure internal to the sentence + the macro-structure of the text [features which establish its status as narrative, conversation, etc.]). See also Bambergs comments on the notions of cohesion and coherence in chapter 2, pp. 5455. Michaels and Collins subjects (two black and two white first-graders) all watched a sixminute film, known in the literature as the pear film; two fourth-graders narratives, both oral and written, of the same film were also included in the study. Michaels and Collins looked at four particular areas and report their findings under the headings: intraclausal complements, interclausal complements, interclausal connectives, and agent focus.

3.7.2.1 Intraclausal Complements: Prepositional Phrases

Under intraclausal complementation, they looked at nominal and verbal complexity and conclude that raw counts of items and constructions give little insight into narrative style and strategy; however, they do find clear differences between oral-style narratives and literate-style narratives when it comes to the type of complements used within, and across, clause boundaries to provide ties between events in the narrative. In the oral-style narratives, complements tend to be verbal complements: (1) and then he dro.ve off with em

- 82 -

Chapter 3 (indicates how he drove off) (2) and he had a wreck on his bike (indicates how he had a wreck) (3) and the peaches fell out on the ground (indicates where they fell out) In contrast, in literate-style narratives, complements tend to be nominal. (4) he umsaw em with the pears (identifies em) (5) this boy on this bike came along (identifies this boy) (6) one of the kids therewas the oneon the bike (identifies which kid) The identifying information is then used to maintain the identity of referents between events in the narrated episodes (i.e. to signal and maintain referential cohesion in the narrative). However, it needs to be pointed out that it is not just a matter of the type of complement used, but the way such structures are useda point which is crucial to the discussion of the work being presented in this thesis. All the prepositional phrases exemplified here could be regarded as nominal complements, in that each contains a noun or pronoun, but they are used differently by the two groups of subjects. Comparing these findings with our own data and taking the opening of Shvinders Story B as representative of the rest, we discover an oral discourse style. 1 2 3/4 5 6/7 8 Once upon a time Father Christmas was looking in his cupboard and he saw this strange, green, shiny box. He said, I didnt put this in the cupboard. I put something else. So he went and looked in the box. and there was six magic footballs (where) (where) (where)

- 83 -

Chapter 3 9 10 11 12 13/14 So he said, O-oh! footballs. They were shiny, black and white footballs. And Father Christmas said, I cant keep them till next Christmas. I must sell them to a worsest team that never won before. Here we have five examples of verbal complements, which add information about a given verbal process, and one non-prepositional example of a nominal complement, that never won before which modifies the noun team. These findings tie in with other studies of grammatical structure and language modalities. Halliday (1967) discussed the differences between verbal and nominal structures; he observed that nominals allow more information to be packed into single clauses and facilitate the signalling of links between clauses, hence their importance in scientific and technical writing. Chafe (1982) contrasted formal prose with dinner table talk and reported that the predominance of nominalizations was one of the most salient aspects of written language when compared with spoken language. In chapter 2, page 41, we suggested that nominalizations, and complex and compound explicatives, involve a level of syntactic complexity which is beyond the language of infant school children. Then, on page 39, while talking about external evaluation, we noted that Tannen (1982b) describes external evaluation as a feature of literate-based strategies because it makes explicit the whole point of a story. We then commented that there are no examples of external evaluation in the data. (when) (to whom)

3.7.2.2 Interclausal Complements and Participant Reference

There are several different interclausal syntactic structures which we could look at, such as infinitives, that-complements, and relative clauses, but there are very few of them in our data and Shvinder provides most of them (cf. the that-complement in Story B 13/14). Michaels and Collins report that this was true also of their oral-style narratives. Interclausal complements enhance cohesion in both spoken and written discourse by explicitly mapping hierarchical relations onto clausal structure; they order two clauses with respect to one another, and they provide additional information about a given noun phrase (1984:234). In section 3.6.3.2 (1984:75) we talked briefly about the contrast between clause-integrating and clause-chaining styles, or strategies, and their correlation with fluency. A clause-integrating style is described by Pawley and Syder - 84 -

Chapter 3 (1983) as one in which a speaker is committing himself to grammatical constructions which require him to take account of the structure of an earlier or later clause when formulating a current one (p. 202). Clearly, these constructions are only used by children with a literate style. Michaels and Collins literate-style narrators used complex nominal syntax to describe a new participant and also later, together with lexical and grammatical parallelism, when referring back to this character. For example, (7a) there was a manthat waspicking somepears

Twenty-four lines later Jenny recycles the relative clause to confirm that here is the second mention of the same man. (7b) thentheywalked by the man who gavewh-who was picking the pears Their oral-style narrators used independent clauses, a clause-chaining strategy, and prosodic cues, vowel elongation, and a high rise-fall contour to signal that a specific character had been mentioned already. (8a) it was aboutthis man he was umumtakes some umpeach somepears off the tree Twenty-five lines later Merle mentions this character again. (8b) the tree Here he uses vowel elongation and a high rise-fall contour on man, instead of embedded nominals, to signal the identity of a major character. Our narrators do not use either strategy. Shvinder uses a noun phrase when she introduces her participants and pronouns or a definite article when she refers back to them. 1 2 3/4 5 6/7 Once upon a time Father Christmas was looking in his cupboard and he saw this strange, green shiny box. He said, I didnt put this in the cupboard. I put something else. So he went and looked in the box. - 85 and when thatwhen he passed by that m:n ...the manthe m:n came out -

Chapter 3 (description of the footballs which he found in the box and his reaction on discovering them) 11 And Father Christmas said, (more events where the pronoun he is used consistently) 18 19 22 23 24 So he found this lady and Father Christmas said, The lady just laughed, Ha, ha, ha. And Father Christmas said, Oh, please! So she said, O.K.

Shvinder uses a full NP when introducing her main character and again after referring to other participants and props (numbers 11, 19, 23). The other participant is introduced by the demonstrative this in 18, a strategy not mentioned by Michaels and Collins, but a notable feature of Labovs narratives and characteristic of oral-style narratives in general. So here she (and the other subjects) use a combination of strategies from both oral and literate styles. Shvinder does use prosodic devices, such as vowel elongation and rise-fall contours, but she uses them for different purposes. We argue in chapter 6 that she uses them to evaluate the most important points in her narrative.

3.7.2.3 Interclausal Connectives and Causal Relations

In Michaels and Collins data the contrast is between lexicalizations, such as so and but, and the use of prosodic cues. Their example is very specific: the form then, with a stressed high fall, serving as an implicit intonational signal, functionally equivalent to lexicalized forms, so, therefore, hence. We have nothing equivalent in our data. Shvinder gives us several examples of the use of so. In the section quoted above, the so in 18 suggests a causal relationship, but no such relationship was marked in the original. However, this oral-style use of so, roughly equivalent to saying now this is what happened next, is a common feature of conversational narratives and of Labovs data. We will fill in a little more of the detail in the following. 15/16 17 18 So he went out and looked for teams but he couldnt find not even one teamthe worst. So he found this lady

- 86 -

Chapter 3 We could argue that the so in 18 was used as a contrast to but in 17; if he could not find a team, at least he found this lady who might be able to find one for him! There are four other examples of the use of so in the rest of the story. In two of them there is a clear causal relationship, and in the other two cases the so means this is what happened next.

3.7.2.4 Agent Focus

Michaels and Collins example of agent focus in an oral-style narrative occurs in an episode of the film where the two key figures are both boys, and the narrator has to provide a strategy to cope with the potential ambiguity involved. The narrator uses then with prosodic marking (a low falling pitch) as an ad hoc agent shifter to disambiguate reference relations. In our stories, there are only two or three characters, and in most cases they are referred to by name, so the situation does not arise. The literate-style speaker relies on nominal complements to provide enough identifying information about the two boys to keep them separate. If some of our subjects were given the Pear Film to narrate, they would possibly run into serious processing problems at this point. However, all subjects, except the two least competent, are able to use full NPs when introducing new participants and then refer back to them by anaphoric pronouns or the definite article. When there is a shift in agent focus or potential ambiguity the full NP is used. (See the comments in the section on participant reference, pp. 8586.) To sum up: Shvinder uses verbal complements in preference to nominalizations (oral-style strategies); simple nominals, anaphoric pronouns, and the definite article for establishing co-identity relations and shifting agent focus (oral/literate-style strategies); and lexicalizations so and but to express causal relations (literate-style strategies). Although it is instructive, and even reassuring, to try to compare our findings with those of other researchers, such as Michaels and Collins, who have elicited similar retellings of narratives of vicarious experience, the exercise has its limitations. The tasks and situations were not parallel. Michaels and Collins were comparing two distinct groups of speakers, and their results are only insightful and valid within their own particular frame of reference. Similarly, with our data we were not expecting to find specific differences in discourse style among our speakers, but rather different degrees of competence along one single continuum which exhibits features from both oral and literate narrative traditions. Obviously, the syntactic structures described above contribute to this notion of competence and allow us to characterize it in quantifiable and meaningful terms. But in the

- 87 -

Chapter 3 final analysis, to move from a study of the narrative texts to an assessment of their youthful creators narrative competence demands more than the mere listing and counting of structuresit demands understanding and intuition. We are ultimately seeking to answer the questions: What makes a good story? and Why is one story judged to be better, or more pleasurable and meaningful to the hearers, than others in the set? Soundness of structure and aesthetic worth are both important factors in any such assessment, as is evaluation which is the central topic of this thesis and the one we come back to in the next chapter. 3.8 Implications for Second Language Acquisition In the above sections as we have considered various interrelated aspects of storytelling, we have only mentioned second-language learners indirectly, where the theoretical issues under discussion and particular data samples seem to match up rather neatly, or where our data provide interesting contrasts to the data examples being presented by others. This section will, therefore, focus directly on the implications of some of these notions to second-language learners in general, and our own subjects in particular. 3.8.1 Home and Community Background In section 3.1 we discussed storytelling traditions, providing specific examples from the literature (i.e. from Heath 1983) of traditional and cultural values exerting a profound influence on the childs concept of story. Then on page 58 we spoke of the young secondlanguage learners sudden introduction to English oral and literate culture on entry into the school environment; but we said nothing about the childs own cultural background at that point. Unfortunately, this information is not readily available and, unlike Mike Baynham (1988) working with adult migrant workers, we were not able to collect personal biographical accounts from our subjects directly. Baynham has the following to say about the importance of the sociolinguistic context. The report of the Linguistic Minorities Project (LMP 1985) suggests that in a multilingual setting characterized by immigrant bilingualism it is of fundamental importance to have some knowledge and understanding of the sociolinguistic history of the different languages and their speakers. (p. 65) As far as we know there is no historical record of the settlement of Panjabi speakers in Reading. However, I do know that when I taught at Oxford Road School in the mid1960s, my pupils were mainly native English speakers or of West Indian origin. In 1967, a few South Asian pupils were entering the school who were without any previous knowledge - 88 -

Chapter 3 of English, but there was no special provision made for their integration into the school community such as mother tongue classes; they acquired English naturally through interaction with teachers and monolingual peers. In the complete report of the Linguistic Minorities Project (LMP), the general migration and distribution of South Asians throughout England is described. The distribution of the populations of South Asian origin across the country is largely a result of the employment opportunities which existed in the 1950s and 1960s, and of the process of chain migration in which information about specific localities, and personal contacts in these localities, played an important part. (Stubbs 1985:41) The South Asian Communities in Reading are largely Panjabi-speaking, and are concentrated in the east and west of the town; Oxford Road School serves the West Reading Community. The majority seem to be of Pakistani origin and are Moslems, although there are Sikhs and Hindus from India also living in the community. This mix of country of origin, language, and religion can be illustrated by figure 3.1:

Pakistan

India

Pakistani Panjab Moslems Literacy in: Urdu the NATIONAL (and RELIGIOUS) LANGUAGE Perso-Arabic script Urdu

Panjab Sikhs Literacy in: Panjabi

Indian Panjab Hindus Literacy in: Hindi the OFFICIAL LANGUAGE Devanagari script Hindi

Gurmukhi script almost identical in their spoken form

Figure 3.1. Spoken and written languages in Punjab

- 89 -

Chapter 3 This figure, based on a more elaborate presentation in LMP (1985:23), attempts to set out the interrelationships between linguistic, national and religious affiliations for Panjabi speakers. The case of Sukhbir, one of our Other Group interlocutors, presents a few problems for this simple 3-way classification. In table 1.1 (chapter 1, p. 8) Sukhbir is coded as being a Sikh, and in the accompanying key, this code = Pakistani Panjabi speaker, Sikh religion. If he is a Sikh, then we would expect him to be an Indian, rather than a Pakistani; but his teacher clearly indicated that his family did come from Pakistan. Again, presumably, Sukhbirs parents must have told the school that he was a Sikh, but he did not wear the usual Sikh headdress and had his wavy hair cut short; the Moslem boys from Pakistan all had straight hair. The rest of the subjects did fit the expected patterns. We had Moslems from Pakistan or Hindus from Indiaall speaking Panjabi as their mother tongue. The LMP report discusses this whole issue of ethnicity and the concept of ethnic boundaries (Barth 1969). A boundary is revealed where a category of people perceive a dichotomy between us and them, and structure their behaviour accordingly. Such boundaries are not necessarily accepted as valid by every section of society, nor need they be permanently fixed (Wallman 1979). They may be marked symbolically by a large number of separate variables, or by a smaller cluster of factors which are highly correlated together. Language is only one of the possible set of such ethnic markers. Religion, skin colour or other physical features, nationality or dress can all be used as ethnic markers. One of the difficulties of defining linguistic minorities in England is that the language variable, of course, is not always perfectly correlated with any of the other markers, nor is it relevant in every context in which a differentiation between us and them is made. (p. 20) The authors cite these particular South Asian populations now living in England as examples of this lack of fit between various ethnic markers. They point out that nationality does not necessarily correspond with either birthplace or country of origin of the family; that the language (taught mother tongue) of Indians could be Panjabi, Gujerati, Bengali, Urdu or Hindi, and that Pakistanis may speak one or more of the following languages: Panjabi, Pushtu, Sindhi or Urdu. They state that in some cases there is a closer correlation between religion and nationality, in that most Pakistani nationals are Moslems. Linking language and religious affiliation, there is a high degree of probability

- 90 -

Chapter 3 that Urdu speakers will be Moslems and Hindi speakers will be Hindus, but Panjabi speakers may be Sikhs, Moslems, Hindus or Christians. All these members of the Panjabi-speaking population originated from a single region in the North West of the Indian subcontinent, which until 1947 had a single government. At that time the majority of the population spoke one of the local dialects of Panjabi as a mother tongue and, even today, there is a high degree of mutual intelligibility between the spoken forms of Panjabi on either side of the Indo-Pakistan border, which gradually give way to varieties closer to Hindi as one moves south (p. 45). Many linguists (e.g. Khubchandani 1979) view these Hindi-Urdu-Panjabi dialects as a continuum. Two other factors particularly mentioned by LMP are the value Moslems attach to calligraphic skills and the setting up of special Urdu classes to pass on some of this calligraphic tradition to the younger generation, and the fact that Panjabi speakers who were brought up in East Africa and have now settled in this country, have had a long history of language maintenance and of community-run schooling in the mother tongue for their children, alongside the mainstream English-medium schooling which many of them experienced in those countries (LMP 1985:48). Several of the Moslem boys, e.g. Sakander, went to Urdu classes straight after school, and they were very proud to show off their calligraphy. At the time, one of the teachers, the Head teacher and I were also going to Urdu classes to learn to read and write the script. Our teachers were a well-educated couple who had come to Reading from East Africa in the early 1970s. They were both involved in many community-run projects of the kind mentioned by the authors of LMP. However, the majority of families whose children attended the school came from the rural areas of the Indian sub-continent, and for many rural people the gap between the vernacular and standard is so wide as to make learning the standard almost like learning a second language (1985:44). Shamsa, the language-support teacher often complained that the childrens command of standard Panjabi or Urdu was poor and that they used a variety of which she, herself, did not approve. According to LMP, most Pakistani migrants from Panjab speak local dialects of Panjabi as their home language, but may regard Urdu as their mother tongue and use it as their language of literacy. Indians from the State of Panjab will, if they are Sikhs, speak Panjabi in the home and consider Panjabi both their mother tongue and language of literacy, with Hindi as a second language or lingua franca. Hindus speak - 91 -

Chapter 3 Panjabi but they also know spoken and written Hindi, considering it their official language and mother tongue. In spite of these differences, the spoken varieties used will be mutually intelligible. So how does all this relate to storytelling traditions in the home and community? Unfortunately, there is very little information in the literature about storytelling. Tolstaya (1981), when writing about the mid-nineteenth century in a brief introduction to a descriptive grammar of the Panjabi language, says the following: Apart from a rich folklore nothing was written in Panjabi except Sikh religious works. This tantalizing allusion says nothing about the content of this folklore or whether it is accessible to all Panjabi speakers or only to those who are literate or happen to be Sikhs. Is it an oral tradition which has been committed to writing or does it only exist as a literary genre? Much more is known about Hindu folklore. The tales of the gods are preserved in the great epic poems, the Ramayana and the Mahabharata, probably completed by the second century B.C. The Ramayana tells the life story of Rama or Ram, an avatar (or reincarnation) of Vishnu. It describes the love of Rama and his wife, Sita, which remained constant through many trials, the loyalty of Ramas brother Lakshman, and the assistance rendered to them by Hanuman, the monkey god, which secured the release of Sita from the demon, Ravana, and brought about a happy ending to the story. Whether stories such as these are told or read in Hindu homes, we do not know, nor whether childrens storybooks are available. LMP certainly mention the viewing of Indian Hindi-Urdu films and videos in the home (1985:273). However, according to our teacher, in the majority of Moslem homes there is no storytelling tradition because the mothers are illiterate and do not know any Panjabi stories. Although storytelling does not have literacy as a prerequisite, some cultural connection between the two is clearly seen here. So for the most part, it would seem that second-language learners are not introduced to storytelling until they start school or attend a nursery class, unless their mothers happen to have received some education. 3.8.2 Storytelling in School and L2 Acquisition of English Storytelling Skills The question we need to address now is: How are children introduced to the art of storytelling at school? Briefly, they listen to fictional stories during storytime at the end of the day and are encouraged to tell and write their own factual stories as part of their language work. Heath (1983) describes the purpose of these exercises:

- 92 -

Chapter 3 They must come to recognize when a story is expected to be true, when to stick to the facts, and when to use their imagination. In the primary grades, the term story is used to refer to several types of written and oral discourse. (p. 294) The practice at Oxford Road School in 1987, when the data were collected, was roughly as follows. In the first year at school all the children began their reading and writing with the Breakthrough to Literacy scheme, first brought out in 1970 by David Mackay and Brian Thompson for the Schools Council Programme in Linguistics and English Teaching (Director: M.A.K. Halliday) and published by Longman. They were encouraged to build up one-sentence stories using the vocabulary items and function words they were learning to recognize. They were allowed to say anything they wished as long as it was credible and not an exact repetition of what they had produced the previous day. For example, an L2 beginner might have as his target word for that day the word shop. After an introductory talk about shops and shopping and being shown the shape of the word, his teacher would then ask him to select the tile from the Breakthrough Board with the word shop printed on it. He would initially be helped to recognize it by a system of colour codes and shapes (circles for lexical items and triangles for function words) which would guide him to the right row on the board (shop is green circle number 4). Next he would be asked for an oral story containing the word shop and might produce the following: I going to shop with my mum. The teacher would correct it verbally to: I am going to the shop with my mum. and then write the corrected version in his storybook for him to trace over the letter shapes or copy the words directly under hers, depending on his ability. Having written the story he would read it back to her and also draw a picture of the event, either before or after the writing. (The picture usually appears above the written work, following the pattern often found in printed books.) This one-clause story, the production of which we have just described in detail, is not yet a narrative in the Labovian sense as there is no ordering of events. However, it does make a contribution to the childs sense of story. First, its production is a collaborative effort involving teacher and pupil (see the discussion in section 3.3). Second, it contains both - 93 -

Chapter 3 pictorial and verbal elements (see section 3.4). Third, it could be regarded as a stanza in the creation of a storybook depicting, in words and pictures, various themes and subthemes connected with the childs everyday life (see section 3.5). Fourth, it is probably not a novel creation but has the prefabricated pattern I am going to + place (see section 3.6.2), which is a lexicalized sentence stem according to Pawley and Syder (see section 3.6.3). This would certainly be the case if his previous story read: I am going to the park. Fifth, it contains one semantic message which is expressed both syntactically and graphically. In section 3.7.1 we discussed the point made by Cook-Gumperz and Green (1984) that childrens concepts about books and their structure may be part of the meaning of young childrens stories. For the next stage in story creation, after our L2 learner had learned to recognize and use the prescribed number of breakthrough words, he would be given his own Sentence Maker folder and have his own set of tiles for the words he needed. If he needed a nonbreakthrough word, this would be written out for him and added to his folder too. He could then build up his own story sentence on a special display stand which was long enough for a one-clause sentence. (Children who built longer sentences, or more than one sentence, borrowed spare stands.) At this stage, much more attention was given to syntax and the need for correct word order; the reading back stage always followed the displaying of the story and preceded the writing out and illustration of the story in the storybook. The third stage was to graduate to writing his own stories straight into his storybook, using an alphabetical dictionary list, or word book, instead of the Sentence Maker folder. At this stage he would be encouraged to write imaginative stories as well as factual accounts of his daily doings, and these would be much longer stories than the one-sentence pieces of the beginners. These written stories would also be read aloud to his teacher, or even to the rest of the class on occasions. But what about oral storytelling, rather than simply reading from an already prepared script? Some days, not necessarily every day, classes had a sharing time when individual children were encouraged to share some news, or tell a story to the whole class. Michaels (1981, 1984) describes in detail how this activity was conducted in one American class.

- 94 -

Chapter 3 Michaels found that children whose already established discourse style matched the teachers own literate style and expectations did well at sharing time activities and benefited from this oral preparation for literacy (1981:423). But she found that when the childs style and the teachers expectations diverged teacher-child collaboration was often unsuccessful, and this had longer-term adverse effects on his/her performance at school and the way he was evaluated. In summary, this particular teacher seemed to expect a literate-style, decontextualized account centering on a single topic (Michaels 1984:223). In the sharing time sessions that we observed the teacher had no such expectations regarding style. She wanted the child to feel at ease, to express him/herself clearly, and to feel that his/her contribution was accepted. If (s)he was unsuccessful, in that (s)he dried up completely, (s)he was still thanked for making the effort and was encouraged to try again on another occasion. The teacher assisted the teller by helping in the construction of sentences, suggesting suitable vocabulary items and asking appropriate questions when needed. She made encouraging noises and brief comments to indicate that the point of the story was being appreciated and laughed aloud when something humorous was being recounted. The most important point to make here is that, although tellers were encouraged to take the floor, they were not compelled to do so and actually volunteered their contributions. Many came to school having already thought out what they wished to say. The majority of contributions would be factual accounts of special events such as birthday parties, outings and holidays, or prospective events where the child forecast what (s)he expected to happen. Some contributions would be descriptions of new toys and other recent acquisitions, and sometimes a child would bring the actual object concerned into school to show the class. Occasionally, a child might share a frightening or painful experience where the audience reaction hoped for would be You poor little thing! rather than Cor, you lucky beggar! The teacher would invariably verbalize these reactions for the children. In section 3.3, we noted the importance of audience reaction and participation to a successful performance (e.g. Kernan 1977; Cook-Gumperz and Green 1984). The teachers whom we observed were working on these interactive relationships between speaker and hearers rather than attempting to guide their pupils towards a preferred discourse style as such. Is this where the children first realized the need to evaluate their narratives, if they were to elicit an appropriate response from their hearers? In school a completely negative, or totally

- 95 -

Chapter 3 indifferent, response to a story seldom occurred as the teachers timely intervention would often forestall such a potentially damaging reaction to the speaker. The school philosophy was based on encouragement, respect for the individual, and the practice of picking out the good points, rather than focusing too much on the bad ones, and consequently most children felt secure enough to be themselves. But surely, someone might ask, at some stage the children would have to be made aware of the discourse style preferred by the education establishment? Obviously, this is so. Our contention is that sharing time is not the best vehicle for the transmission of this knowledge. It is much better for teachers to expose their pupils to differences of discourse style, or register, by telling them stories in their own words and also reading aloud from books. These stories should be both fictional and factual in nature and as varied in style and content as possible. Table 3.3 gives a list, with examples, of childrens books of different genres which are often told or read aloud at school. Not all the titles listed, however, are pitched directly at the Infant School age range, but these could be adapted if the subject matter were deemed suitable. Table 3.3. Types of stories read or told to young children at school Works of fiction Folktales Examples Egyptian and Sudanese Folk Tales by Helen Mitchnik Listen to the Story: Tales from the West Indies by Grace Hallworth Legends Faber Book of North American Legends edited by Virginia Haviland Indian Tales and Legends by J. E. B. Gray Fairy stories Grimms Fairy Tales edited by Annabel Williams-Ellis Classic Fairy Tales by Hans Christian Andersen translated by Erik Haugaard Fantasy Peter Pan by J. M. Barrie Alice in Wonderland by Lewis Carroll Moominland by Tove Jansson Winnie the Pooh by A. A. Milne

- 96 -

Chapter 3

Animal stories

Aesops Fables edited by G. Beal Mrs. Tiggywinkle by Beatrix Potter A Dog So Small by Philippa Pearce Mr. and Mrs. Pigs Evening Out by Mary Rayner Just So Stories by Rudyard Kipling Snow Goose by Paul Gallico Rabbit is Hungry by Helen Piers

Humour

My Naughty Little Sister by Dorothy Edwards Mr. Gumpys Outing by John Burningham Paddington by Michael Bond Burglar Bill by Janet and Allan Ahlberg

Family stories

The Railway Children by E. Nesbit Alexander in Trouble by Susan Burke

Poetry

The Mother Goose Treasury by Raymond Briggs The Great Big Book of Nursery Rhymes by Peggy Blakeley I Like This Poem by Kaye Webb Oxford Book of Poetry For Children by Edward Blishen The Christopher Robin Verse Book by A. A. Milne

Most legends, folk and fairy tales have one of a number of recurring themes, e.g. weakness and strength, bravery and cowardice, poverty and riches, cleverness and stupidity, quest and achievement, or the triumph of good over evil. Margaret Marshall (1982) states that: Fairyland can be defined as a world in which enchanted and enchanting things happen, a world which has a place also in the inner mind (p. 55). Their appeal to children is their identifiable style, story structure and inner truth, or underlying moral, which is often expressed overtly (see chapter 2, pp. 15 and 2527). Fantasy is the interface between the world of magic and the world of everyday life. Margery Fisher, in Intent Upon Reading says:

- 97 -

Chapter 3 Fantasy takes known objects and scenes and re-shapes them in its own terms.We may properly call those stories fantasy which bring the magic and irrational into our own world. The Model Stories are fantasies: Father Christmas, a talking snowman, a stupid cowboy travelling with his cows to Greenland, a Chinaman staying with an Eskimo in Alaska, and a football team which cannot win a match are none of them part of the real world, nor are magic footballs or magic snow; but the characters eat and sleep, travel and talk to each other, and feel happy, cross or worried just like normal human beings. Children fantasize about their toys or possessions, invent imaginary friends or pets, and sometimes combine fact and fantasy in what purports to be a genuine piece of news given at sharing time or written down and illustrated in their storybooks. So this genre is particularly popular with young children. Animal stories are a mixed bag of more than one genre, ranging from fantasy humanized animals to stories of real animals told for the purpose of conveying information in an interesting way. Some of the earliest stories, e.g. Aesops Fables, used animals to point a moral. Beatrix Potters animals are humanized adult animals which are acceptable to young children where characters shown as adult humans are not. Stories in which a child forms an affection for an animal are always popular; they also identify with the small boy in Philippa Pearces A Dog So Small who invents his own tiny, imaginary dog to talk and walk with. Humorous stories about animals are numerous; we have listed the Just So Stories by Rudyard Kipling, and Mary Rayners Mr. and Mrs. Pigs Evening Out. Stories about real animals are popular with all age groups and often become classics, e.g. Paul Gallicos Snow Goose; real animals are also used in the many photo-stories now available, such as Helen Piers Rabbit is Hungry. Humour in childrens books takes many forms and produces a variety of responses, from loud laughter to mild amusement. This genre overlaps with others we have listed and includes anything from joke books, to situation comedy as in Dorothy Edwards My Naughty Little Sister, and substitute children in the form of animals as in Michael Bonds Paddington, A. A. Milnes Pooh Bear and friends, and John Burninghams Mr. Gumpys Outing. We were able to observe groups watching a video of the latter and listened in on the teacher-directed discussion that followed. It was obvious that almost everyone got the point of the story and anticipated the inevitable disaster, as Mr. Gumpy packed more and

- 98 -

Chapter 3 more animals into his boat. The illustrations added much to the childrens understanding and amusement. The illustrative content is very important too in the Ahlbergs Burglar Bill. Toolan (1988:213) refers to this book as unorthodox in having a burglar as a hero and also in the jaunty way his lifestyle is described in the opening. Burglar Bill lives by himself in a tall house full of stolen property. Every night he has stolen fish and chips and a cup of stolen tea for supper. Then he swings a big stolen sack over his shoulder and goes off to work, stealing things. Every morning Burglar Bill comes home from work and has stolen toast and marmalade and a cup of stolen coffee for breakfast. Then he goes upstairs and sleeps all day in a comfortable stolen bed. The evaluative repetition of the adjective stolen makes the point about his shocking behaviour in a humorous way. Later, as the narrative gets underway, Burglar Bill is himself burgled by Burglar Betty and they converse together in vivid working-class Cockney English. Who are you? says Burglar Bill. Im Burglar Betty, says the lady. Who are you? Burglar Bill puts on his own mask. Oh, says Burglar Betty, I know youits Burglar Bill! I seen your picture in the Police Gazette. Then she says, Look here, Im ever so sorrybreaking in like this. If Id have known Dont mention it, says Burglar Bill. He holds out his hand. Pleased to meet you. Likewise, Im sure, Burglar Betty says. As the story progresses they both repent of their ways and become decent law-abiding citizens; Bill declares in language which can only be described as conventional: I can see the error of my waysIve been a bad man. Marshall comments that humour in childrens books tends to start with the young childs experience of doing, or not being allowed to do, naughty things, and develops towards the adult subtle aspects of irony and satire (1982:67). Also, this use of non-standard English for the dialogue and the use of the present instead of the past tense for reporting their actions are a far cry from the formal

- 99 -

Chapter 3 reporting of traditional fairy tales, but they do introduce children to differences of discourse style in a humorous way. Trends in family stories tend to reflect actual trends in the lives of families. The early books on a family theme depicted close-knit family relationships between parents and children, and between siblings, e.g. E. Nesbits The Railway Children, but from 1960 onwards authors of childrens books gradually began to introduce the notion that not all families were close-knit, nor complete. Many of these ideas appeared in books for older, rather than younger, children and so none are listed in table 3.3. Alexander in Trouble by Susan Burke is a book for younger children on the theme of the family with a handicapped child; Alexander amazes himself and his family with what he can do in and out of his wheelchair. This genre of family story began to appear in the 1970s and early 1980s. Here we have touched on the issue of realism in childrens literature; Marshall (1982:76) identifies the following kinds, or areas, of realism: 1. factual realism, as in historical novels; 2. situational realism where the settings may be in identifiable locations and the characters can be identified with a particular age and social stratum, and where the whole treatment makes the situation believable; 3. emotional realism where the psychological, personal and emotional effect of the facts and the situation must ring true; 4. social realism or telling it like it is includes the portrayal of the beneficial consequences of community living as well as those which are distressing and disruptive; 5. illustrative realism or the way the artist portrays the essence of a scene, event or person, and so transmits and extends the feeling of reality obtained from the text. Marshall concludes by noting how, in the past, children were often shielded from the unpleasantnesses of life and sums up her main point as follows: But for the average child there is a progression towards a larger understanding of society and his place in it, and realistic treatment of themes in childrens books can both mirror and aid that progression. (Marshall 1982:79)

- 100 -

Chapter 3 We have digressed somewhat from a simple discussion of matters of style, and childrens appreciation of stylistic differences, and strayed into the wider field of story content and themes which has more to do with literary theory than pure linguistics. However, there is no clear boundary between the two, and much of what we have said here is merely an expansion of points made in sections 3.4 and 3.5. In section 3.7.1 we mentioned emblematic poems and a possible emblematic phase in the acquisition and development of narrative in which the knowledge of written or book format influences the oral production of story narratives. Ervin-Tripp and MitchellKernan (1977) link this directly with the popularity of emblem poems which visually emulate the theme. So if, for example, the poem is about a mouse with a long tail, the poem would be written out on the page to resemble the shape of a long tail. However, it is not only emblem poems which are enjoyed by young children. Very young children, and L2 learners, enjoy the rhymes, rhythms, alliteration, humour, and the sound of the words when they hear a nursery rhyme even though they are not yet able to understand the full meaning of the words. They also appreciate the illustrations. The Mother Goose Treasury is highly acclaimed for its illustrations (some strangely akin to emblem poems), particularly Jack and Jill and their enormous green hill, Tom, the pipers son and his page-length street, and the illustration for Moses supposes his toeses are roses based on the O-shape of the predominant O-sound. Humorous poetry tends to be popular throughout the age range; examples include the nonsense of Edward Lear, Lewis Carroll, Spike Milligan, and T. S. Eliot, with the Dr. Seuss books and A. A. Milnes poems being popular with younger listeners and readers. The subject content in poetry is as varied and interesting as that in prose, fiction and non-fiction; many poems tell a story and so are narratives. It is clear from the few examples we have given above that well-produced books for children, and the way they are shown, told or read by imaginative teachers, have a tremendous influence on the young childs sense of story and the development of appropriate discourse styles for both oral and written narratives. In the early days at school all books would probably be regarded as stories whether they were narrative discourses or not. Only later, through exposure to information books and the language used by teachers in the classroom, would the child learn that there are other types of discourse to be mastered, such as procedural, expository, or hortatory, each with its own particular characteristics. And, as we have mentioned above, within narrative discourse, there are important stylistic differences to be appreciated, ranging from the formal fairy-tale, with its

- 101 -

Chapter 3 third-person narrator-observer to the racy first-person narrative where the narrator identifies himself with one of the participants and speaks out in this capacity. For the young second-language learner there is even more learning to be done because he starts his school career with a disadvantage; the problem is stated as follows in the Language Development Guide-lines drawn up by the school for the guidance of Infant School Staff: Immigrant children do not pick up language automatically so a structure is necessary. We must remember that the immigrant child has language whether it be Bengali or Iranian but is required to communicate and think in English. He needs to learn a new vocabulary represented by unfamiliar symbols and apply it in a syntax not only different but often more sophisticated than his native tongue. Although after a year he may seem to follow the normal school curriculum, especially in oral work, his limitations often become apparent when he reads and writes. He often reads without a full understanding of vocabulary and syntax. His writing often betrays a lack of grasp of the subject and an unsteady control of grammar and style. His mistakes often bear a resemblance to those of a slow learning native speaker. He also resembles these children in his limited range of expression. However, on analysis, many of the mistakes are typically those of second language learners. We might react against the unwritten assumption evident here that English is superior to, or more sophisticated than, other mother tongues but we can certainly accept the rest as an accurate picture of the non-native speakers predicament in an English classroom. However, the school recognises the value of storytelling and books as a means of improving the L2 learners vocabulary, syntax and style. Sometimes they are told stories in small groups to enable them to take part in a more conversational approach to storytelling, with direct question and answer sessions to aid understanding. If these sessions are conducted by the Mother-tongue Language-support Teacher, both languages will be used; the stories may also be told in the two languages. The claims that the stories and books in the school and classroom mirror the multicultural background of the pupils, and that the school philosophy with regard to positive self identity holds good throughout the school are well-founded. In 1987 members of the school staff, including the Head teacher, were attending Urdu classes, and books in EnglishPanjabi, EnglishUrdu and EnglishHindi were provided where available. A good example of a book produced in all

- 102 -

Chapter 3 these language combinations is an Indian folktale from 200 B.C. called The Four Friends, retold by Elizabeth Sharma and published by Tiger Books (1985). In the school library there were also books in English which projected a positive attitude towards children from other cultures, e.g. Sikh Wedding by Beverley Birch, and Gifts and Almonds, an account of the Moslem festival of Eid, by Joan Solomon, both published by Hamish Hamilton in the 1980s. These books are attractively produced and illustrated by excellent colour photographs. 3.9 Summary In this chapter we have been considering many interrelated aspects of the art of storytelling. We started by looking at some of the influences of home/community storytelling traditions on childrens sense of story; we then looked briefly at experimental studies of narrative ability in children and contrasted them with studies describing childrens performances of storytelling. The influence of books, their layout, use of graphic forms, pictorial elements, and many other factors also contribute to the development of stories and these have been discussed in the chapter. We went from the general to the specific when we discussed, at some length, the sources and communicative uses of prefabricated language chunks, and ended by looking at some of the differences between oral and literate style in narrative. In the final subsections we looked at the cultural background of the Panjabi-speaking subjects in relation to the acquisition of narrative skills and storytelling in school and how they learn to tell stories in English. In the next chapter, we leave the background issues which have provided the framework for our study and describe in detail the aims of our own researchhow the project was set up, how the data were collected, and how they have been analysed and why. We also seek to explain the modifications to the Labov Model which have been made to enable us to more adequately characterize this data and make a few general comments on our findings. These include a discussion of how well evaluative syntax correlates with other indicators of language proficiency and the particular devices which seem to be preferred by young speakers. In chapter 5 this L2 data is then compared with similar data from some of the L1 interlocutors.

- 103 -

Chapter 4

CHAPTER 4: EVALUATION IN L2 NARRATIVE PRODUCTIONS 4.1 Narrative Skills and Evaluation Bamberg, in his opening remarks to the Preface of his (1987) monograph The Acquisition of Narratives, states that, broadly speaking, the ability to narrate a story is considered a skill some people can do it better than others, and in the previous chapter we headed our final subsection Storytelling in School and L2 Acquisition of English Storytelling Skills. Children using their mother tongue begin telling stories of personal experience as early as 20 months (Scollon 1976; Nelson and Gruendel 1981; Miller and Sperry 1988), and their storytelling skills develop in a variety of significant ways during their preschool and primary school years (Peterson and McCabe 1983; Kemper 1984). In recent years researchers have become increasingly aware of the link between narrative skills and literacy, some viewing narrative abilities as providing an important foundation for literacy skills, especially the comprehension of written texts (Olson and Torrance 1981; Snow 1983; Cameron, Hunt and Linton 1988). Some have claimed that narrative ability is also an excellent predictor of later academic performance in both language-impaired (Feagans and Applebaum 1986) and non-impaired children (Cameron et al. 1988). Hemphill, Picardi and Tager-Flusberg (1991) note that: Storytelling involves the complex interplay of a variety of domains of development including linguistic, cognitive, social and pragmatic abilities (1991:264). In this chapter, we are concerned to some extent with all these domains, as they overlap and interrelate at all levels, but our primary focus is the relationship between narrative discourse and the linguistic structures used to create it, i.e. the discourse manifestations of narrative, rather than the story content (see figure 2.5, p. 22). To quote Bamberg again: for adult narrators the two domains are intrinsically interwoven, i.e. neither can the use of linguistic contrasts be explained without explorations of the discourse functions they serve in narrative, nor can the constitution of the narratives be explained without a detailed analysis of the linguistic particulars. (Bamberg 1987:v)

- 104 -

Chapter 4 This would suggest, perhaps, the following over-simplistic equation: =

Narrative Skills

Syntax in Use

Syntax in use involves specific linguistic knowledge such as the manipulation of definite and indefinite reference and anaphora, the control of tense shifts and the mastery of the complex sentence structures that mark temporal and causal relations, and the use of evaluative syntax. Figure 4.1 displays this relationship between linguistic and pragmatic knowledge.

Domain Form Grammar

Type of Knowledge Linguistic

Function

Discourse

Pragmatic

Figure 4.1 Studies in the growth of productive narrative abilities used a number of methods to elicit diverse genres of narrative: 1. asking children to generate personal narratives without supportive props (Peterson and McCabe 1983; Roth and Spekman 1986); 2. describing events depicted in a wordless movie (Michaels and Collins 1984; Sleight and Prinz 1985); 3. telling a story from a wordless Picture Book (Stenning and Mitchell 1985; Bamberg 1987); 4. retelling a story told by a researcher (Merritt and Liles 1989). We have chosen to use the fourth method listed, partly because we wanted to use our own materials and it was easier to write six stories than to produce a wordless picture book, and partly because we felt that the story content would be fresh in the subjects minds and therefore they would be able to give more attention to the manner of the actual telling. Even picture book narration and describing the events of a wordless movie involve the - 105 -

Chapter 4 reading and interpretation of the pictures before the story can be verbalized, and so are not necessarily easier tasks in spite of their more immediate here and now quality. We are aware, however, that the retelling of Model Stories has its limitations, in that the children are not telling their own stories, and may not even like, or fully understand, the stories they are being asked to tell. If so, how can they possibly perform them effectively? By perform we mean a dramatized re-enactment as described by Wolfson (1982): When a speaker acts out a story, as if to give his audience the opportunity to experience the event and his evaluation of it, he may be said to be giving a performance (Wolfson 1982:24). Wolfsons performance features have much in common with Labovs evaluative devices. She lists direct speech, repetition, expressive sounds, sound effects, and motions and gestures among others. We would include all these in our intensifier category. Our contention is that the better storytellers do make the stories they tell uniquely their own and evaluate them accordingly. We have sought to address the issue directly by asking the better storytellers to pair up and tell stories of their own choice. The results were revealing: only Humira told a better story than she did in her previous efforts. This was a dramatic version of The Three Bears, which was well-constructed and gave all the details, complete with distinct voices for each bear. It was also considerably longer than most of her others. Shvinders Little Red Hen was patchy and rather selfconscious; it started well, then lost some key events in the middle, and the climax was told only as a brief summary. So the whole performance lost its final impact. Sakanders story of a Lion and a Mouse, based rather loosely on the traditional tale, lost its way as innovations were added and then ended inconclusively. Fariba made up her own story about Walter Kristel, the Snowman, and his visit to Fariba herself and all her friends. It was reasonably well done but no more memorable than any of her others. The fact that in three out of four cases there was very little difference between the telling of a Model Story and one chosen freely by the child confirmed our conviction that story retelling was a valid method of obtaining suitable data for the investigation of evaluation in childrens narratives. Wolfson listed a number of variable factors which seem to influence a tellers decision to perform or not perform a narrative; four of these are relevant to the present discussion. These are:

- 106 -

Chapter 4 1. similarity (or not) of sex, age, ethnicity, occupation, status, between teller and addressee; 2. whether the teller and audience are friends; 3. the tellers assessment of the audiences similarity of attitudes and background; 4. whether the speech situation itself is conducive (e.g. the interview situation is not conducive). The fourth variable is perhaps the most crucial, with the first and second also assuming different degrees of importance with different tellers. The third variable probably only applies in rather an indirect way, as the common school background would mitigate to some extent differences of attitude and background emanating from the home. However, evaluation involves more than mere performance; as we have seen, the performance features we have mentioned so far are confined to the intensifier category. Evaluation primarily undertakes the task of articulating the point of the story and persuading the audience of its tellability; much of this is achieved through the effective use of syntax. Therefore, we are claiming in this thesis that evaluation, and particularly evaluative syntax, is a reliable indicator of narrative skills which can be used to compare data across subjects and so enable us to chart some sort of developmental pattern based on the findings. The rest of the chapter is organized with this general aim in mind. We begin by discussing the methodological issues, including the analysis and transcription of the data, proceeding to an in-depth study of one example from the data, and from there to a general discussion of the findings. A detailed description and consideration of all the specific evaluative devices, both internal and external, found in the data will be undertaken in chapters 6 and 7. However, in this chapter, we do need to indicate clearly the rationale for the analysis, how it relates to the discussion of childrens acquisition of the art of storytelling in chapter 3 and to other measures of narrative ability, such as the non-evaluative use of subordination, the childs independently estimated ability in L2, and the length of the narrative. In chapter 5 we relate evaluation to plot structure and the general coherence of the narrative text, and to the production of errors. We also seek to answer the question: How do these L2 narratives compare with their L1 counterparts? We claim that there are significant differences in most, if not all, of the measures of narrative ability listed above.

- 107 -

Chapter 4 4.2 Methodology 4.2.1 The Subjects In the introductory chapter we gave a brief account of the subjects, and how they were chosen and graded, but mainly as a means of identifying the kind of data we were using to justify our theoretical position. Then, in the two preceding chapters, we picked out specific examples from the data to illustrate the points we were making, concluding chapter 3 with a brief description of the ethnographic background of our subjects and their orientation to school and the art of storytelling in English. Hopefully, this section will present them as real children, not simply as providers of usable data. Young children are fun to work with in that their responses are refreshingly spontaneous, and they often spring surprises on their observers. They also pose interesting problems of their own which are not present in narrative data provided by adults. The data were collected at Oxford Road Primary School, Reading over a three-month period, from late March to early July 1987, with gaps for the Easter and late Spring holidays. Prior to the tape-recording sessions, the school was visited regularly, two or three times a week, for at least nine months; I worked as a voluntary member of staff, helping in the Infant Departments regular language teaching programme, and also conducted a small pilot study to work out my recording techniques and test the materials we planned to use. By the time we were ready to make the final recordings, the children knew me very well and related to me as an extra teacher, rather than as an outsider. Table 1.1 on page 8 gave the details of the dyads involved in the production of the narratives, including the name, date of birth and ethnic background of each child and also the date that a particular session took place. The original intention was to investigate the ways in which non-native speakers of English adapt to interlocutors of different backgrounds and abilities, and the subjects were chosen with this aim in mind. The monolingual interlocutors are all (L1) native speakers of English. Nina has a German mother (but I did not discover this until after the session); however, English is her first language. Kenneth comes from Scotland and speaks with a pronounced Scottish accent, but neither Sakander nor Aqeel seem to have any difficulty in understanding him. Julia has a mixed background but, again, English is her mother tongue.

- 108 -

Chapter 4 Both the eight L2 Speakers who provide the data and the L2 Own Group bilingual interlocutors have Panjabi as their first language, with the exception of Nasir whose mother taught him English at the same time as he was acquiring Panjabi (and Urdu). The L2 bilinguals of the Other group are such a mixed multitude that the classification is not really valid. (Several of the children we had intended to use spent the Summer months in Bangladesh and other countries, visiting grandparents, and so, when it came to the recording sessions, we had a few problems filling all the various slots.) In making the distinction between Own Group and Other, we wanted to take into account differences of home country, language and religion, but in the case of Sukhbir, the difference is only one of religion (see the discussion in chapter 3, pp. 9092). Even when there is also a difference of country, e.g. Shvinder (Ind) and Mahjabeen (Pak), the partners understand each other perfectly well and so no special adaptation is necessary in order to communicate. The speakers came from all four, vertically grouped, infant classes and were chosen with the assistance of the class teachers. We wanted a spread of abilities and, as indicated in the introductory chapter, it was the class teachers who graded their language ability (in English) as very good, good, fair or poor. There were no absolute standards applied in the selection and the label was only intended as a very rough guide. Interlocutors were usually chosen from among the speakers own immediate peer group so that the dyads would interact well together. In the cases where children from different classes had to be paired together, e.g. Sheiba and Victor, and Humira and David, there were no real problems, as children from different classes were often grouped together for particular activities in the course of a school day. The interlocutors were graded as either good or fair, and this grading reflected present attainment rather than language potential (e.g. Dharminder was labelled as fair because he was only five-and-a-half and could not yet express himself freely in oral and written English; ultimately, he would be far more successful than either Tasleem or Refat whose names appear in the same column). The ages of the speakers over the recording period were: Fariba: 7 years 6 months - 7 years 9 months;

- 109 -

Chapter 4 Sakander: 7 years 2 months Fehdah: 7 years 1 month - 7 years 5 months; - 7 years 3 months;

Shvinder: 6 years 11 months - 7 years 1 month; Humira: Sheiba: Aqeel: Shazia: 6 years 8 months 6 years 5 months 5 years 9 months 5 years 7 months - 6 years 11 months; - 6 years 8 months; - 6 years 0 months; - 5 years 10 months.

Although we can use this information to make age-related inferences, it should be pointed out that there is no significant correlation between the age of the subjects and their language ability in English. This is not surprising in view of the small, perhaps unrepresentative, sample chosen. We would expect some degree of agreement between age and ability in an L2 if we had sampled the whole infant school population. But here the fact that Fehdah is ranked third in age and eighth in ability, and Shvinder fourth in age and first in ability, is sufficient to skew the results, even though, with these two excluded, the rest are ranked in the same order for both age and ability. After experimenting with two separate, clip-on microphones, we found that the children behaved more naturally when we used one single, desk-top microphone in the middle of the table; this picked up the voices of both partners reasonably well. The only real drawback to this arrangement was the amount of background noise which was also picked up by the microphone, and this interfered with the instrumental analysis of some of the data. 4.2.2 Materials and Procedure It was decided to collect three different kinds of performance data: instruction-giving, narratives and simple dialogues. This decision dictated the choice of activities and materials to be used in the recording sessions and the way the individual sessions were organized. Only the narrative data are described in this study, although it is hoped that the rest will be used at a later date. Accordingly, three separate, but interrelated, activities were planned for each recording session: a drawing activity, a story retelling activity, and free conversation using puppet characters. As indicated above, we decided to produce our own materials for each activity. The inspiration came from seeing six designs for simple knitted dolls in a craft shop. These

- 110 -

Chapter 4 dolls are designed with their arms by their sides; consequently, there is a limit to the amount of physical activity they can be made to engage in by their eager manipulators, and so, for our purposes, they were ideal. They were only required to speak! A friend provided odd balls of wool and the dolls were knitted, and then the six stories needed for the retelling activity were woven around the six characters they represented: Father Christmas, a Snowman, a Chinaman, an Eskimo, a Footballer and a Cowboy. Each story has just two or three participants and is about 700 words long. For the drawing activity, two different, brightly coloured representations of the six characterstwelve pictures in allwere drawn on stiff card and covered with a protective film of plastic. The characters seemed to appeal to the children, and they enjoyed handling both the dolls and the picture cards. The stories generally went down well too. (See appendices 1 and 2.) The sessions normally lasted about 45 minutes and took place in a small room off one of the main school staircases. The children felt comfortable working in there. The only real drawback was the lack of soundproofing. Extraneous sounds we had to contend with included traffic noise from a busy main road, the clatter of childrens feet on the stairs, strains of music from the school Steel Band and the occasional singing lesson wafting up the stairs from the hall below. Each session followed more or less the same pattern, even though there were some unavoidable interruptions. The drawing activity always came first; for this, the speaker held a picture card of one of the characters and was asked to tell the interlocutor how to draw him. Some children used a descriptive style (e.g. hes got brown hair...), but most speakers gave the expected instructions to their interlocutors (e.g. draw some brown hair...). The picture itself was only revealed to the interlocutor once the drawing had been completed. This was perhaps the easiest of the three tasks. It was certainly the most time consuming, and also the most popular. It provided a useful warm-up to the main activity, the retelling of the story. The storytelling activity was the most difficult and hence the least popular. The story was read to both children together, in as interesting and informal a way as possible, and some discussion was allowed, but the aim was to avoid any distractions which could cause the children to miss the point or some of the details of the story they were listening to. Both children were given the opportunity to tell the story, but, wherever possible, the speaker was encouraged to go first. The more popular puppet activity was always kept until last, as a final treat. Some interesting conversational exchanges were obtained, and also a mixture of conversational and narrative discourse was used.

- 111 -

Chapter 4 Before going on to discuss the analysis of the narrative data, we will reproduce the Model version of Story A to give some indication of the type of stories which were used. Model Story A: Mr. Wong and the Sack of Rice Mr. Wong was a Chinaman and he had a smart little Take-away in the middle of the High Street where he sold fried rice, sweet-and-sour pork, beansprouts and oodles of noodles. People liked coming into his shop to buy take-away meals. But one day something dreadful happened. Mr. Wong ran out of rice! This wouldnt have been quite so bad if it hadnt been the week before Christmas. Poor Mr. Wong was very worriedvery worried indeed! He tried ringing the wholesaler; the first time he dialled the wrong number and got the garage instead, and then the number was engaged. When, at last, he did get through, the wholesaler said he could not deliver the rice because the weather was too bad. What will my customers do? he wailed down the telephone. Thats your problem, answered the wholesaler. You should have ordered it before. That night Mr. Wong could not sleep. He kept seeing the disappointed faces of all his customersno fried rice, no savoury rice, no Take-away Specials for Christmas! What could he do? There must be something he could do! But no ideas came. The next morning he got up very early and looked out of the window. To his surprise and delight, he saw what looked like a big sack of rice right outside his front door. So the wholesaler had delivered the rice after all! But why had he done it at night? And the weather was still bad; there was thick snow everywhere. Mr. Wong went down to investigate. Funny! The sack seemed to be split and some of it was missing altogether; all that was left was some odd bits of black, red and yellow sacking. Yet the rice looked O.K. So he fetched a big bowl and a very large spoon and was just about to scoop up a spoonful when the rice spoke to him. I beg your pardon! exclaimed Mr. Wong, dropping his bowl and his spoon in amazement. He must be dreamingrice cant speak!

- 112 -

Chapter 4 Youve got it wrong, Mr. Wong. What do you mean? I need rice and Im scooping it up to put in my bowl, announced Mr. Wong crossly. But Im not riceIm snowa snowman, in fact. You mean thisyouare not my rice after all? Who are you then? asked the bewildered Mr. Wong. My name is Mr. Walter Kristel. I have come from the Frozen Northfrom the land of polar bears, seals and Father Christmas, the Snowman announced grandly. Whos Father Christmas? queried Mr. Wong. Hes the one who makes children happy at Christmas. Children write letters to him and ask him for their favourite toys: if theyve been good, he gives them what they want. Oh! said Mr. Wong thoughtfully. Does he give grown-ups what they want too? I dont know. But you could always try, encouraged the Snowman. So Mr. Wong wrote a note to Father Christmas. Dear Father Christmas, Could you deliver a sack of rice for Christmas Day? This would make my customers very happy. Thank you very much. Mr. Wong. Then he looked at it in dismay. How would Father Christmas get it in time? He didnt even know his address. Mr. Walter Kristel looked at him kindly, as if reading his thoughts. Look, Ill deliver it for you. Im going that way. Its too warm hereIm beginning to melt already. I must get back to the Frozen North as quickly as I can.

- 113 -

Chapter 4 So Mr. Wong found an envelope and tucked the letter into it. He gave it to the Snowman. Then Mr. Walter Kristel slowly stood up and lumbered off down the High Street. Mr. Wong never saw him again. But, on Christmas Eve, a large sack of rice came tumbling down his chimney and put out the fire. But Mr. Wong didnt complain. His customers could have their Take-away Specials after all! And they did. They enjoyed them very much indeed. 4.2.3 Analysis of the Narrative Data All the stories were tape recorded and those that were needed for the data, i.e. the fortyfive stories produced by the eight L2 speakers, plus nine stories produced by L1 interlocutors, were transcribed roughly into meaningful chunks. These were then divided into clauses, in order to obtain a measure of story length. Labov himself used a different system. He took as his basic unit the independent narrative (temporally ordered) clause or the free clause (containing setting-type information) plus any appended subordinate clauses, giving a letter only to independent clauses. We have followed Bamberg (1987) and Bamberg and Damraid-Frye (1991) in numbering and counting all clausesnarrative, free, and subordinateincluding those in which there is ellipsis (see section 5.4.3, pp. 196202). The narrative texts were then divided into Narrative and Orientation Sections, based on the distribution of narrative and free clauses. Initially, a separate Evaluation Section was included as part of the main framework of the narrative; there were problems with the analysis in consequence, mainly because both orientation and narrative passages could be evaluated. Orientation sections also posed problems. Labov identifies Orientation on strictly structural grounds, but does not elaborate on it fully. Typically, according to Labov (1972a), it is quite common to find a great many past progressive clauses in the orientation section and to find that the orientation section is not only placed at the beginning, but also at key points in the story. Because of this variable placement, it is often difficult, when analysing a story, to decide whether to label a section which interrupts the basic narrative structure as Orientation or some sort of evaluation which suspends the action of the narrative at a crucial point. For this reason, we decided to simplify Labovs model and take evaluation out of the main framework of the narrative and to label a section Orientation on functional, rather than purely syntactic, grounds because young

- 114 -

Chapter 4 children are still acquiring the syntax of past progressives and do not use them consistently. For example, Shvinders Story A: 1/2 One day Mr. Wong went into a house and he was is analysed as Orientation and not as part of the narrative section, even though she did not say: One day Mr. Wong was going into a house and the sentence tailed off without describing his condition. The initial clause functions as a story opener, signalled by the One day with its characteristic rise-fall intonation pattern. It is a preliminary event which sets the scene for the main events which follow. Labovs famous diamond picture of the progression of an oral narrative (1972a:369) looks something like this:

Evaluation

Complicating Action

Resolution

Orientation Abstract

Coda

Figure 4.2 He sees narrative as a series of answers to underlying questions. 1. Abstract: What is the story about? 2. Orientation: Who, when, where, what? 3. Complicating Action: Then what happened? 4. Evaluation: So what, how is this interesting? 5. Result or resolution: What finally happened? 6. Coda: The story is finished and the teller is bridging back to the present situation. - 115 -

Chapter 4 In figure 4.2 Evaluation is associated with the high-point between the Complicating Action and the Resolution, but the spreading waves indicate that it can permeate throughout the telling (Toolan 1988:153). However, this does not help us much with the detailed analysis and the actual display of each narrative. Therefore, in our version, evaluative material is seen to be outside the main framework but distributed at key points throughout the narrative as a whole, including the Orientation and the Coda. The Orientation may also be distributed within the Narrative Section. The proposed simplification will look something like figure 4.3, consisting of the main narrative framework and an evaluative commentary. Notice that the six elements of Labovs fully-formed narratives have been reduced to four (see chapter 2, p. 29). Not only is there no Evaluation Section, there is also no clear break between the Complicating Action and the Resolution. (Not all the narratives in the corpus actually have a resolution; some are what Peterson and McCabe call leap-frog narratives where the child jumps from event to event unsystematically, leaving out important events (1983:48), others are chronological in that there is a temporal sequence of events, but the material lacks any real point or coherency.)

TITLE (ABSTRACT) ORIENTATION NARRATIVE EVENTS (Complicating Action + Resolution) CODA EVALUATION

Figure 4.3 Reported speech is seen as the embedded complement of the speech verb. In cases where there are no speech margins, we assume a deleted verb to say (i.e. he said). All conversation is placed in the body of the displayed text, but set in a smaller typeface to distinguish it clearly from the narrative sections (e.g. he said, I didnt know rice could speak!). Similarly, all other subordinate clauses are included in the body of the text and indicated by the smaller typeface.

- 116 -

Chapter 4 4.2.4 Transcription and Editing of the Data 1. The narratives are divided into clauses and numbered consecutively. Subordinate clauses are numbered in the same way as independent clauses for easy reference. 2. Within a clause, indicates a hesitation, extra long pause and break in the flow of utterance. 3. ... indicates a tailing off and a long pause. 4. - - - between clauses indicates an extra long pause and discontinuity, with possible prompting from interlocutor or researcher. 5. False starts and nonevaluative repetitions have been edited out; interference from interlocutor or outside agencies, and responses to off-stage noises or events have similarly been ignored. 6. Inaudible or unclear segments have been left out and these omissions are not recorded in the transcription because they do not contribute anything to the analysis. Unclear lexical items have been marked (?) where we are not more than 50 percent sure of the narrators intention. 7. The use of CAPITAL LETTERS indicates an accented syllable; this may be realized by one or more of the following phonological features: slowing down, intensity (either greater or less [whispering for effect]), intonational contrast (rising or falling). Lengthened vowels are written in, e.g. RI-ICE, and strongly accented syllables, marked by a considerable increase in intensity, are both capitalized and italicized. 8. Each narrative is divided into the sectionsTitle, Orientation, Narrative and Codawhich are clearly labelled. 9. The structure of each clause is labelled, using Labovs eight elements: Conjunctions, Subjects, Auxiliaries, Verbs, Complements, Manner or Instrumental Adverbials, Locative Adverbials, and Temporal or Inferential Adverbials. 10. Subordinate clauses, including Direct and Indirect Speech, are indicated by the use of a smaller typeface, to distinguish them from independent clauses. 11. Evaluative devices are recorded at the right-hand side of the page and coded as indicated in table 4.1. Devices described by Labov are marked with an asterisk * and the additional devices we are arguing for, on the basis of the data collected, are placed under the appropriate headings.

- 117 -

Chapter 4 Table 4.1. List of evaluative devices and their codes Intensifiers Phonology* Direct Speech Direct Address Direct Quotation Exclamations* Interjections Lexical Items* Quantifiers* Phrasal Quantifiers Emphasizers Lexical Intensifiers* Foregrounding* Repetitions* First Language Single Appositives Derogatory Comments Correlatives Be...-ing* Double...-ing* Double Appositives* Double Attributives* Multiple Attributives Participle : Right* Participle : Left* Compound Noun Phrase Compound Adj. Phrase Compound Loc. Phrase Optional Prep. Phrase (INT) (Phon) (D.Sp) (D.Ad) (D.Quo) (Exc) (Int) (Lex) (Qua) (P. Qua) (Emp) (L.Int) (For) (Rep) (L1) (S.Ap) (Der) (COR) (B-ing) (D-ing) (D.Ap) (D.At) (M.At) (P. Rt) (P. Lt) (C.NP) (C.AP) (C.LP) (O.PP) Explicatives Simple: Qual.* Simple: Caus.* Complex: Qual.* Complex: Caus.* Compound: Qual.* Compound: Caus.* (EXP) (S.Qual) (S.Caus) (Cx.Qual) (Cx.Caus) (Cp. Qual) (Cp. Caus) Imperatives* Hortatives Questions* Negatives* Futures* Modals* Quasimodals* OR-clauses* Comparatives* Superlatives* (Imp) (Hor) (Que) (Neg) (Fut) (Mod) (Q.Mod) (Or.Cl) (Com) (Sup) Comparators (COM)

Conversational Historic Present (CHP)

Clarification: (1) addition/substitution of Lexical Items (Cl.Lex) Clarification: (2) addition/substitution of Clause/Sentence (Cl.Sen)

- 118 -

Chapter 4 4.2.5 Additions and Modifications to Labovs Evaluative Categories First of all, we need to state why all these additional devices are necessary. Labov did not sit down and work out, in theory, a definitive list of all the evaluative devices which would be required to cover dimensions of evaluation in any narrative; he merely categorized the devices which he found in the narratives he collected. As we noted in chapter 2, page 42, Labovs narratives are first person accounts of very dramatic circumstances, namely, lifethreatening adventures, where the teller is under social pressure to show that the events involved were truly dangerous and unusual, or that someone else really broke the normal rules in an outrageous and reportable way (1972a:371). The narratives we have collected are stories of vicarious experience, elicited retellings of imaginative stories which may or may not have a significant personal impact on the teller. Clearly, they must be regarded as tellable by some, if not all, of our subjects or we would have nothing to write about. So, we find many of the same devices Labov encountered, but some that he did not. Conversation plays a much larger part in our stories than in Labovs. We find compound phrases with two or more lexical items coordinated by and and full noun phrases where there are strings of adjectives modifying the head noun. All these are used to heighten the listeners interest in what is being recounted by focusing on particular lexical items which are crucial to the progress, or outcome, of the story. Most additions come in the Intensifier category. As with the Intensifiers described by Labov, these do not significantly complicate the syntax of the narrative clause, but they do add colour to the narrative and highlight the key events. Together with Direct Speech (which we mention briefly in chapter 2, pp. 3738), we have included Direct Quotation but as a separate device because the two co-occur in Shvinders Story A. Both Direct Speech and Direct Quotation dramatize the events being portrayed and are thus more immediate than mere reporting. Shvinder uses Direct Speech within her quotation of a letter to Father Christmas in her Story A, numbers 6369: Dear Father Christmas, I wish you would give me some rice because my customers went to the shop yesterday and I said, There isnt any rice. And they were very sad. Thank you, he wrote. The direct quotation brings the hearer right into the story and Mr. Wongs sense of urgency, and the direct speech sums up the situation in an evaluative comment, reiterating numbers 8 and 12.

- 119 -

Chapter 4 Direct Address and Interjections have been added to the list for exactly the same reasons as we gave for Direct Quotation. Examples of these, also from Shvinders Story A, are Darling dear (number 8), Well! (number 14), and Still (number 39). Interjections include affirmation and denial, the formulaic adjunct please, and any other peripheral and intrusive material which interrupts the flow of the direct speech and brings it to life. For example, the endearment in Shvinders number 8: Darling dear, there isnt any rice in the cupboard. is expressed using the sort of intonation any indulgent husband might use to his loving, but incompetent wife. Labov has one single category labelled Lexical Items which we have subdivided into Lexical Intensifiers (e.g. very) and other lexical items, such as direct evaluation (e.g. messy), and more striking items, which are evidences of inspiration and flair, rather than a matter of conscious and deliberate choice. Lexical Intensifiers are a closed class and a speaker has only a limited set of possibilities to choose from; they do intensify or strengthen key events, but nothing more. With other lexical items, such as the selection of a suitable verb or adverb, the choice is wide open, and there are different degrees of effectiveness. Shvinders use of suddenly in her Story A, number 24, and Sakanders use of chuck in his Story A, numbers 23 and 25, are particularly effective because they are unexpected. Shvinder: 22/23 So when he went to get the bowl and the spoon 24 Sakander: 23 25 So Father Christmas chuck some rice Father Christmas chuck some rice down the chimley. suddenly, the rice started to talk

How is it that a bag of rice is able to speak? And would Father Christmas really carelessly toss a bag of rice down someones chimney? These are certainly arresting questions for young listeners.

- 120 -

Chapter 4 We have used the term Emphasizer for adverbs such as just and indeed, which also have a general heightening effect on the event being described, e.g. the boy was just going to kick it, from Shvinders Story B, and very happy indeed, from her Story A: 39 40 81 Because in the end the boy was just going to kick it and the worsest team of ever wonned. So the customers were very happy indeed.

Just reflects the immediacy of that very moment and indeed intensifies the extent of the customers happiness. Quantifiers are favourite devices with Labovs subjects and with ours. Labov states that some operations with quantifiers are fairly mechanical and that, in fight narratives, the actual number of assailants a speaker boasts of often decides whether the quantifier is significant or not (1972a:379). For us, actual numbers or amounts are significant, in contrast to the indefinite some, as they add to the sense of reality being presented. Alongside single quantifiers like eleven and all, we have examples of Phrasal Quantifiers such as lots and lots of from Faribas Story A: 33/34 When he opened it there was lots and lots of rice.

Compound phrases where the quantifier is repeated are particularly expressive. Single Appositives, such as NP + Pronoun combinations (e.g. the snowman, he helped him, Aqeels Story A, number 7), are included in the list of additional Intensifiers as they add to the identification of the character with the particular act or event in which he is involved (i.e. it was the snowman who helped him and no one else). We could also argue that this is an explication of a clarificatory nature. However, not all such combinations are evaluative. Some merely reflect a hesitation, rather than the deliberate choice of an appositive pronoun, so each occurrence needs to be assessed individually. Departures into Panjabi are also judged to be evaluative. They are used by Aqeel to add a whole new dimension to his Story B(1), an exciting and original version of the progress of the football match, and by Fehdah to make derogatory comments about one of the football teams. The actual Panjabi utterances themselves cannot really be analysed with the English ones. The content has been noted and judged to be evaluative, but only in so far as

- 121 -

Chapter 4 it comments on the English narrative or presents an elaboration or alternative version of the English text. Under Comparators, we have separated Hortatives from second-person Imperatives and Superlatives from Comparatives, though strictly speaking this is not necessary. We have examples of both kinds of imperative in conversational passages, e.g. the following from Faribas Story F, and Aqeels Story B(2). Fariba: 21 22 Aqeel: 9 10 11 12 13 The Father Christmas said, What (shall I) do with these balls? (Let us) go to football. When they went to football it was on. Then he said, (You) go to sleep in a warm bed.

A little interpretation from the context is necessary before we can show that Aqeels number 11 is a Hortative, because his command of English is not quite adequate for the narrative task he has been set. In section 4.1, page 106, we briefly mentioned some of Wolfsons (1982) performance features, devices deliberately employed by oral narrators in acting out a story to make it more memorable for their hearers; but we did not include the most interesting and controversial of these features, the use of the conversational historic present (CHP) and the switching between narrative past tense and present tense as a means of highlighting certain portions of a narrative and dividing up the flow of action. Schiffrin (1981) argues that CHP occurs at the complication of a narrative (see diagrams on pp. 115116). The following from Sakanders Story B bears this out. 17 18 19 But suddenly when they kicked balls they keep on losing them. And if they tackle

- 122 -

Chapter 4 20 21 22 they keep on losing them. If they score goals they lose the ball.

This is the point in the story where Father Christmas intervenes and surprising things begin to happen. Sakander takes the term lose the ball literally, and the failure to switch to CHP at 17, rather than 18, constitutes an error, but its use here is evaluative. Schiffrin describes it as an internal evaluation device which allows the narrator to present events as if they were occurring at that moment, so that the audience can hear for itself what happened, and can interpret for itself the significance of those events for the experience (1981:58). Correlatives involve the use of complex syntax as they bring together two events, an event and a description, or two descriptions into one independent clause. Labovs list needs to be expanded to include Multiple Attributives, such as Shvinders this strange, green, shiny box (Story B, number 2), Compound Phrases, such as her double reference to Mr. Wongs bowl and spoon: So he went to get the bowl and the spoon/he dropped his bowl and his spoon (Story A, numbers 22, 23 and 29), and Optional Prepositional Phrases (i.e. other than Manner or Instrumental), such as Its a roll with ice cream on, where the PP modifies the noun roll (her Story F, number 32). All these examples are syntactically complex and are particularly effective, accompanied as they are by expressive phonology. Their function is to pack more information into each clause; concisely specifying each object in this way makes the event or description more vivid. Finally, under Explicatives we have added clarificatory material where there are substitutions of single lexical items, such as Shazias So he rang the men sailors (Story A, number 7); here the clarification is more specific than the original item. Also included are repetitions of the whole clause or sentence which contains the substituted lexical items, such as Sakanders Can I deliver some rice? Can you deliver the rice to Mr. Wong? (Story A, numbers 20 and 21). Here he deems it necessary to rectify his mistake in using the pronoun I, when he means you, because getting the right pronoun is crucial to the whole point and outcome of the story and the hearers understanding of it. There is much in the literature about the psycholinguistics of self-repairs of this nature (e.g. Faerch and Kasper 1983:215217). But we are concerned here with the placement and timing of the repair, rather than the mechanism itself. When it is simply a matter of changing a lexical

- 123 -

Chapter 4 item, the new item is placed as a single appositive unit immediately after the original, in the same clause. Similarly, when the whole clause is repeated, it occurs as an independent clause immediately after the original clause. Now most of Labovs explications involve some kind of embedding, i.e. they are either complex or compound attachments to the main clause, and what we are proposing here is somewhat different. However, Labov does say that some of the evaluation and explication of a narrative is necessarily done in separate clauses, appended to the main narrative clause or to an explicit evaluative clause (1972a:390), and thus he does allow for the exceptions proposed above. Nevertheless, it can be argued that our explications are often simply self-repair mechanisms, so can they really be evaluative? Labovs are explications of events or complications inherent in the narrative situation itself. He differentiates between evaluative explications that explain someones emotional reaction to a dangerous situation and purely referential explications of events which would be unfamiliar to the listener. Our examples above seem to be more akin to this referential function; but if we broaden our view of evaluation to include any mechanism which keeps the listener clear on the details of the story, so that the main point or points of the story will remain transparent to him/her, then we can say that these repairs are evaluative. We have also modified Labovs model somewhat in our treatment of external evaluation. We saw, in chapter 2, page 36, that Labov identifies four distinct types which he labels external evaluation, embedded evaluation, evaluative action and evaluation by suspension of the action. He does not seem to make a clear distinction between external evaluation and evaluation by suspension of the action; in fact, there is an overlap here in that all kinds of external evaluation suspend the action to some extent. Toolan (1988), in interpreting Labov, distinguishes five types of external evaluation: 1. wholly external evaluations where the narrator addresses the listener directly; 2. evaluations embedded as a comment reported as made by the teller-as-participant at the time of the events themselves, or 3. as a comment made by the teller-as-participant to another participant, or 4. as an evaluation coming from another participant; 5. evaluative action. (1988:156157)

- 124 -

Chapter 4 We have followed Tannen (1982b) (see p. 39) in making the distinction between internal and external evaluation primary and labelling any kind of evaluation which is outside the story frame as external evaluation. Under this general heading we have grouped evaluative action and suspension of the action, using the labels more or less in the same way as Labov. Then instead of embedded evaluation, we have introduced the category embedded orientation for cases where a speaker gives setting-type information within a conversational passage. This information is of two main kinds: 1. facts about the world which would be known to both speaker and hearer, e.g. in answer to the question, Whos Father Christmas? Shvinder has the Snowman say, He makes children laugh. He makes them happy because he gives them presents. (Story A 5052); 2. facts about the setting of the particular story being told, e.g. Humira has Mr. Wong say, I am fed up because for [of] cooking and cooking, for [with] giving everybody food. Everybody came to have food, but I cant make Pakistani ones. I cant make English ones because they dont like it. But they like sausages and things like that. (Story F 413). Other examples of direct speech have been treated as subordination and analysed as internal evaluation (see p. 117); they dramatize the actions but are still within the story frame. We have already sought to justify our use of Labovs model in chapter 2, pages 4245, and our purpose ultimately is to see how well it characterizes what we consider to be good or bad about the narrative texts in the corpus. Clearly, there are other criteria we could have chosen; we mentioned two, soundness of structure and aesthetic worth, in chapter 3, page 88. But having chosen to talk about evaluation, our primary concern is to decide whether Labovs notion of evaluation is subtle enough to capture the instinctive reaction of the hearer to the impact of the story and his/her thinking, My, that was a good story!, or That was a rotten story; it bored me to tears! A secondary concern is to see whether the addition of extra devices and minor amendments to the Model improve its adequacy to do this or whether, in the end, we are forced to conclude that it is not adequate. If so, we come to a much more fundamental question: Is any linguistic model delicate enough (the term comes from Systemic Grammar) to capture such elusive and inspirational qualities as flair and creativity?

- 125 -

Chapter 4 4.3 An Example from the Data Below is Humiras version of Story A, transcribed according to the conventions outlined above. It was chosen because it is of about average length and is typical of the majority of the texts collected. We have also included the Model version of the story as it was read to Humira and Julia immediately before the retelling. We can then see how much of the original has been incorporated into Humiras story and how much is her own invention. Humira and Julia: Humiras Story A
ORIENTATION Temp 1 2 NARRATIVE Conj 3 4 5 6
you

EVALUATION Subj MR. THOMas Verb went OUT

TO GET some RICE.

Comp

One DAY

EXP/S.Caus EVALUATION

Subj THE RICE

I

Verb SAID,
AM

Comp

Infer EMBEDDED ORIENTATION

AND

A SNO-OW

INT/Phon INT/D.Sp INT/D.Sp COM/Neg INT/Phon INT/D.Sp COM/Que

NOT

A RICE.

A-ARE

WHAT then?

7 MR. THOMAS. 8 9
I

SAID
AM A RICE. A RICE?

INT/D.Sp INT/D.Sp COM/Que INT/D.Sp

SAID Mr. THOMas. 10 11

I you THOUGHT was A - um - RICE.

INT/D.Sp

- 126 -

Chapter 4

ORIENTATION Conj 12 NARRATIVE Conj 13 14 15 and

I CAN

Subj it

Verb WAS

Subj a SNOWMAN. EVALUATION

AND

Subj

Aux

Verb got SAID,

come

Comp

Loc OUT of the TIN

The SNOWMAN

in?

INT/Phon INT/D.Sp COM/Que COM/Mod INT/D.Sp INT/Int

16 17 18 SO

He he

said, went TOLD

YES.

INside the HOUSE him ALL about the NORTH POLE

A LETter TO ME.

and um -

INT/Qua

19 20 21 22 23 ORIENTATION Conj 24 CODA Conj 25 And Subj this AND Subj AND and AND MR. THOMas the SNOWman

TO SEND

WROTE GAVE GAVE

to READ

a LETter to MR. THOMas it to HIM. a LETter to the SNOWman

it at HOME.

EXP/S.Caus

Verb was

Comp MELT. EVALUATION

the SNOWman

Verb is

Comp the END. INT/Phon

- 127 -

Chapter 4 When we compare the two versions, the most obvious difference between them is the overall length. Humira has cut out the introductory paragraphs altogether and picks up the story where Mr. Wong finds the sack of rice on his doorsteponly she changes his name to Mr. Thomas and does not indicate that there is anything remarkable about the find. Clearly, she has either not understood Mr. Wongs mistake in thinking that the Snowman was a sack of rice (a failure in comprehension), or she has become confused in the telling (a failure in performance). Our judgment is that it is the latter. In spite of the contradictions of 4/5 and 8 and the unexpectedness of the reference to rice in both 9 and 10, she unambiguously refers to him as a snowman in 12 and 13, and in 10 she has Mr. Thomas say, I thought you was a um - rice, thus articulating the main point of the story. Number 8 is the problem clause. Could it be the case that having made the slip she could not find her way out of it? Number 9 is the appropriate response to 8, but 10 is not an appropriate follow-on from 9, where a contrast is expected. These form-meaning relationships are not easy to handle, even for young native speakers. A second confusion is the reference to the two letters which the participants wrote to each othernot to Father Christmas. In every one of her stories, Humira changes the details significantly so that she is, in fact, telling a different story. When questioned on this point, her reply was, I thought we could change it! which does not really explain whether she was being inventive because she chose to be or whether she did not listen carefully enough in the first place and so was forced into it. From the transcription, the placement of accented, or prominent, syllables looks a little bizarre at times. There are several reasons for this. First, the marking is subjective (although some of the utterances have been subjected to instrumental analysis: see chapter 6, section 6.3). Second, Humiras delivery is very staccato, and the acoustic records show these gaps, or brief periods of silence, between some of the words quite clearly. Third, and more importantly, she has not yet acquired native-speaker intonation and stress patterns. She frequently gives prominence to articles such as a, and in a word like snowman she stresses the two syllables equally where a native speaker would accent the first syllable only. Cruttenden (1986) comments that Indian English speakers generally make very much less use of reduced syllables (p. 143), and this would certainly be true of Humiras English. However, Humira does seem to use lengthened vowels correctly. In 4, I am a sno-ow not a rice, snow is the focused element and contains new information. It is also of particular importance to the story as a whole, and we argue that the lengthening is an evaluative

- 128 -

Chapter 4 device to draw the hearers attention to this fact. Similarly, in the question posed in 6, What a-are you then?, a native speaker would also place the nuclear accent on are and lengthen the vowel. The use of direct speech and questions are evaluative devices which, we claim, dramatize the story events (i.e. the saying). If we imagine numbers 3 to 11 expressed in indirect speech, they would have far less impact. As we indicated in chapter 2 (pp. 4042), evaluative devices have been coded in the transcriptions somewhat mechanically. Humira, it would seem, has produced twenty-three such examples of evaluation. However, we might ask why the quantifier some has not been coded as an evaluative device. The answer is that in 2 she uses the unstressed some (cf. /sm/ versus /sm/) only as a means of indefinite reference. This can be contrasted with Shvinders use of any in: 4 Is THERE ANy um RI-ICE left?

where we get direct speech and a question rather than just a statement of facts. In Shvinders version, the presence of these devices indicates the significance of the rice to the story as a whole, and the nuclear stress on any, as well as rice, backs this up. Humira does not tell us why her Mr. Thomas went out to get the rice, nor why the rice said, I AM A SNO-OW. In Grices terms, she has violated his Maxim of Quantity: Make your contribution as informative as is required, and the plot is defective at this point, as we have seen above, and so in no way would the quantifier in 2 be evaluative. However, there is a problem with 311 because, in spite of the confusions and omissions already mentioned, the negative in 5 and the questions in 6 and 9 are used evaluatively. This relates back directly to what we were saying in chapter 2, pages 4651, about the interrelationship of plot construction and evaluation. Humiras Story A would fit into Box (c) in table 2.3; like Shazias Story B, it is incoherent and yet it contains features, such as negativeswhich would be evaluative in a well-constructed narrative. In chapter 3, we explained how this comes about by citing the work of Pawley and Syder on memorized sentences and lexicalized sentence stems: I am a -, not a - is a good example of a lexicalized sentence stem, and What are you then? of a memorized sentence (in fact, it comes straight out of the original). Can I come in?, in 15, is another example of a memorized sentence; it is remarkably fluent, there are no misplaced pauses, and she uses nativelike intonation (see section 3.6.3.1, pp. 7374).

- 129 -

Chapter 4 As we have said elsewhere, the use of direct speech is always evaluative, in that it either dramatizes the actions portrayed or becomes evaluative commentary on them. In 18, Humira reverts to indirect reporting, without giving the actual content of the speech: 18 andumtold him all about the North Pole which is much less effective. Baynham comments that direct speech foregrounds the utteranceindirect backgrounds the utterance (1988:52). The use of the quantifier all in 18 is evaluative and has much more force than if she had just said, and told him about the North Pole, which implies that the content of the telling is of no significance (i.e. the Snowman could just as well have told him about the Equator). One final point about evaluation which emerges from this example: devices tend to occur in clusters; a clause is either unevaluated or heavily evaluated, and the presence of the single device is comparatively rare. The latter part of the narrative contains far fewer evaluative devices and she seems to lose interest in the telling. Surprisingly, there are few hesitations and no occurrences of tailing off or discontinuities between clauses. Julia sat, listening attentively, without once assisting or interrupting Humiras narration, even in the unclear sections. This is because they both heard the original story, and both speaker and hearer had access to the same information, so Humira was not required to be as explicit as she would have been if she had been telling the story to a child not involved in the study. This is a weakness of the elicitation technique used (see p. 111). We shall come back to this issue of retelling versus performing a story in chapters 6 and 8. So far we have not commented on the syntactic constructions themselves; there are some interesting grammatical errors and unidiomatic expressions in both nominal and verb phrases. An obvious one is the failure to distinguish between countable and mass nouns, so that in 4/5 she says, I am a snow, not a rice, instead of, I am snow, not rice, even though, in 2, she correctly says some rice, and not * rices. Number 24 is also ungrammatical: was melt with the verb to be plus the verb root melt is not accepted by native speakers as an English construction. The one-clause sentence should read, And the snowman was melting, or the snowman melted. The issue of idiomaticity, or naturalness, was touched on in chapter 3, section 3.6.3.1. Humiras selection of one form of ditransitive complementation, rather than the other, in

- 130 -

Chapter 4 numbers 1922 illustrates what we were talking about there. In each case Humira uses a prepositional phrase to express the indirect object. This is a grammatically correct alternative to the more usual pattern described by Quirk and Greenbaum (1973:370): an indirect object (normally animate), which is positioned first, and a direct object (normally concrete): He S gave V the girl Oi a doll Od

So, returning to our own data, we can say that: for 19, than for 20, than and for 22, than a. to send me a letter b. to send a letter to me; a. the snowman wrote Mr. Thomas a letter b. the snowman wrote a letter to Mr. Thomas; a. Mr. Thomas gave the snowman a letter b. Mr. Thomas gave a letter to the snowman. is more idiomatic is more idiomatic is more idiomatic

Panjabi does not have this choice of forms. Indirect objects can only be expressed by adpositional phrases (i.e. postpositional, not prepositional), and so, in Panjabi, all the a. clauses would be ungrammatical. This may possibly explain Humiras preference for adpositional phrases in English. Some researchers would dispute this, however, claiming that the influence of L1 structures on L2 syntax is minimal (see Dulay, Burt and Krashen 1982, chapter 5). However, in 21, where the two objects are expressed as pronouns, Humiras gave it to him is the standard form, and the alternative gave him it is an informal style variant not fully approved of by teachers. 4.4 A General Discussion of the Findings We now turn from a detailed look at one narrative to a more general look at all the narratives produced. From the forty-eight sessions described above, only forty-five narratives were collected from the eight L2 Speakers. Fehdah gave us two refusals and one version in Panjabi (entered as zeros in the tables below); nine stories by L1 speakers have been included in the data and these will be referred to in the following chapter where we compare them directly with the narratives produced by L2 subjects. It may be helpful to tabulate some of the details from the forty-five L2 narratives. Table 4.2 lists the numbers - 131 -

Chapter 4 and types of clauses produced in each narrative and also the number of clauses which contain devices which are potentially evaluative. As well as the raw scores, we have indicated (using round brackets) the proportion of the whole which fit into each category and subcategory, e.g. Shvinders Story A is eighty-two clauses long. Of those eighty-two clauses: 44% 56% are Independent clauses, are Subordinate clauses.

Of the Independent or Main clauses: 17% 80% 3% consist of Orientation, are Narrative clauses, and belong to the Coda.

Of the Subordinate clauses: 78% 4% 17% consist of Direct Speech/Quotation are Indirect Speech, and are other types of Subordinate clauses.

Of all clauses (Independent or Subordinate): 78% 22% contain some kind of internal evaluative device or devices, and additionally contain some kind of external evaluation.

The Internal Evaluation occurs in all sections of the narrative in the following proportions (see figure 4.3, p. 116): 20% 22% 2% 56% 78% in the Orientation, in the Narrative Section, in the Coda, and in the Reported Conversations (which form of the Subordinate clauses).

- 132 -

Chapter 4 Direct Speech, then, is recorded both under Subordination and Evaluation. We will be discussing the implications of this overlap in the discussion which follows. The table has been subdivided according to the six model stories, i.e. A, B, C, D, E, F, so that comparisons may be made between the various versions of the same original and, also, between the six sets of stories. Table 4.2. Story A (Continues overleaf)
SPEAKERS Main Clauses Title Orientation Narrative Coda Subordinate Clauses Direct Speech or Quotation Indirect Speech Other Subordinate Clauses Clauses Total No. of Clauses Evaluated (INTERNAL) Title Orientation Narrative Coda Shvinder 36 (44%) 0 6 (17%) 29 (80%) 1 (3%) 46 (56%) 36 (78%) 2 (4%) 8 (17%) 82 64 (78%) 0 13 (20%) 14 (22%) 1 (2%) Fariba 24 (65%) 0 5 (21%) 18 (75%) 1 (4%) 13 (35%) 9 (69%) 1 (8%) 3 (23%) 37 28 (76%) 0 7 (25%) 11 (39%) 1 (4%) Sakander 18 (67%) 0 5 (28%) 12 (67%) 1 (5%) 9 (33%) 3 (33%) 3 (33%) 3 (33%) 27 17 (63%) 0 5 (29%) 7 (41%) 2 (12%) Humira 15 (60%) 0 3 (20%) 11 (73%) 1 (7%) 10 (40%) 7 (70%) 0 3 (30%) 25 13 (52%) 0 1 (8%) 4 (31%) 1 (8%) Sheiba 19 (56%) 0 5 (26%) 13 (68%) 1 (5%) 15 (44%) 12 (80%) 1 (7%) 2 (13%) 34 24 (71%) 0 5 (21%) 7 (29%) 0 Aqeel 12 (100%) 0 1 (8%) 10 (83%) 1 (8%) 0 0 0 0 Shazia 15 (71%) 0 2 (13%) 13 (87%) 0 6 (29%) 3 (50%) 0 3 (50%) 21 13 (62%) 0 1 (8%) 9 (69%) 0 Fehdah 11 (85%) 0 2 (18%) 9 (82%) 0 2 (15%) 1 (50%) 0 1 (50%) 13 4 (31%) 0 1 (25%) 2 (50%) 0

12 6 (50%) 0 1 (17%) 4 (66%) 1 (17%)

- 133 -

Chapter 4
SPEAKERS Direct Speech First Language No. of Clauses Evaluated (EXTERNAL) Embedded Orientation Evaluative Action Suspension of the Action Shvinder 36 (56%) 0 18 (22%) 11 (61%) 4 (22%) 3 (17%) Fariba 9 (32%) 0 1 (3%) 1 (100%) 0 0 Sakander 3 (18%) 0 8 (30%) 4 (50%) 0 4 (50%) Humira 7 (54%) 0 2 (8%) 2 (100%) 0 0 Sheiba 12 (50%) 0 9 (26%) 9 (100%) 0 0 Aqeel 0 0 0 Shazia 3 (23%) 0 2 (10%) 2 (100%) 0 0 Fehdah 1 (25%) 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

Table 4.2. Story B (Continues overleaf)

SPEAKERS Shvinder 30 (68%) 0 4 (13%) 23 (77%) 3 (10%) 14 (32%) 10 (71%) 0 4 (29%) 44 Fariba Sakander 26 (70%) 0 3 (12%) 19 (73%) 4 (15%) 11 (30%) 7 (64%) 0 4 (36%) 37 Humira 20 (44%) 1 (5%) 4 (20%) 11 (55%) 4 (20%) 26 (57%) 19 (73%) 1 (4%) 6 (23%) 46 Sheiba (1) 11 (73%) 0 1 (9%) 10 (91%) 0 4 (27%) 3 (75%) 0 1 (25%) 15 Sheiba (2) 19 (83%) 0 3 (16%) 15 (79%) 1 (5%) 4 (17%) 2 (50%) 0 2 (50%) 23 Aqeel (1) 20 (91%) 0 2 (10%) 17 (85%) 1 (5%) 2 (9%) 2 (100%) 0 0 Aqeel (2) 21 (78%) 0 7 (33%) 13 (62%) 1 (5%) 6 (22%) 5 (83%) 0 1 (17%) 27 Shazia Fehdah 7 (70%) 0 2 (29%) 5 (71%) 0 3 (30%) 3 (100%) 0 0

Main Clauses Title Orientation Narrative Coda Subordinate Clauses. Direct Speech or Quotation Indirect Speech Other Subordinate Clauses Clauses Total

20 (56%) 0 3 (15%) 13 (65%) 4 (20%) 16 (44%) 10 (63%) 0 6 (38%) 36

21 (81%) 0 0 21 (100%) 0 5 (19%) 1 (20%) 0 4 (80%) 26

22

10

- 134 -

Chapter 4
SPEAKERS Shvinder 32 (73%) 0 5 (16%) 15 (47%) 2 (6%) 10 (31%) 0 Fariba Sakander 27 (73%) 0 8 (30%) 8 (30%) 4 (15%) 7 (26%) 0 Humira 38 (83%) 1 (3%) 4 (11%) 8 (21%) 6 (16%) 19 (50%) 0 Sheiba (1) 7 (47%) 0 1 (14%) 3 (43%) 0 3 (43%) 0 Sheiba (2) 14 (61%) 0 4 (29%) 7 (50%) 1 (7%) 2 (14%) 0 Aqeel (1) 16 (73%) 0 2 (13%) 1 (6%) 0 2 (13%) 11 (69%) 0 Aqeel (2) 16 (59%) 0 5 (31%) 5 (31%) 1 (7%) 5 (31%) 0 Shazia Fehdah 8 (80%) 0 2 (25%) 0 0 3 (38%) 3 (38%) 0

No. of Clauses Evaluated (INTERNAL) Title Orientation Narrative Coda Direct Speech First Language

25 (69%) 0 5 (20%) 6 (24%) 4 (16%) 10 (40%) 0

15 (58%) 0 0 14 (93%) 0 1 (7%) 0

No. of Clauses Evaluated (EXTERNAL) Embedded Orientation Evaluative Action Suspension of the Action

4 (9%) 3 (75%) 1 (25%) 0

3 (8%) 2 (67%) 1 (33%) 0

1 (3%) 1 0 0

7 (16%) 7 0 0

1 (7%) 1 0 0

2 (9%) 2 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

Table 4.2. Story C (Continues overleaf)

SPEAKERS Main Clauses Title Orientation Narrative Shvinder 26 (58%) 0 6 (23%) 20 (77%) Fariba 18 (72%) 0 2 (11%) 14 (78%) Sakander 21 (55%) 0 7 (33%) 12 (57%) Humira 13 (59%) 0 3 (23%) 9 (69%) Sheiba 27 (75%) 0 6 (22%) 21 (78%) Aqeel 12 (80%) 0 5 (42%) 6 (50%) Shazia 12 (100%) 0 5 (42%) 7 (58%) Fehdah 0 0 0 0

- 135 -

Chapter 4
SPEAKERS Coda Subordinate Clauses Direct Speech or Quotation Indirect Speech Other Subordinate Clauses Clauses Total No. of Clauses Evaluated (INTERNAL) Title Orientation Narrative Coda Direct Speech First Language No. of Clauses Evaluated (EXTERNAL) Embedded Orientation Evaluative Action Suspension of the Action Shvinder 0 19 (42%) 14 (74%) 0 5 (26%) 45 34 (76%) 0 5 (15%) 15 (44%) 0 14 (41%) 0 5 (11%) 4 (80%) 1 (20%) 0 Fariba 2 (11%) 7 (28%) 7 (100%) 0 0 Sakander 2 (10%) 17 (45%) 12 (71%) 1 (6%) 4 (24%) 38 28 (74%) 0 10 (36%) 2 (7%) 4 (14%) 12 (43%) 0 0 Humira 1 (8%) 9 (41%) 8 (89%) 0 1 (11%) 22 17 (77%) 0 3 (18%) 5 (29%) 1 (6%) 8 (47%) 0 0 Sheiba 0 9 (25%) 9 (100%) 0 0 Aqeel 1 (8%) 3 (20%) 2 (67%) 0 1 (33%) 15 13 (87%) 0 5 (38%) 5 (38%) 1 (8%) 2 (15%) 0 0 Shazia 0 0 0 0 0 Fehdah 0 0 0 0 0

25 13 (52%) 0 2 (15%) 2 (15%) 2 (15%) 7 (54%) 0 1 (4%) 1 0 0

36 20 (56%) 0 4 (20%) 7 (35%) 0 9 (45%) 0 3 (8%) 1 (33%) 2 (67%) 0

12 7 (58%) 0 5 (71%) 2 (29%) 0 0 0 0

0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

- 136 -

Chapter 4 Table 4.2. Story D (Continues overleaf)

SPEAKERS Main Clauses Title Orientation Narrative Coda Shvinder 25 (60%) 0 2 (8%) 22 (88%) 1 (4%) 17 (40%) 13 (76%) 0 4 (24%) 42 31 (74%) 0 5 (16%) 12 (39%) 1 (3%) 13 (42%) 0 Fariba 26 (76%) 0 10 (38%) 15 (58%) 1 (4%) 8 (24%) 4 (50%) 1 (12%) 3 (38%) 34 23 (68%) 0 10 (43%) 8 (35%) 1 (4%) 4 (17%) 0 Sakander 15 (63%) 0 4 (27%) 10 (67%) 1 (7%) 9 (38%) 7 (78%) 0 2 (22%) 24 19 (79%) 0 4 (21%) 6 (32%) 2 (11%) 7 (37%) 0 Humira 27 (46%) 1 (4%) 3 (11%) 22 (81%) 1 (4%) 32 (54%) 23 (72%) 1 (3%) 8 (25%) 59 42 (71%) 1 (2%) 6 (14%) 11 (26%) 1 (2%) 23 (55%) 0 Sheiba 15 (65%) 0 1 (7%) 14 (93%) 0 Aqeel 14 (93%) 0 2 (14%) 11 (79%) 1 (7%) 1 (7%) 1 (100%) 0 0 Shazia 10 (77%) 0 2 (20%) 8 (80%) 0 Fehdah 0 0 0 0 0

Subordinate Clauses Direct Speech or Quotation Indirect Speech Other Subordinate Clauses Clauses Total No. of Clauses Evaluated (INTERNAL) Title Orientation Narrative Coda Direct Speech First Language

8 (35%) 8 (100%) 0 0

3 (23%) 1 (33%) 0 2 (67%) 13 8 (62%) 0 2 (25%) 5 (63%) 0 1 (13%) 0

0 0 0 0

23 16 (70%) 0 1 (6%) 7 (44%) 0 8 (50%) 0

15 12 (80%) 0 2 (18%) 7 (64%) 1 (9%) 1 (9%) 0

0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0

- 137 -

Chapter 4
SPEAKERS No. of Clauses Evaluated (EXTERNAL) Embedded Orientation Evaluative Action Suspension of the Action Shvinder 3 (7%) 3 (100%) 0 0 Fariba 0 Sakander 0 Humira 3 (5%) 3 (100%) 0 0 Sheiba 0 Aqeel 0 Shazia 1 (13%) 1 (100%) 0 0 Fehdah 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

Table 4.2. Story E (Continues overleaf)

SPEAKERS Main Clauses Title Orientation Narrative Coda Shvinder 22 (61%) 0 2 (9%) 20 (91%) 0 Fariba 32 (53%) 0 2 (6%) 29 (91%) 1 (3%) 28 (47%) 23 (82%) 0 5 (18%) 60 48 (80%) 0 Sakander 28 (67%) 0 6 (21%) 21 (75%) 1 (4%) 14 (33%) 2 (14%) 0 12 (86%) 42 33 (79%) 0 Humira 20 (54%) 0 1 (5%) 18 (90%) 1 (5%) 17 (46%) 15 (88%) 0 2 (12%) 37 21 (57%) 0 Sheiba 22 (63%) 0 1 (5%) 21 (95%) 0 Aqeel 12 (92%) 0 1 (8%) 10 (83%) 1 (8%) 1 (8%) 1 (100%) 0 0 Shazia 16 (73%) 0 3 (19%) 13 (81%) 0 Fehdah 0 0 0 0 0

Subordinate Clauses Direct Speech or Quotation Indirect Speech Other Subordinate Clauses Clauses Total No. of Clauses Evaluated (INTERNAL) Title

14 (39%) 10 (71%) 0 4 (29%) 36 32 (89%) 0

13 (37%) 12 (92%) 0 1 (8%) 35 24 (69%) 0

6 (27%) 3 (50%) 0 3 (50%) 22 6 (27%) 0

0 0 0 0

13 8 (62%) 0

0 0

- 138 -

Chapter 4
SPEAKERS Orientation Narrative Coda Direct Speech First Language No. of Clauses Evaluated (EXTERNAL) Embedded Orientation Evaluative Action Suspension of the Action Shvinder 4 (13%) 18 (56%) 0 10 (31%) 0 3 (8%) 0 3 (100%) 0 Fariba 5 (10%) 19 (40%) 1 (2%) 23 (48%) 0 5 (8%) 0 5 (100%) 0 Sakander 13 (39%) 17 (52%) 1 (3%) 2 (6%) 0 8 (18%) 0 8 (100%) 0 Humira 1 (5%) 4 (19%) 1 (5%) 15 (71%) 0 1 (5%) 1 (100%) 0 0 Sheiba 1 (4%) 11 (46%) 0 12 (50%) 0 1 (3%) 0 1 (100%) 0 Aqeel 1 (12%) 5 (63%) 1 (12%) 1 (12%) 0 0 Shazia 1 (17%) 2 (33%) 0 3 (50%) 0 1 (5%) 0 1 (100%) 0 Fehdah 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

Table 4.2. Story F (Continues overleaf)

SPEAKERS Main Clauses Title Orientation Narrative Coda Subordinate Clauses Direct Speech or Quotation Shvinder 31 (54%) 0 2 (6%) 25 (81%) 4 (13%) 26 (46%) 22 (85%) Fariba 23 (64%) 0 3 (13%) 18 (78%) 2 (9%) 13 (36%) 9 (69%) Sakander 18 (55%) 0 2 (11%) 15 (83%) 1 (6%) 15 (45%) 9 (60%) Humira 11 (23%) 0 3 (25%) 8 (67%) 1 (8%) 37 (77%) 36 (97%) Shazia 8 (100%) 0 1 (12%) 7 (88%) 0 0 0 Fehdah 23 (85%) 0 3 (13%) 20 (87%) 0 4 (15%) 3 (75%)

- 139 -

Chapter 4
SPEAKERS Indirect Speech Other Subordinate Clauses Clauses Total No. of Clauses Evaluated (INTERNAL) Title Orientation Narrative Coda Direct Speech First Language No. of Clauses Evaluated (EXTERNAL) Embedded Orientation Evaluative Action Suspension the Action of Shvinder 0 4 (15%) 57 42 (74%) 0 2 (5%) 13 (31%) 5 (12%) 22 (52%) 0 0 Fariba 0 4 (31%) 36 27 (75%) 0 5 (19%) 11 (41%) 2 (7%) 9 (33%) 0 0 Sakander 2 (13%) 4 (27%) 33 16 (48%) 0 1 (6%) 5 (31%) 1 (6%) 9 (56%) 0 0 Humira 0 1 (3%) 48 42 (88%) 0 1 (2%) 4 (10%) 1 (2%) 36 (86%) 0 25 (52%) 25 (100%) 0 Shazia 0 0 Fehdah 0 1 (25%) 27 14 (52%) 0 5 (36%) 6 (43%) 0 3 (21%) 0 1 (7%) 0 0

8 3 (38%) 0 0 3 (100%) 0 0 0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

1 (100%)

Having displayed the details of each story, we now want to see how well the facts fit together. From a casual glance at table 4.2, it would seem that the more able subjects produced longer stories, with more subordination and evaluation, than the less able subjects. We might infer that these stories were, therefore, in some way better stories than those of the less able. But is there any real connection, or correlation, between a general assessment of the subjects ability in L2, the total length of the story, the amount of subordination used, and the number of evaluative devices coded? We predict that there - 140 -

Chapter 4 should be, and the raw scores obtained seem to confirm these predictions. However, there is a big difference between an eighty-two-clause story and one of only twelve clauses in length, such as Aqeels Story A; so raw scores for amounts of subordination and evaluation, on their own, give misleading results. For example, Shvinder has sixty-four internally evaluated clauses in her Story A and Aqeel only six, but the gap between them is not so large as it at first appears: 64/82 is 78 percent and 6/12 50 percent of the whole story, whereas Fehdahs 4/13 (only two less) means that only 31 percent of his Story A is evaluated. It is not practicable to work out the correlations of the four parameterslanguage ability in L2, story length, amount of subordination, and how much of the story is evaluatedfor each story separately, as there is too much variation among the eight subjects in the six stories. Instead, total scores have been used, as follows: table 4.3 gives the total numbers of clauses produced by each subject; table 4.4 gives the total percentages of subordinate clauses produced; and table 4.5 gives the total percentages for internal and external evaluation in each of the six stories. The subjects are listed according to their teachers assessments of their ability in L2 and they are then given a rank for the other parameters in turn. Table 4.3. Total number of clauses
Shvinder A B C D E F Total Rank 82 44 45 42 36 57 306 1 Fariba 37 36 25 34 60 36 228 3 Sakander 27 37 38 24 42 33 201 4 Humira 25 46 22 59 37 48 237 2 Sheiba 34 15 36 23 35 * 23 166 5 Aqeel 12 22 15 15 13 * 27 104 6 Shazia 21 26 12 13 22 8 102 7 Fehdah 13 10 0 0 0 27 50 8

* indicates a second version of Story B, not Story F (in tables 4.34.5)

Here, in table 4.3, we have a perfect correlation apart from Humira; of all the eight subjects, Humiras results are the least consistent.

- 141 -

Chapter 4 Table 4.4. Total percentages of subordinate clauses

Shvinder A B C D E F Total Rank 56 32 42 40 39 46 255 2 Fariba 35 44 28 24 47 36 214 4 Sakander 33 30 45 38 33 45 224 3 Humira 40 57 41 54 46 77 315 1 Sheiba 44 27 25 35 37 * 17 185 5 Aqeel 0 9 20 7 8 * 22 66 7 Shazia 29 19 0 23 27 0 98 6 Fehdah 15 30 0 0 0 15 60 8

Table 4.5. Percentages of internal and external evaluation

Shvinder I N T E R N A L A B C D E F E X T E R N A L A B C D E F Totals Rank 78 73 76 74 89 74 22 9 11 7 8 0 521 1 Fariba 76 69 52 68 80 75 3 8 4 0 8 0 443 4 Sakander 63 73 74 79 79 48 30 3 0 0 18 0 467 3 Humira 52 83 77 71 57 88 8 16 0 5 5 52 514 2 Sheiba 71 47 56 70 69 * 61 26 7 8 0 3 *9 427 5 Aqeel 50 73 87 80 62 * 59 0 0 0 0 0 0 411 6 Shazia 62 58 58 62 27 38 10 0 0 13 5 0 333 7 Fehdah 31 80 0 0 0 52 0 0 0 0 0 7 170 8

In table 4.4, only Sakander, Sheiba, and Fehdah are ranked in the same order as they are for language ability, so there is much more overall variation with this parameter.

- 142 -

Chapter 4 Here again we have a perfect correlation apart from the switch between Fariba and Humira. When we look at individual consistency, it is striking to find total consistency with Sheiba and Fehdah, ranked 5 and 8, respectively; consistent results (3/4) with Shvinder, Sakander, Aqeel, and Shazia, at 1, 3, 6 and 7; but variable results (2,3,4,4) with Fariba and very variable results (4,2,1,2) with Humira. Having obtained rank orders for all eight subjects over the four parameters, we then compare each parameter with the other three, using the Spearman Rank Correlation Coefficient. The rank order correlation determines the degree of similarity between two sets of ranks at a time and provides a useful, though rough, estimate of the agreement between the two sets of ordered items. It is a rough guide only, because slight changes in rank, of the kind we have been noting above, can seriously alter the value of Rho (rs the degree of agreement in ranks) when the number of items, or subjects, to be compared is ten or less. In spite of this limitation, we decided to use this statistical test; it is the only one that can be applied where there is a difference in scale between cardinal scores on the one hand and value judgments on the other. As an example of how the Spearman test is applied, we will set out the calculations for comparing the correlation between ability in L2 and the total number of clauses produced. Having ranked the scores on the two parameters, we calculate the difference (d) between each pair of ranks and then square these differences; they are then added up to give a total for d2. In order to use the formula, we also have to count the number of subjects (N).
L.A. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Tot. 1 3 4 2 5 6 7 8 d 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 d2 0 1 1 4 0 0 0 0 d2 = 6

Using the formula:

6 d 2 N N 2 1

rs = 1

we get:
1 6 6

8(64 1)
36 = 1 0.071 = 0.929 504

- 143 -

Chapter 4 This figure is then looked up in the appropriate table and we find that it is significant at the value of p <0.005, because it exceeds the critical value of 0.881. All the other correlations were calculated in the same way and the results are displayed in the matrix in table 4.6. Table 4.6 shows that all the results indicate a significant relationship between the pairs of variables, ranging from 0.810 to 0.976. For a correlation of 0.810, the odds of obtaining a correlation this high by chance are less than one in 40 (written p <0.025) and for 0.976 the odds are less than one in 200 (written p <0.005). At the very least, we can say that there is some evidence for claiming that a subjects storytelling ability can be assessed according to his/her general language ability in L2, the length of the story, the amount of structural complexity (subordination), the number of potentially evaluative devices observed and that these features seem to be directly related. This is in line with the positive correlation predicted and the choice of a one-tailed, rather than a two-tailed hypothesis. Table 4.6. Combined scores for stories AF
Ability in L2 Ability in L2 Total no. of Clauses % of Clauses Evaluated % of Subordinate Clauses X Total no. of Clauses 0.929 significant at 0.005 X % of Clauses Evaluated 0.905 significant at 0.005 0.976 significant at 0.005 X % of Subordinate Clauses 0.810 significant at 0.025 0.929 significant at 0.005 0.976 significant at 0.005 X

However, there is a considerable degree of overlap between subordination and evaluation. In table 4.2, we noted that Direct Speech/Quotation is counted twice, both as subordination and evaluation, and this favourably skews the results. The other subordinate clauses category also includes evaluative material, especially simple qualifications and causal constructions (including reason/result), and temporal subordinate clauses, occurring at key points in the narrative, which foreground the main clause events that follow. So, to get a true correlation, we need to confine our discussion to the nonevaluative uses of subordination (i.e. subordination which is used for purposes other than

- 144 -

Chapter 4 evaluation), examples include: infinitive clauses, conditional clauses, relative clauses, and clauses functioning as the objects of verbs such as know. Table 4.7 gives two sets of figures: (1) the numbers of unevaluated subordinate clauses present in the body of the narratives and (2) details of similar clauses embedded within the direct speech. Table 4.7. Total numbers of unevaluated subordinate clauses
(1) A B C D E F (2) A B C D E F Total S/L Rank Shvinder 3 2 5 1 0 4 Shvinder 2 3 3 5 2 2 32 0.104 3 Fariba 1 1 0 3 1 0 Fariba 1 0 1 1 4 1 14 0.061 4 Sakander 5 2 3 1 5 5 Sakander 0 1 4 0 0 0 26 0.129 1 Humira 3 6 1 5 2 0 Humira 0 2 3 1 2 5 30 0.126 2 Sheiba 2 1 0 0 0 1 Sheiba 3 0 2 1 0 0 10 0.060 5 Aqeel 0 0 0 0 0 0 Aqeel 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0.009 8 Shazia 0 1 0 2 3 0 Shazia 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0.058 6 Fehdah 1 0 0 0 0 0 Fehdah 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.02 7

These figures are totalled and then divided by the total number of clauses, to give a set of ratios expressed as a single decimal which can be ranked and correlated with the amount of evaluation, using the Spearman Test. As expected, the correlation is not so high as that

- 145 -

Chapter 4 recorded in table 4.6; however, at 0.762, it is still significant at the p <0.025 level for a onetailed test (i.e. less than a 1 in 40 chance of obtaining this result by chance). 4.5 Evaluative Devices Preferred by Young Speakers In the previous section we were looking at whole clauses; we now turn to specific devices of internal evaluation. Table 4.8 gives a count of the total number of each evaluative device used by the eight speakers in the six stories; however, as we noted in chapter 2, pages 40 42, not all the devices coded as evaluative in the transcriptions are necessarily used effectively. In chapters 6 and 7 we discuss this difference between the effective use of evaluation and the presence of syntactic structures or phonological features which are only potentially evaluative. As we remarked in chapter 2, page 35, because the same devices may perform a referential or an evaluative function, it is not always easy to decide in every case which is the one intended; it may even be both. Then, in chapter 1, page 5, we noted the difference between the early use of evaluative devices as a means of highlighting events in their local setting and the use of these same devices by more mature narrators to signal the hierarchical organization of the linear events they are describing. Table 4.8. Total number of evaluative devices used in the data (Continued overleaf)
INTENSIFIERS 1. Phonology 2. Direct Speech Direct Quotation 3. Direct Address Exclamations Interjections 4. Foregrounding 5. Lexical Items Emphasizers Lex. Intensifiers 6. Quantifiers Phras. Quantifiers TOTALS 487 407 16 11 4 38 59 142 18 28 64 18 COMPARATORS 1. Imperatives Hortatives 2. Questions 3. Negatives 4. Futures Modals Quasimodals 5. Comparatives Superlatives 6. OR-clauses 7. CHP TOTALS 19 3 70 116 22 99 47 10 9 3 13

- 146 -

Chapter 4
INTENSIFIERS 7. Repetitions 8. Single Appositives 9. First Language + Derogatory Remarks Totals TOTALS 105 34 14 1 1446 411 COMPARATORS TOTALS

CORRELATIVES 1. Be...-ing Double...-ing 2. Double Appositives 3. Doub. Attributives Mult. Attributives 4. Participle: Right Participle: Left 5. Compound N P Compound Adj P Compound L P 6. Optional P P Totals 22 3 2 14 123 4 14 12 21 31

EXPLICATIVES 1. Simple: Qual. 2. Simple: Caus. 3. Complex: Qual. 4. Complex: Caus. 5. Comp. : Qual. 6. Comp. : Caus. 7. Clarification: substitution/ addition of Lexical Items Clause/Sent. 19 6 6 44

75

Table 4.9 translates the raw scores into percentages: of the four major categories, 70 percent of all the devices found are Intensifiers, 20 percent are Comparators, 6 percent are Correlatives, and only 4 percent are Explicatives. Within each major category percentages are given for each significant subcategory, with individual devices grouped together according to their general function within the narrative.

- 147 -

Chapter 4 Table 4.9. Total percentages of evaluative devices used in the data (Continued overleaf)
INTENSIFIERS (70%) 1. Phonology 2. Direct Speech Direct Quotation 3. Direct Address Exclamations Interjections 4. Foregrounding 5. Lexical Items Emphasizers Lex. Intensifiers 6. Quantifiers Phras. Quantifiers 7. Repetitions 8. Single Appositives 9. First Language + Derogatory Remarks 7% 2% 1% 6% 4% 13% 4% 34% 29% %s COMPARATORS (20%) 1. Imperatives Hortatives 2. Questions 3. Negatives 4. Futures Modals Quasimodals 5. Comparatives Superlatives 6. OR-clauses 7. CHP 1% 3% 5% 17% 28% 41% 5% %s

CORRELATIVES ( 6%) 1. Be...-ing Double...-ing 2. Double Appositives 3. Doub. Attributives Mult. Attributives 4. Participle: Right Participle: Left

%s

EXPLICATIVES ( 4%)

%s

25%

1. Simple: Qual. 2. Simple: Caus.

8% 59%

3% 21%

3. Complex: Qual. 4. Complex: Caus. 5. Compound: Qual.

17%

6. Compound: Caus. 7. Clarification:

- 148 -

Chapter 4
CORRELATIVES 5. Compound N P Compound Adj. P Compound L P 6. Optional P P 12% %s 22% EXPLICATIVES Substitution/addition of Lexical Items Clause/Sent. 33% %s

If we look at the raw scores, we can see that Expressive Phonology and Direct Speech/Quotation account for nearly half of all the devices coded. We could argue that direct speech is not a single device like most of the others, neither is it one that Labov specifically discussed. Could it not just as well have been included under external (embedded) evaluation as it has some features in common with it? We have chosen to analyse it as the complement of the speech verb, and the speech verb is seen as an action verb like any other. Toolan (1988), in his section on doing and saying comments as follows: Perhaps the most basic point to emphasize is that Labov works on the broad assumption that what is said (by yourself or others) will not be the core of a story; that, rather, what is done (by you or others) will be. The what is done then becomes (or may become) the core narrative text of clausesactionswhile the what is said becomes evaluative commentary on those actions. (1988:157) Toolan goes on to state that more complicated imbrications of words and actions are also possible, where the sayings are the most important doingsare the actions of the narrativerevealing a fixity of sequence of those sayings, temporal juncture, and so on (p. 158). We are not talking about verbal doings of this kind here, but we are making the point that speaking is an action, and that to choose to advance the story in this way is an evaluative decision because its whole purpose is to dramatize the events being described for the benefit of the hearer. Clearly, our subjects prefer to tell their stories this way, and this can be demonstrated by the fact that they often include far more conversation than was used in the original.

- 149 -

Chapter 4 We have no problem with Expressive Phonology because Labov himself treats it as intensification. However, Labovs devices are both stylized and conventional, whereas we are calling anything which expressively enhances the meaning or significance of a clause evaluative phonology; the decision may be based on positive feedback from the interlocutor, e.g. an appreciative giggle or interjection, but often it is an arbitrary decision based on a subjective feel for whether the phonology is merely a neutral factor or whether it does add an extra dimension to the telling. So, in many ways, both Direct Speech/Quotation and Expressive Phonology are more external than some of the other preferred devices. If we exclude them from our calculations, we are still left with a total of 536 for Intensifiers; of these: 35% are lexical devices; 20% are repetitions; 15% are quantifiers; 11% are foregrounding devices; 10% are boundary features; 6% are appositive expressions which pack in extra information about characters, or the temporal or spatial orientation of events; 3% are lapses into L1, which report particularly noteworthy events or include derogatory remarks. Lexical devices head the list but repetitions are not so numerous as either Modals or Negatives in the Comparator category. Not only are Modals and Negatives (together with Questions) the devices which seem to be most popular among our subjects (i.e. after Expressive Phonology and Direct Speech/Quotation), they are also the most successfully used. As we shall see in chapters 6 and 7, there are degrees of effectiveness in the choice of evaluation; first, we must ask ourselves, is it evaluative, and then if so, how successful is this use of evaluation? Here we acknowledge the fact that we have added extra devices in all four categories, but especially in the Intensifiers, and also that some of the devices we have coded are not all that effective, and may even contain errors; however if we exclude Direct Speech/Quotation and Expressive Phonology, the overall picture agrees with Labovs findings for his preadolesent subjects, even though not in the details. From ten fight

- 150 -

Chapter 4 narratives, his subjects produced an equal proportion of Intensifiers and Comparators (46%), and an equal proportion of Correlatives and Explicatives (4%). His figures include no Phonology, Lexical Items, or Repetitions; no Futures, or OR-clauses; and only a single Double Appositive and Simple Causal. Our adjusted figures are: 47 percent Intensifiers, 36 percent Comparators, 11 percent Correlatives, and 6 percent Explicatives, and we have examples of all the above devices. As predicted by Labov, Correlatives and Explicatives are not widely used by young speakers; in our data, together they account for less than 10 percent of all the devices coded. Labov mentions the possible exceptions of the right-hand participle and the simple causative clause: we have forty-four examples of simple causatives (59 percent of all Explicatives) but only twenty-one of right-hand participles (17 percent of all Correlatives). The only other significant results from Labovs original categories are the thirty-one progressives (25 percent of all Correlatives) used to signal simultaneous, continuous, or closely related actions. Twenty-one percent of all our Correlatives are attributives but we have added the category Multiple Attributives to account for nouns modified by several adjectives and/or prepositions. We have a significant number of Compound Phrases (twenty-seven in all) and also fourteen optional prepositional phrases (e.g. Accompaniment and Benefactive) which pack additional information into the clause. Clarifications account for 33 percent of all Explicatives; children do try to make the information they give as clear to their interlocutors as possible and sometimes this means correcting a slip or adding new information. 4.6 Intensifiers and Evaluative Syntax Labov draws a distinction between Intensifiers, which as a whole do not complicate the basic narrative syntax, and the other three types of internal evaluationComparators, Correlatives, and Explicativeswhich are sources of syntactic complexity (1972a:380). As we have stated elsewhere, many of Wolfsons (1982) performance features, e.g. repetition, expressive sounds, sound effects, and motions and gestures, are types of intensifiers. In contrast, the conversational historic present (CHP), involving as it does tense-switching between past and present, provides a way of evaluating events by placing them against the background of other events (Labov 1972a:381) and so has been included in the comparator category. When the CHP combines with progressivization (a correlative event-aligning device) the evaluation is particularly saucy (Toolan1988:168). Likewise, asides seem to be a kind of external evaluation, but in their explanatory function - 151 -

Chapter 4 they resemble explicatives. From this preamble we can see that the decision to separate intensifiers (Wolfsons dramatized re-enactments) from the more syntactic types of evaluative devices is well motivated. It is of interest to trace the development reported by Labov in the use of evaluative devices with age, particularly with respect to the proportion of intensifiers to syntactic evaluative devices. As recorded on pages 150151, his preadolescents (aged 1012) produced a proportion of 46 percent intensifiers to 54 percent syntactic devices; whereas with his adolescents (aged 1316) the proportion was only 35 percent intensifiers to 65 percent syntactic devices and with the adults it was almost identical36 percent to 64 percent in favour of evaluative syntax. Our figures are not directly comparable as we have added many other devices, especially to the intensifier category; however, we considered it worthwhile to look at these relationships for our own subjects, to see if there were any reportable differences between the proportions observed in the narratives of the more able storytellers and those of the less able. With such a small sample and narrow age range of barely two years, we were not expecting to see any significant overall trends, but a few small differences worthy of comment for which we could offer an explanation; table 4.10 represents our findings. Table 4.10 Percentage of intensifiers compared with syntactic devices (Continued overleaf)
STORIES A Intensifiers Syntactic devices B Intensifiers Syntactic devices C Intensifiers Syntactic devices D Intensifiers Syntactic devices Shvinder 75% (109) 25% (36) 74% (68) 26% (24) 72% (58) 28% (23) 72% (49) 28% (19) Fariba 79% (53) 21% (14) 70% (44) 30% (19) 65% (17) 35% (9) 68% (34) 32% (16) Sakander 63% (19) 37% (11) 66% (50) 34% (26) 64% (37) 36% (21) 69% (35) 31% (16) Humira 68% (15) 32% (7) 68% (54) 32% (25) 72% (26) 28% (10) 66% (57) 34% (30) Sheiba 83% (39) 17% (8) 64% (7) 36% (4) 66% (29) 34% (15) 68% (23) 32% (11) Aqeel 89% (8) 11% (1) 73% (8) 37% (3) 61% (11) 39% (7) 53% (9) 47% (8) Shazia 41% (9) 59% (13) 46% (11) 54% (13) 80% (8) 20% (2) 82% (9) 18% (2) Fehdah 83% (5) 17% (1) 50% (5) 50% (1) (0) (0) (0) (0)

- 152 -

Chapter 4
E Intensifiers Syntactic devices F Intensifiers Syntactic devices Averages Intensifiers Syntactic devices Overall Intensifiers Syntactic devices 71% (49) 29% (20) 72% (73) 28% (28) 73% (68) 27% (25) 75% (81) 25% (27) 71% (36) 29% (15) 71% (44) 29% (17) 69% (41) 31% (18) 69% (27) 31% (12) 67% (35) 33% (17) 63% (29) 37% (17) 70% (82) 30% (35) 68% (44) 32% (21) 67% (34) 33% (17) 75% (21) 25% (7) 71% (26) 29% (10) 100% (12) 0% (0) 81% (26) 19% (6) 76% (12) 24% (4) 67% (8) 33% (4) 50% (3) 50% (3) 61% (8) 39% (6)

(0) (0) 71% (27) 29% (11) 68% (12) 32% (3) 69% (31) 31% (13)

The actual numbers of devices counted for each subject and story are indicated within brackets, and if we look at the average figures we can see that the four less-able subjects produced far less devices than their more-able peers. However, if we follow Labov (1972a:393) and divide these average totals by the average length of each subjects narratives, we obtain the following ratios and ranks:
Shvinder 1.824 1 Fariba 1.605 3 Sakander 1.529 4 Humira 1.625 2 Sheiba 1.286 5 Aqeel 0.941 6 Shazia 0.824 8 Fehdah 0.882 7

In table 4.5, page 142, we looked at the percentages of the number of clauses evaluated by internal and external evaluation and obtained a slightly different rank order:
Shvinder 1 Fariba 4 Sakander 3 Humira 2 Sheiba 5 Aqeel 6 Shazia 7 Fehdah 8

but when we correlate the two sets of ranks with the subjects ability in L2 we obtain identical results, a figure of 0.905 which indicates a significant relationship at p <0.005.

- 153 -

Chapter 4 The percentages indicate the proportion of intensifiers to syntactic evaluative devices; the overall proportion of 69 percent for intensifiers and 31 percent for syntactic devices is only slightly different from the result shown in table 4.9; the discrepancy occurs because of the way the figures were rounded up. The individual average proportions are surprising for their uniformity, with only 15 points separating the highest and lowest figures. If we try to rank the subjects according to the figures for syntactic evaluative devices we obtain an anomalous result:
Shvinder 27% 7 Fariba 29% 5.5 Sakander 33% 2 Humira 32% 3.5 Sheiba 29% 5.5 Aqeel 24% 8 Shazia 39% 1 Fehdah 32% 3.5

Shazia comes out as number 1 because she uses prefabricated language chunks which happen to include a high proportion of comparators and explicatives, but the clauses which contain them do not build a coherent narrative. Fehdah s result is based on three narratives instead of six, only one of which is coherent. Although Shvinder is ranked 1 as far as her actual output of syntactic devices is concerned, she comes out as number 7 here because she uses such a large number of intensifiers, especially expressive phonology and direct speech. We can find no particular reason for Fariba s ranking at 5.5, below that of Sakander and Humira, as her syntax is no more restricted than theirs. Sakander, Humira, and Sheiba are ranked more or less correctly. However, the fact that half the ranks are tied may also adversely affect the reliability of these results. It is clear from this discussion that if we merely count devices, we are only looking at potentiality, not the effective use of evaluation, and, that evaluation cannot be looked at objectively without reference to other factors, such as plot construction and errors. We shall be looking at these and other related issues in the following chapter. 4.7 Summary After a few introductory remarks about narrative skills and evaluation, in the early part of this chapter we described how the project was set up and introduced the children who took part in it. We went on to talk about how the sessions were organized and described the activities and materials used in them, giving a subjective assessment of their success, both from the educational angle and as a means of obtaining suitable data. From this we proceeded to discuss the analysis of the narrative data collected, how it was transcribed and - 154 -

Chapter 4 edited, and how our version of Labov s model differs from the original and why. One narrative from the data was transcribed and discussed informally, and then the chapter continued with a general discussion of the findings. In particular, we sought to correlate evaluation with story length, the amount of subordination, and general language ability in L2. We continued with a brief look at which kinds of evaluation seem to be preferred by young speakers, as suggested by the frequency of their occurrence in the data, and ended by drawing a distinction between the more performative types of devices, i.e. intensifiers, and those that involve the use of more complex syntax. We looked at the relative proportions of these two types of evaluation in relation to language ability in L2 and concluded by questioning the validity of counting the number of occurrences without looking more closely at how they are actually used. In the next chapter, we will be looking at evaluation in relation to other issues, particularly plot construction and errors. We shall then compare some of our L2 narratives with those of L1 English speakers, both in relation to evaluation and, also, to the kind of discourse errors each group commit, in order to present some kind of developmental picture of L2 narrative production.

- 155 -

Chapter 5

CHAPTER 5: EVALUATION AND RELATED ISSUES 5.1 Evaluation in the Wider Context In our opening chapter we referred to Bamberg and Damrad-Fryes distinction between narrative and evaluative clausesas reflecting two distinct narrative orientations: one of linearly ordering event descriptions along a horizontal (temporal) axis, the other as signalling the consequentiality and meaningfulness of such events according to the vertical axis of hierarchical order (1991:690). Both orientations are crucial for the successful production of a narrative discourse, as we argued in chapter 2, section 2.4.6, where we described them as two sides of the same coineffective communication within narrative (p. 51). In this chapter we look at the relationship between these two parameters in greater detail. Another factor, barely touched on as yet, is the presence of errors of various kinds found in childrens narratives. How do these relate to evaluation? In the previous chapter, page 130, we discussed in passing two specific grammatical errors found in Humiras Story A: that of failing to distinguish between countable and mass nouns, and the use of the immature form was melt instead of was melting or the simple past melted; but these have little bearing on the overall intelligibility of the text. However, this may not be true of all errors, so we need to determine which particular types of errors do create serious processing problems for the hearers. We find that, by and large, grammatical, phonological, and lexical errors have only a local significance, affecting single elements (constituents) in a sentence, so that intelligibility is not greatly impaired. Whereas discourse errors are labelled global errors by Dulay, Burt, and Krashen because they affect overall sentence organization and significantly hinder communication (1982:191). Therefore, local errors will receive only a cursory treatment in this thesis, thus reserving more space for an extended treatment of the impact of discourse errors on narrative productions. Finally, in this chapter, we will be looking at evaluation in a few narratives told by young native speakers of English and comparing and contrasting these directly with our L2 data. We shall study discourse errors across the two groups of subjects, too, looking for error types they have in common and for those that are peculiar to young second-language learners.

- 156 -

Chapter 5 5.2 Plot Construction and Errors, and their Interrelationship with Evaluation 5.2.1 Plot Construction As noted above, we discussed the inter-relationship of plot construction and evaluation in chapter 2; (see table 2.3, p. 47). We now want to see if there is any statistical evidence for claiming that subjects who produce a large proportion of evaluative clauses will create fewer long pauses and serious breaks in continuity, and conversely, that subjects who have difficulty in stringing their narrative clauses together will also use less evaluation. Table 5.1 below sets out the numbers of discontinuities recorded in the six narratives by the eight subjects, including totals and rank for each subject (a high ranking indicates a large number of breaks in continuity). Table 5.1. Perceived interclausal pauses and discontinuities
A Shvinder Fariba Sakander Humira Sheiba Aqeel Shazia Fehdah 2 0 4 0 0 4 1 4 B 0 0 0 2 4 0 3 3 C 3 0 6 0 3 4 6 *5 D 0 0 1 0 1 5 1 *5 E 0 1 0 1 1 1 10 *5 F 1 0 4 2 1 1 1 3 Total 6 1 15 5 10 15 22 25 Rank 6 8 3.5 7 5 3.5 2 1

* indicates a refusalarbitrarily given the score of 5

If we arrange these in order we obtain the following ranking; Sakander, Shvinder, and Humira are each two places from their expected positions at 6, 8, and 5:
Fehdah 1 Shazia 2 Aqeel 3.5 Sakander 3.5 Sheiba 5 Shvinder 6 Humira 7 Fariba 8

As indicated, Fehdah failed to produce three of the stories asked for; overall he had the most difficulty of the eight subjects and this is reflected in the decision to add a score of 5

- 157 -

Chapter 5 for each failure. For Story E he did string a few clauses together in Panjabi, but they did not constitute a coherent narrative. Shazias narratives exhibit the most variation, with scores ranging from 1 (Stories A, D, F) to 10 (Story E); however, Story F is only eight clauses long and is not sequentially ordered. (See pages 6465 for a transcription and possible interpretation of this particular story.) Table 5.2. Totals and ranks for interclausal pauses and evaluation
Total Pauses Shvinder Fariba Sakander Humira Sheiba Aqeel Shazia Fehdah 6 1 15 5 10 15 22 * 25 Total % s Evaluation 521 443 467 509 427 411 333 160 Rank Pauses 6 8 3.5 7 5 3.5 2 1 Rank Evaluation d 1 4 3 2 5 6 7 8 5 4 0.5 5 0 2.5 5 7 d2 25 16 0.25 25 0 6.25 25 49 d2 = 146.5

Table 5.2 puts the two parameters, the number of interclausal pauses (discontinuities) and amount of evaluation (in percentages), together so that a negative correlation between the two sets of figures can be made.

Using the formula: rs = 1

6 146.5 6 d 2 we get 1 which gives us - 0.744, we 2 8(64 1) N N 1

obtain a negative correlation significant at p <0.025. Looking again at individual subjects we find the following orders:

- 158 -

Chapter 5

Pauses Fehdah 1 Shazia 2 Aqeel 3.5 Sakander 3.5 Sheiba 5 Shvinder 6 Humira 7 Fariba 8

Evaluation Shvinder 1 Humira 2 Sakander 3 Fariba 4 Sheiba 5 Aqeel 6 Shazia 7 Fehdah 8

with a perfect inverse relationship between parameters for Fehdah, Shazia, Aqeel, and Humira, an almost perfect one for Sheiba, and an unexpected result for Sakander. 5.2.2 Errors So far in our discussion we have made very little mention of the effect of specific mistakes, or errors, in the performance of these L2 stories. Clearly, these are as crucial to the overall impression given by a narrative as are the long pauses and serious breaks in continuity just mentioned above. But, here again, the actual amount of evaluation found and the number of errors produced are only indirectly related. A good storyteller is more likely to have a better command of the language than a poor storyteller and so would make less errors. However, a subject may deviate considerably from the desired norm, grammatically, phonologically and lexically, and yet still produce a narrative which is intelligible, and interesting and lively enough to hold the attention of even the most easily distracted hearer. In fact, there is an extremely thin line between a striking lexical error and a novel and creative use of language. There are many examples in the data of individual clauses which are both heavily coded for evaluation AND extensively marked for ungrammatical expressions. Some of these will be discussed in detail in the next two chapters. At this point, it is not particularly helpful to launch into the debate about possible differences between mistakes, made in performance, and errors which result from an incomplete knowledge of the L2 rule system, nor to attempt a full classification of the different kinds observed. We will follow Dulay, Burt and Krashen (1982) who use the term error to refer to any deviation from a selected norm of language performance, no matter

- 159 -

Chapter 5 what the characteristics or causes of the deviation might be (p. 139), and give a few examples to illustrate the main points we want to make. The deviations may be grammatical, lexical, phonological, or discourse errors but, as indicated above, only discourse errors have a bearing on narrative structure. However, although we want to include them in our calculations, these will not be discussed here but in an in-depth treatment in section 5.4. The rest, which will be mentioned briefly, are all local errors that affect single elements in a sentence and do not usually hinder communication significantly. Table 5.3. Total number of grammatical, lexical, phonological, and disacourse errors
Shvinder A B C D E F Total E/L Rank 10 13 4 5 9 11 52 0.170 8 Fariba 11 10 9 9 11 14 64 0.281 5 Sakander 11 7 11 2 13 10 54 0.269 7 Humira 9 14 14 27 9 23 96 0.405 3 Sheiba 8 3 19 8 4 *4 46 0.277 6 Aqeel 7 7 7 6 8 * 11 46 0.442 2 Shazia 12 21 14 8 16 17 88 0.863 1 Fehdah 3 4 13 20 0.40 4

In table 5.3, all deviations from what is generally considered to be the British English usage of mature speakers have been counted. Some errors occur several times in the same story and these have been counted each time they are found; sometimes groups of words are omitted, but these multiple omissions have arbitrarily been counted as only one mistake. Clearly, as the subjects have produced stories of widely differing lengths (from eighty-two clauses down to eight) the opportunities to commit errors also vary. For example, Fehdah has produced the least errors, but a glance at table 4.3, page 141, reveals that his output is limited to three comparatively short stories (fifty clauses in total). Therefore in order to prove, or disprove, statistically that there is no direct relationship between the amount of evaluation and the number of errors found, the total number of errors for each subject has been divided by the total number of clauses produced, to give the average number of

- 160 -

Chapter 5 errors per clause. These averages are then ranked from high to low and the results subjected to the Spearman test described above to give a negative correlation of - 0.571; this figure is not significant at p <0.05. Therefore, this result does confirm that these two ways of looking at a narrative, i.e. the (positive) use of evaluation and the (negative) production of errors are in principle independent. Nevertheless, a child who is still struggling with the basics of learning an L2 will not be able to cope so readily with the communicative aspects of L2 production. The majority of the grammatical errors second-language learners make are very much like those young children make as they learn a first language. They may be more colourful, and there may be more of them, but as researchers such as Dulay and Burt (1974) have already discovered, most L2 errors, like L1 errors, are developmental in character and indicate that the subjects are gradually building an L2 rule system. Examples of grammatical errors found in the data include the following: Omissions: with he played ^ the football a you are ^ cowboy will I ^ just tell some one s he eat ^ his breakfast ed he interrupt ^ them ing the snowman was melt ^ s theplayers scored ten goal^

Preposition:

(Shazia B22)

Article:

(Fariba E34)

Auxiliary:

(Humira B14)

3rd Person:

(Shazia F5)

Past Tense:

(Aqeel B(2)15)

Participle:

(Humira A24)

Plural:

(Sheiba B(2)16)

- 161 -

Chapter 5 Additions

Double Marking: Did you won the game?

(Fariba B22)

Mr. Thomas gave a letter to the snowman to read it Regularization: theteamwonned lots of sheeps to childrens Simple Addition: his rice was ran out kicking on the ball I am a snow not a rice about the Father Christmas Misformations won and they winned bought he buyed some rice snowmen the snowmans play Do you do nice football? hurt Billy do his back again drinks he eat some milik us the other ones are, not we

(Humira A22/3) Shvinder B40) (Sakander C6) (Humira D17) (Sakander A4) (Sakander E10) (Humira A5) (Humira D1)

Regularization:

(Shvinder B38)

(Fariba F28)

(Sheiba C14)

Archi-forms:

DO

(Humira E5)

(Shazia E20)

EAT

(Shazia F3)

WE

(Fariba B12)

- 162 -

Chapter 5 Misordering shall will do?

Auxiliary:

What

(Sakander B8)

Do you know where is Greenland

(Humira C13)

All the above are typical of L1 errors reported in the literature which are made by the under fives (e.g. Braine 1963; Menyuk 1963; Klima and Bellugi 1966; Bloom 1970; Brown 1973). Most lexical errors occur because the subjects have failed to understand part of the model story, or they do not have an appropriate word for the concept in their vocabulary. Examples from the data include the following novel creations and approximations: Caretaker: school-look-after man Fariba C10) (Shazia A7) (Fehdah A2) (Shvinder E9) (Fariba B28)

Wholesaler: sailors factory man Fell off: falled down straight

Score goals: they won eleven scores

Faribas school-look-after man is clearly non-nativelike and could well be an L1 transfer as, in Panjabi, all modifiers precede the head noun, and the basic word order is SOV, so the equivalent of the man looks after the school would be: the man school look-after, and the equivalent of The man who looks after the school came today would be: Which man school look-after, that-one today came (or today that-one came). A direct transfer would be man school look-after, but Fariba would quickly reject this as unacceptable to English speakers and would, therefore, switch man to the position of the main clause correlative demonstrative pronoun in the example above in line with the modifier-noun word order of both languages. The phonological errors in the data which stand out in the transcriptions are of little relevance to a study of narrative production; they either have to do with phonotactics or the placement of stress on individual words. The few immature pronunciations noted such as MILik (Shazia) and the NOther (Humira) are probably imitations of forms produced by monolingual peers.

- 163 -

Chapter 5 Also in the corpus are many examples of dialect features picked up in the playground from informal contact with young speakers of Reading English (see J. Cheshire 1982, 1984). Comparing these with similar forms found in the L1 narratives, it is clear that L1 speakers are able to vary their language along the formal-informal continuum more easily than their L2 peers. It is also clear that L2 speakers seem to pick up the variety used by their monolingual peers in everyday exchanges before they acquire the target forms needed for literacy and school-based tasks. (Agnihotri (1979) noted a similar tendency among Sikh children in Leeds, in the area of phonology.) Examples of dialect forms attested by Cheshire include: be was: do done: run run: see see: seed: negative: there was big footballs first he done first his turn he run to London he see the football he seed green grass he dont see no people I cant do nothing now reflexive: he said to hisself (Sakander B6) (Shazia B25) (Aqeel B(1)7) (Shazia B24) (Shazia C10) (Shazia C11) (Humira F42) (Fehdah B2)

Teachers often fail to distinguish between real grammatical errors and dialect forms as they correct childrens work; when this happens both L1 and L2 learners may suffer increased anxiety and cognitive confusion. (See J. Cheshire (1984) for L1, and G. Singh (1988) chapter 3) for L2. 5.3 L1 and L2 Narratives Compared It is not possible, nor even desirable, to attempt a full-scale study of all the differences between the narratives of young native speakers of English and those who are acquiring English as a second language; the project was not set up with this in mind. However, of the sixteen recorded contributions from monolingual interlocutors, nine have been transcribed for further investigation. One of these has been discarded because it does not fit Labovs definition of even a minimal narrative, i.e. a sequence of two clauses which are temporally ordered (Labov 1972a:360); it is a series of answers to specific questions, often in single words, sometimes expressed by subordinate clauses, but the whole transcription contains only one narrative clause, plus one independent comment clause. The other eight are

- 164 -

Chapter 5 narratives, comprising: three versions of Story A, two of Story B, two of Story C, and one of Story D. Even so, it is not feasible to view them as a uniform set, or to look for correlations between their overall length and the percentage of evaluation coded, length and the amount of unevaluated subordination, or subordination and evaluation, as we did in the case of the L2 narratives. No clear relationships between these parameters emerged. With only one narrative from each child, and that taken from one of four possible Model stories, each demanding the use of different structures and devices, there was far too much variation to obtain significant results. These L1 narrators had not been selected as carefully as the L2 subjects; they were graded only as either good or fair, and were impossible to rank on the basis of findings from just one narrative which may, or may not, have been representative. For example, Nina and Tom were bright and articulate, producing lively, coherent versions of Story A with few errors. Whereas Ninas was eighty-four clauses, Toms was only fifty-six, but Tom had a higher percentage of evaluation (79 percent internal and 25 percent external, as against Ninas 69 percent and 15 percent). Eleven percent of their clauses contained non-evaluated subordination, but Tom had a higher proportion of subordination overall (61 percent, as against Ninas 50 percent); however, Clare V., rated by her teachers as fair, and telling a reasonable version of Story B in fortyfive clauses, doubled their score for non-evaluated subordination and almost equalled Toms score overall. Sixty-nine percent of all her clauses contained internal evaluation, and 13 percent external. Therefore, we have chosen to focus on the three versions of Story A and compare these narratives with three of the L2 versions of Story A. We have two sets of partners, Nina (7 years 2 months) and Shvinder (6 years 11 months), and Clare B. (6 years 8 months) and Sheiba (6 years 6 months), who heard the same readings of the model story; Tom (6 years 9 months) and Humira (6 years 8 months) were not partners, but are near enough in age and general ability for a useful comparison to be made. Table 5.4 gives the details of some of the parameters discussed above (and in chapter 4). Nina and Shvinder are pretty evenly matched when it comes to length, the number of subordinate clauses counted, and the amount of evaluation; Clare B. and Sheiba, again, have raw scores within four or five points of each other; but Tom and Humira are clearly not well-matched, as there is a wide gap between them, in Toms favour, in all three areas.

- 165 -

Chapter 5 Thus, these results seem to suggest that the actual interactive setting, and the very fact of sharing an experience, have a bearing on the way both speaker-hearers perform: they hear the same story read under the same circumstances, they share together in any discussion, and they then retell it to each other, and so are bound to be influenced by each others performance to some extent at least. Table 5.4. Story A, L1 - L2 Comparisons
SPEAKERS Main Clauses Title Orientation Narrative Coda Subordinate Clauses Direct Speech or Quotation Indirect Speech Other Subordinate Clauses Clauses Total Clauses Evaluated (Internal) Title Orientation Narrative Coda Direct Speech Clauses Evaluated (External) Embedded Orientation Evaluative Action Suspension of the Action Nina and Shvinder 42 (50%) 0 3 (7%) 38 (90%) 1 (2%) 42 (50%) 38 (90%) 0 4 (10%) 84 58 (69%) 0 4 (7%) 15 (26%) 1 (2%) 38 (66%) 13 (15%) 13 (100%) 0 0 36 (44%) 0 6 (17%) 29 (80%) 1 (3%) 46 (56%) 36 (78%) 2 (4%) 8 (17%) 82 64 (78%) 0 13 (20%) 14 (22%) 1 (2%) 36 (56%) 18 (22%) 11 (61%) 4 (22%) 3 (17%) Tom / Humira 22 (39%) 0 3 (14%) 18 (82%) 1 (5%) 34 (61%) 28 (82%) 2 (6%) 4 (12%) 56 44 (79%) 0 5 (11%) 10 (23%) 1 (2%) 28 (64%) 14 (25%) 12 (86%) 0 2 (14%) 15 (60%) 0 3 (20%) 11 (73%) 1 (7%) 10 (40%) 7 (70%) 0 3 (30%) 25 13 (52%) 0 1 (8%) 4 (31%) 1 (8%) 7 (54%) 2 (8%) 2 (100%) 0 0 Clare B. and Sheiba 28 (72%) 0 1 (4%) 26 (93%) 1 (4%) 11 (28%) 10 (91%) 0 1 (9%) 39 27 (69%) 0 1 (4%) 15 (55%) 1 (4%) 10 (37%) 5 (13%) 5 (100%) 0 0 19 (56%) 0 5 (26%) 13 (68%) 1 (5%) 15 (44%) 12 (80%) 1 (7%) 2 (13%) 34 24 (71%) 0 5 (21%) 7 (29%) 0 12 (50%) 9 (26%) 9 (100%) 0 0

- 166 -

Chapter 5 Table 5.5 pinpoints the differences between the three L1 and the three L2 narratives, by combining the scores of the two sets of narrators: Table 5.5. Total scores for L1 and L2 narratives
Story A (3 Subjects) Average Length Total no. of Clauses Average % of Subordination Total Average % of Clauses Evaluated (Internal) Total Average % of Clauses Evaluated (External) Total L1 59.67 179 46.33 139 72.33 217 17.67 53 L2 47 141 46.67 140 67 201 18.67 56

The L1 narratives are longer than their L2 counterparts, but they contain roughly the same percentage of subordination and external evaluation; however, the L1 narratives contain more internal evaluation. Table 5.6 looks specifically at nonevaluated subordination. Table 5.6. Nonevaluated subordination
in Body of Narrative L1 Nina Tom Clare B. L2 Shvinder Humira Sheiba 3 1 2 5 1 3 8/82 2/25 5/34 10% 8% 15% 3 3 1 6 3 0 9/84 6/56 1/39 11% 11% 3% Embedded in Direct Speech Total Total %

- 167 -

Chapter 5 Table 5.7. Types of subordinate clauses

Non-evaluative Make + infinitive To + infinitive (went, told, asked) (That)-clause (know, wish, thought, saw, afraid) If-clause [Condition] What-clause [Complement] (give, get, this is ...) Who-clause [N + Rel.] Where-clause [Location] (thats, came (from), country) When-clause [Temporal] (about to take ...) Totals Evaluative Foregrounded Temporal (INT/For) Participle: -ed (COR/P. Rt) To-clauses and Because-clauses (EXP/S.Caus) Qualifications (EXP/S.Qual) Comparison clause (run as fast as ...) Totals No. of types Total 1 4 11 3 4 3 4 3 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 3 (1 error that ) Nina 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 Tom Clare Shvinder Humira Sheiba

1 31 Total 10 1 4 4 3 1 23 14

1 9 Nina 1 6 Tom 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 3 8 5 8 1 2 10 7 2 3 2 5 2 1 Clare 8 Shvinder 7 2 Humira 5 Sheiba 1

From the percentages it would appear that L1 narrators use an increasing amount of nonevaluated subordination as they become more proficient; whereas L2 narrators if anything seem to use less. This generalization is obviously misleading, so table 5.7 sets out the different types of subordinate construction found in these six narratives. Here we see that L1 narrators acquire and use an increasing variety of subordinate constructions as they develop, but for the L2 narrators the picture is not so clear. A glance at the other five stories shows that both Shvinder and Humira are able to use ten of the fourteen

- 168 -

Chapter 5 constructions listed, but Sheiba has examples of only six of them. Shvinder also uses that as a relative pronoun, and Humira which, and they all use other subordinators not listed such as unless, if meaning whether, and the concessive as; the two most-able subjects use the -ing participle, but not -ed. We predict that more data from the L1 subjects would reveal a wider range of subordination types than we have discovered in our L2 narratives. Perera (1986) notes a general tendency for co-ordination to decrease as subordination increases, citing the work of Hunt (1966:733; 1970:16), ODonnell et al. (1967:51), and Harpin (1976:60), and comments as follows: All the studies agree that, of the various subordinate clause types, it is the relative (or adjective) clauses that provide the most clear cut evidence of a developmental pattern of growth [i.e. over the age of seven]. (Perera 1986:496) Our L2 subjects omit the relative pronouns who, which, and that, on several occasions but, interestingly, we have not found this colloquial usage in the L1 narratives, (nor it seems in the others collected which have not been transcribed and included in the corpus). Humira omits a relative functioning as subject in the following from her Story D: 14/15 * He - he saw a boy said,

This is clearly ungrammatical; we do not know who was speakinghe (Father Christmas) or the boy, whereas: He saw a boy say, is acceptable because it makes it quite clear that it is the boy. Relative clauses occur more frequently in the L1 narratives and, when they do, they are used correctly. This would suggest that L1 and L2 learners follow a similar developmental path, but that L2 learners tend to use the informal style of their monolingual peers, rather than the formal style being encouraged at school.

- 169 -

Chapter 5 Table 5.8. Internal evaluation: Story A, L1 - L2 comparisons (Continues overleaf)

INTENSIFIERS 1. Phonology 2. Direct Speech / Quotations 3. Boundary features 4. Foregrounding devices 5. Lexical devices 6. Quantifiers 7. Repetitions 8. Appositives Totals COMPARATORS 1. Imperatives 2. Questions 3. Negatives 4. Modals 5. Comparison 6. OR-clauses Totals CORRELATIVES 1. Be-ing 2. Double Appositives 3. Double/Multiple Attributives 4. Participle Right/Left 5. Compound Phrases Nina 43 (34%) 38 (30%) 12 (10%) 8 (6%) 14 (11%) 6 (5%) 3 (2%) 1 (1%) 125 (79%) Nina 0 5 (22%) 7 (30%) 11 (48%) 0 0 23 (14%) Nina 1 (14%) 0 1 (14%) 0 2 (29%) Shvinder 30 (28%) 40 (37%) 9 (8%) 8 (7%) 11 (10%) 5 (5%) 3 (3%) 2 (2%) 108 (74%) Shvinder 0 5 (18%) 12 (43%) 11 (39%) 0 0 28 (19%) Shvinder 3 (50%) 1 (17%) 0 0 2 (33%) Tom 25 (34%) 29 (39%) 2 (3%) 2 (3%) 9 (12%) 5 (7%) 2 (3%) 0 74 (72%) Tom 0 5 (26%) 6 (32%) 8 (42%) 0 0 19 (18%) Tom 0 0 1 (17%) 1 (17%) 2 (33%) Humira 4 (27%) 9 (60%) 1 (7%) 0 0 1 (7%) 0 0 15 (68%) Humira 0 3 (60%) 1 (20%) 1 (20%) 0 0 5 (23%) Humira 0 0 0 0 0 Clare 15 (33%) 11 (24%) 2 (4%) 5 (11%) 2 (4%) 7 (16%) 3 (7%) 0 45 (70%) Clare 0 3 (23%) 5 (38%) 5 (38%) 0 0 13 (20%) Clare 0 0 2 0 3 (60%) Sheiba 11 (29%) 12 (31%) 0 2 (5%) 6 (13%) 3 (8%) 4 (11%) 1 (3%) 39 (83%) Sheiba 0 2 (29%) 1 (14%) 3 (43%) 1 (14%) 0 7 (15%) Sheiba 0 0 0 (40%) 0 1 (100%)

- 170 -

Chapter 5

6. Optional Phrases Totals EXPLICATIVES 1. Qualification (Simple) 2. Causal (Simple)

3 (43%) 7 (4%) Nina 1 (25%) 2 (50%)

0 6 (4%) Shvinder 1 (25%) 2 (50%)

2 (33%) 6 (6%) Tom 2 (50%) 1 (25%)

0 0 Humira 0 2 (100%)

0 5 (8%) Clare 0 1 (100%)

0 1 (2%) Sheiba 0 0

(Nos. 3. - 6. - complex/compound Qualifications / Causals are not found in any of the data.) 7. Clarification (Lex/Clause) Totals Grand totals 1 (25%) 4 (3%) 159 1 (25%) 4 (3%) 146 1 (25%) 4 (4%) 103 0 2 (9%) 22 0 1 (2%) 64 0 0 47

Table 5.8 gives a breakdown of the scores for internal evaluation in the six versions of Story A. As noted above, the L1 speakers produce more internal evaluation than their L2 partners, and this is true of all four evaluative categories, with one exception: Shvinder has five more Negatives than Nina in her Comparator category. Table 5.9. Internal evaluation: Totals for each category
CATEGORIES INTENSIFIERS COMPARATORS CORRELATIVES SEXPLICATIVES Totals L1 244 55 18 9 326 % 75% 17% 5% 3% 100% L2 162 40 7 6 215 % 75% 19% 3% 3% 100%

Total figures are given in table 5.9. Here we can see that the L2 speakers produce roughly two thirds the amount of internal evaluation that is used by the L1 speakers; and, with the exception of the Correlatives, this proportion varies very little from category to category. The distribution within the four categories is remarkably similar for the two groups of

- 171 -

Chapter 5 learners. The Intensifier category accounts for 75 percent of all evaluation; of the rest, 17 19 percent are Comparators, 3-5 percent are Correlatives, and only 3 percent are Explicatives. These figures compare quite well with the average figures obtained for the total corpus of L2 narratives, i.e. 70 percent for Intensifiers, 20 percent for Comparators, 6 percent for Correlatives, and 4 percent for Explicatives; Story A seems to give rise to more Intensifiers and fewer Comparators and Correlatives. However, if we look at the totals given for internal evaluation in tables 5.4 and 5.5, which were based on the number of whole clauses evaluated, we find that the L2 speakers produce 93 percent of the total produced by the L1 speakers, and not 67 percent; the discrepancy tells us simply that the L1 speakers pack more devices into each clause. Table 5.10. Number of devices per clause
Story A (3 Subjects) Total no. of Devices Total no. of Clauses No. of Devices per Clause L1 326 179 1.821 L2 215 141 1.525

Table 5.10 compares the total number of devices produced with the total number of clauses to give the average number of devices per clause for the two groups; the L1 subjects produce an average of 1.8 devices per clause to the L2 subjects 1.5. 5.4 L1 and L2 Discourse Errors 5.4.1 An Error Count of L1 and L2 Errors in Story A In Section 5.2.2 we looked briefly at the grammatical, lexical and phonological errors of our L2 subjects, and predicted that L2 learners would commit more errors than their monolingual peers. Table 5.11 below gives the figures for all error types in the six versions of Story A which we have been looking at in detail. The three L2 speakers each make more errors than their L1 counterparts and their combined total is more than double that of the monolingual trio, i.e. twenty-seven to their eleven; they also make a greater variety of errors, as shown in the second column in table 5.11. The final column gives the average number of errors per clause for each subject expressed as a decimal; if we use these to rank the six subjects, we get the following order:

- 172 -

Chapter 5
1 Tom L1 2 Nina L1 3 Clare B. L1 4 Shvinder L2 5 Sheiba L2 6 Humira L2

Table 5.11. Story A, L1 and L2 errors

L1 SPEAKERS Nina Tom Clare B. Totals Averages L2 SPEAKERS Shvinder Humira Sheiba Totals Averages Errors (Actual) 5 2 4 11 3.67 Errors (Actual) 10 9 8 27 9 Error Types 5 2 2 9 3 Error Types 10 5 7 22 7.33 No. of Clauses 84 56 39 179 59.67 No. of Clauses 82 25 34 141 47 0.239 0.066 Errors per Clause 0.122 0.360 0.235 Errors per Clause 0.060 0.036 0.103

Nina and Tom both have much lower averages than any of the L2 speakers, but Clare B. has only a slightly lower average number of errors per clause than Shvinder; however, Sheiba and Humira have much higher averages than all the rest. Shvinder was graded as very good but the correctness of her grammar is comparable to that of Clare B., regarded only as fair, and not to the two good (to us very good) L1 pupils. These results indicate the gulf which exists between L1 and L2 learners when it comes to the production of errors; yet of the L2 grammatical errors, all but one are similar to the developmental errors made by much younger L1 speakers (see pp. 161163). Only the following: Theres none rice left. (cf. He has none goal. (Shvinder A12) (Fariba B17))

stands out as being an example of foreigners English.

- 173 -

Chapter 5 5.4.2 Discourse Errors L2 grammatical, lexical and phonological errors were discussed briefly in section 5.2.2, and as we noted on page 160, only discourse errors are relevant to issues relating to narrative structure. However, before we look in detail at the actual errors that L1 and L2 speakers make, we need to separate genuine errors from cases of ellipsis, which we will be discussing in the final section of this chapter. Thomas (1979) defines ellipsis as: a communicative option to omit from sentences contextually available elements that are structurally required by the elements that do appear in those sentences. Ellipsis is distinguished from elision, which is the optional omission of specific elements that may be supplied from our knowledge of the language system without the aid of context. (Thomas 1979:43) Thomas reference here to the omission of contextually available elements raises the question: when are such omissions grammatical errors and when are they discourse-level errors, or examples of ellipsis, used in informal or colloquial style? Children typically omit items which play only a minor role in conveying the meaning of a sentence. Some of these omissions are mature and adult-like (i.e. cases of ellipsis), others are developmental errors (grammatical or discourse errors), a few may be specifically L2 errors which are typical of all L2 learners irrespective of age, and some may be ambiguous in that they belong to more than one category. Errors which affect overall sentence organization, and significantly hinder communication, have been labelled global errors by Burt and Kiparsky (1972). However, they were not working with whole discourses, but a collection of isolated English sentences containing errors made by adult EFL learners from all over the world; these were then assessed by native speakers of English as to their comprehensibility. They looked primarily at basic word order, sentence connectors, and exceptions to pervasive principles of English, especially problems related to the observation of selectional restrictions on certain lexical items (e.g. We amused that movie very much (That movie amused us very much)). We want to widen our focus and try to look at errors that stem from the childs growing understanding of the macro-structures (van Dijk 1981:86) of a narrative and how these are expressed syntactically.

- 174 -

Chapter 5 As we indicated in chapter 4, we have simplified Labovs structure of an oral narrative and reduced it to four components: 1. Title 2. Orientation Section 3. Narrative Section 4. Coda and we will follow van Dijk (1981:5) and Fleischman (1990:192) in calling these larger narrative units the macro-syntax, and the syntactic structures and textual strategies employed to create cohesion in the narrative the micro-syntax. Figure 5.1 below is an attempt to represent these relationships.

Macro-syntactic Level Narrative Structure Title Orientation Narrative Coda

Microsyntactic Level Cohesive Devices Clausal Connectives Participant Reference Tense-Aspect Relations

Figure 5.1 We will look first at the left-hand side of figure 5.1 and describe errors which relate specifically to the understanding of the macro-syntactic level of narrative structure (i.e. the Title, Orientation, Narrative Section, and Coda), and then at the right-hand side and consider errors related to the use of the micro-syntactic level of clausal nexus (i.e. Clausal Connectives, Participant Reference, and Tense-Aspect Relations); obviously there is considerable overlap here. Then there are other discourse errors involving omissions, speech reporting, and the use of subordination, which will be discussed under Narrative. There are few discourse errors related specifically to the Title or the Coda; in a sense these are peripheral to the story proper in that they refer to the time frame of the narrating, which Fleischman (1990) calls speaker-now, rather than to the time frame of the - 175 -

Chapter 5 narrated events, which she calls story-now (p. 125). Putting it another way, the Title and Coda are in communication mode, whereas the Orientation and Narrative sections are in storytelling mode (p. 113). Labov (1972a:395) comments on the fact that children generally are more proficient at handling syntax in ordinary conversation than they are at telling stories which contain complex evaluative syntax.

5.4.2.1 Errors in the Orientation Section

The Orientation provides the background information which identifies the time, place, story participants and their activity, and the setting or context in which the events of the story will take place (Fleischman 1990:139). We have no L1 discourse errors in the Orientation but several from the L2 speakers, such as those in the following openers from Faribas Story E and Story F: Story E: ORIENTATION 1 2 3 4 One day there was a boy called ^ Billy

who liked to ride a horse. Whenever he jumped on a horse the horse dropped him down. NARRATIVE

5 Story F:

One day his friend called Ben came over ...

ORIENTATION 1 2 One day Mr. Wong was a Chinaman and he always selled rice. NARRATIVE 3 4 But one day he was fed up and he went to some of his friends ...

In both examples Fariba misidentifies the time relations involved: One day is punctual and was is durative aspect; the punctual time reference is only acceptable at the beginning of a

- 176 -

Chapter 5 narrative section, not when introducing the main characters. Then in the first example, she uses existential there to introduce her character but fails to tell us that Billy was a boy; however, in the second she does give us the vital background information to fully identify Mr. Wong. Although committed by an L2 speaker, these errors are actually unrelated to L2 status as such, in that they stem from the childs, as yet, faulty understanding of the macrostructures of a narrative and how Orientation and Narrative sections are differentiated in the micro-syntax. Other subjects commit similar errors, e.g. Aqeels Story B(1): ORIENTATION 1 2 There was a man called ^ Father Christmas.

There was what a mess.

NARRATIVE 3 And he tidied them and cupboard.

Humiras Story E: TITLE /ORIENTATION 1 One day Billy and the football team

NARRATIVE 2 3 Billy went outside and he went to the football team.

Here the one day is not an addition but a misplaced item, and the intended status of 1 is, therefore, unclear. Aqeel, in his Story C, demonstrates the fact that he knows that some stories start with Once upon a time but he misquotes the formula slightly: ORIENTATION 1 2 3 Once upon a day there was a cowboy. He lived in the country and um he keep losing his cows.

- 177 -

Chapter 5 NARRATIVE 4 He go to find the cows - - -

Shazia, in her Story F, shows that she has memorized Once upon a time and parrots it off correctly, but she does not know how to introduce her character: ORIENTATION 1 Once upon a time there was - - -

NARRATIVE 2 Hes buying the drink and rice krisps.

Several stories do not begin with an Orientation section at all; the narrator jumps straight into the main events and includes background information as and when (s)he needs it, e.g. Shvinders Story D: NARRATIVE 1 2 3 4 5 One day Father Christmas said, I never have a holiday not even at summertime. I have to have a holiday. So he had a long thought about it.

ORIENTATION 6 And when he had thought about it

NARRATIVE 7 8 he went to Kristel and told him.

This is a legitimate and effective way to begin a story because the orientation is embedded in Father Christmass opening monologue. The only problem occurs in 7 when she mentions Kristel without saying who he is; however, her hearers have already heard the model story, and besides, this is the second story Kristel has appeared in, and so she considers it to be old information; her hearers know already that Kristel is a snowman.

- 178 -

Chapter 5

5.4.2.2 Narrative Section

Most errors in the Narrative section involve clausal connectives, participant reference, and tense-aspect relations, which we will discuss under separate headings. However, we did allude to the commission of discourse omission errors in our opening preamble, and we have two examples of omissions where the use of ellipsis is probably not legitimate. The first example, from Humiras Story A, also involves a lexical error: 17 18 19 So he [the Snowman] went inside the house andumtold him all about the North Pole and told him him ^ ^ ^ to send a letter to me.

Humira conflates two separate meanings of the verb tell into one complex sentence; in 18 she has the Snowman tell Mr. Wong all about the North Pole (i.e. tell = to impart information), but in 19, the Snowman asks, or orders, him to send him a letter (i.e. tell = to order someone to do something). Clearly, Humira is familiar with both meanings but does not yet know that mature native speakers do not put them together in the same sentenceeven though young L1 speakers might! Because there are two distinct meanings of the verb tell involved here, and not just two separate pieces of information being passed on, ellipsis of the verb and object in 19 is not permitted; a mature native speaker would probably also change the expression to asked him for stylistic reasons. The ellipsis of the conjunction and is also an error because there is no logical connection between the information about the North Pole and the sending of the letter. The second example, from Sakanders Story E, is less clear: 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 And, once, he did bump ball in - on his head was and um ^ kicking and ^ jumping kicking on the ball just um putting one leg up and kicking the ball and the other leg up

- 179 -

Chapter 5 14 kicking the ball.

If we ignore the grammatical omission and addition errors (i.e. the missing article in 7, and the unwanted preposition in 10), and the words did bump for bounced, we are still left with a non-nativelike sequence in 8 and 9; the ellipted auxiliary is recoverable but we do, nevertheless, have an ungrammatical ellipsis and, therefore, the omission constitutes an error. The conjunction and must be present in 9, even though it may be ellipted in 10 and 14. Errors involving the use of direct speech occur in the narratives of both L1 and L2 speakers; the problem is not with the embedded speech but with the reporting clause. The following examples of double speech margins are typical of many others in the data: Clare V. (L1) Story C 24 25 26 27 He said, What er you doing here? he shouted. He said, ...

Sheiba (L2) Story C 7 8 9 And the Caretaker said, In Greenland it is snowy and icy, said the Caretaker.

The double margins are not intentional; they are indications that the speakers are aware of the two possibilities and, having completed the speeches, have forgotten that they have already used initial margins. A typical L2 error is to use the pronouns and intonation of direct speech, and yet include the complementizer that, e.g. the following from Humiras Story D: 22 23 24 Everybody says that Why dont you come and give presents? ---

- 180 -

Chapter 5 55 56 57 butand he did say and the Father Christmas did say that I will (go) as well with the Snowman.

The first example (2224) is problematic and will be discussed again in the following chapter; it involves embedded direct speech which is difficult even for adult storytellers to handle, and so it is no surprise to find that a six-year-old second-language learner inserts a that before the embedding. The second example (5557) is clearer and illustrates Humiras confusion as to whether or not the that is needed; she decides, incorrectly, that it is. Sheiba, in her Story D, gives us the following: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 One day Father Christmas got tired and tired. He went to bed and he - thinked and thinked and thinked that When I give little children presents they dont say thank you.

which also has an unwanted that preceding the speech; however, she continues with two further speeches where the complementizer is not included, and there is no error. The variation here indicates that Sheiba, also, is uncertain as to the correct way to report direct speech. An interesting L1 error is Kenneths unintentional appending of two non-matching subordinate clauses to the same main clause in his Story B: 37 38 39 40 And they kicked it [the new football] and where they [the losing team] wanted it to go it went where it wanted to go.

He is either trying to get across the idea that the new football had a mind of its own, or that it wanted what they wanted; the desired outcome of the story, a win for the underdogs, could be achieved by either interpretation. The addition of didnt matter

- 181 -

Chapter 5 between 38 and 39 would establish the first interpretation (assuming the team were so hopeless that they had no clear tactics), and the addition of and this was between 39 and 40 would ensure the second interpretation. The following L2 novel repetition of a participle clause by Humira, in her Story F, is an error which would not be committed by a native speaker: 3 4 5 6 7 One day Mr. Wong said, I am fed up because for cooking and cooking and giving everyone food. [because of all this cooking]

Not only is the repetition of cooking non-nativelike, the use of for instead of of is also decidedly quaint.

5.4.2.3 Clausal Connectives

Both groups of learners make mistakes in the use of clausal connectives. The L2 learners may omit a conjunction, use the wrong one, or misplace the right one, while L1 learners are still likely to miss the more subtle differences between an additive and and an adversive but, or a causal because and a concessive although. For example, the following from Ninas Story A: 76 77 78 79 and in the night a sack of full of rice tumbled down the chimney and made the fire go out but and Mr. Wong didnt mind that.

Number 77 follows on as the next event from 76, but this is not the pattern with 79; here we find something surprising or contrary to expectation which is not captured by the use of and. And in 79 merely indicates an afterthought, rather than the important point that Mr. Wong was so relieved to get his rice that he was not going to complain about having to relight the fire. We have a parallel example in Clare V.s Story C: 43 He went back

- 182 -

Chapter 5 44 45 where he belonged but and did not mention Greenland to the other cowboys.

Billy-the-Twit had set off with his cows to Greenland because he thought he would find plenty of grass there and, consequently, felt very foolish when he discovered his mistake; he did not want to be made to feel even more foolish by revealing to the other cowboys just where he had been. Is it significant that but, rather than and, should precede the negative statement? John, in the following from his Story C, introduces a but where its presence produces an anomalous sentence, when what he intended was a simple clarification to rectify his initial mistake: 24 25 26 27 And, on the way, he met lots of people but there was only a few but he didnt care because he liked to be alone.

The but in 26 again precedes a negative; it is correctly used to explain his characters lack of concern at meeting few fellow-travellers. The L2 errors involving and and but are, in the main, typical developmental errors similar to those made by younger native speakers of English. Sheiba gives us a classic example of a misplaced and in her Story A: 1 2 3 4 One day Mr. Wong woke up so early. And he had a shop. He said, I can put this in my shop.

She probably launched into the first event and then remembered that she had not mentioned the important point that Mr. Wong had a shop. So she popped it in quickly as an afterthought. If she had started again, she would have reordered the piece to read: Mr. Wong had a shop. One day he woke up so early and ...

- 183 -

Chapter 5 Shvinder gives us another example of and used incorrectly in a case of contraexpectation, in her Story A: 24 25 26 27 Suddenly the rice started to talk and Mr. Wong thought that the rice didnt talk and he was talking.

The precise meaning intended in 25 and 26 is not too clear; the meaning of the original was that the rice spoke to him, but the incredulous Mr. Wong thought he was dreaming because rice cant speak!. Lower down, in 31 and 32, Shvinder does have Mr. Wong say: 31 32 I didnt know rice could speak!

which indicates that she was following the original, despite the definite article in 26. We have already seen Sakanders omission of and in his Story E; conversely, Fariba gives us an example of an unwanted and, in her Story E: 8 9 10 11 12 And Billy said, My horse keeps ^ me down when Im on its back and I hurt my back. And just look at it!

The and in 12 sounds odd, and certainly detracts from the impact of the imperative just look at it!. A similar grey area occurs in Shvinders Story E: 31 32 33 34 35 Billy said, I think it wasnt me think and I thought it was the horse.

- 184 -

Chapter 5 The unwanted and in 34, coupled with the change of tense, detracts from the impact of the positive-negative contrast between what he did and did not think. Perhaps, too, 3235 could be expressed more idiomatically as: I dont think it was me; I think it was the horse (who deserved the prize). In her Story E, Shvinder uses a co-ordinative construction with and instead of a subordinative one with that: 4 5 6 So Ben, Billys friend Ben, showed him that and he could even do anything with a ball as he was a footballer.

This is clearly non-nativelike, especially with the unwanted addition of even in the same clause. This use of co-ordination (parataxis) instead of subordination (hypotaxis) is not an error widely reported in the literature as L2 researchers, such as Burt and Kiparsky (1972) and Johansson (1975), seem more interested in confusions involving different complement types than in those between subordination and co-ordination as such. (The distinction between hypotaxis and parataxis is crucial to the understanding of strategies used by oral storytellers for narrative subordination [i.e backgrounding predictable, less salient items] (Beaman 1984)). We will conclude this section by giving two examples, one L1 and one L2, where the wrong choice of subordinator conveys an incorrect understanding of the temporal or causal relations involved. The first is from Kenneths Story B: 44 45 46 47 48 If they get one more goal they win. just as And when the referee blowed the whistle the ball went right at the back of the net. And they won the whole game.

The use of when in 46 implies that the whistle blew and then, at that time, the ball went into the net, which would mean that the goal would be disallowed. Whereas, the actions were simultaneous; the ball was in the net just as the whistle was sounding and, consequently, the goal was counted and the match was won. - 185 -

Chapter 5 Silva (1991), discussing simultaneity in childrens narratives, cites the work of Heinamaki (1974) who points out that in sentences involving when-clauses each clause nails down an interval, which can be a moment (1974:36). Heinamaki also demonstrates conclusively, according to Silva (1991), that the intervals defined in the two clauses may overlap or occur in succession. This is precisely the problem with Kenneths use of when above. Silva goes on to say that as denotes merely simultaneity of two situations (1991:645) and that a well-formed sentence containing an as-clause specifies events taking place at the same time, with one event serving as a backdrop to the other (p. 648). Then in a footnote she adds that just ascan often mark a single point in time, which is the situation we have above. The second example is from Shvinders Story C: 36 37 38 39 40 41 So he said, Come inside. Its going to be very hot in there and tomorrow you gotta leave because otherwise the days will get very cold and it will start snowing.

Shvinder still has to differentiate between the meanings of the conjunctions because and otherwise; this use of otherwise suggests that Billy-the-Twits departure, or nondeparture, would have a determining effect on the weather and whether it would snow or not. The original said, You must return home straight away, tomorrow, before the winter snows come. Otherwise is equivalent to if not, a negative conditional rather than a causal conjunction like because, the intended meaning.

5.4.2.4 Participant Reference

Halliday and Hasan (1976) draw the distinction between exophoric, or situational, reference which plays no part in textual cohesion, and endophoric reference which does (pp. 18, 33). Endophoric relations are of two kinds: anaphoric relations which look back in the text for their interpretation, and cataphoric relations which look forward. Martin (1983), looking specifically at childrens storytelling, sees reference as a series of options, the most basic being the choice between introducing an entity as new information or alluding to an entity as given (old information which the hearer would already know about). He labels this choice

- 186 -

Chapter 5 as presenting or presuming. Figure 5.2 below taken from Martin (1983:11) diagrams the various options facing the young narrator and his/her hearers.

Presenting Reference Presuming Context of Culture (homophora) Context of Situation Direct (anaphora) Verbal (endophora) Nonverbal (exophora) Indirect (bridging)

Figure 5.2 As we can see, Martin uses the term context of situation for both exophora and endophora. The verbal context is what Brown and Yule (1983:47) call the co-text, and presuming reference that involves a co-textual verbal tie may be direct (e.g. by way of pronouns such as he and it) or indirect, by sense-making bridging links which the hearer has to supply for him/herself. Young narrators, according to Martin, rely on exophoric reference to immediate context on both first and subsequent mention, by means of a definite noun phrase (e.g. the snowman) where more mature storytellers would follow the conventional means of presenting the entity as new on first mention, and would thereafter use anaphora in subsequent mentions. We do not get such a clear picture from our subjects. Kenneth (L1), in his Story B, uses Father Christmas and he for reference to his main character and exophoric reference for minor characters and props; this use of both sorts of reference produces an interesting error: 14 15 16 17 18 19 And he came to London and all the London people were shopping. And the one lady said, Oh, not again! We only came here for half an hour. And - and - and the lady said, ...

- 187 -

Chapter 5 In 16 he tries to use both exophoric the and endophoric one at the same time. In Tammys version of the same story we find: 7 8 9 10 and um he saw a lady called Mr. s Roundface. And she said, What are you doing? - - -

which exemplifies the adult system. However, Tammy does revert to the exophoric system at the end of her narrative and, by so doing, commits an error: 28 29 30 31 And Father Christmas asked can he borrow one of the balls. The goalkeeper said, Yes, alright. And - um - there the Christmas was playing football with his friend.

In 31 she refers to Father Christmas as the Christmas, which is probably a slip triggered by reference to the goalkeeper (a homophoric reference understood by all football fans) in the preceding utterance. As expected, the L2 speakers run into more complex problems, and often fail to keep their chains of reference to two different characters apart, as in Faribas Story D below: 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 He walked and walked until he came to a man. Father Christmas ^ Snowman said, Hello! I want to go to a holiday. Will you tell me where I can go? The snowman said, India, Pakistan, Australia and America.

This narrative begins with a disgruntled Father Christmas who disliked seeing his picture on Christmas cards. He was so fed up that he wanted to get away from it all. So the he in 68 is Father Christmas. The problem clause is 9: a man is introduced in 8 who appears - 188 -

Chapter 5 to turn into Snowman (minus the definite article) in 9; but it is Father Christmas who wants to go on holiday, and so the reference to snowman in 9 is obviously a tongue slip or a momentary confusion. In 13 Fariba corrects her mistake and has the snowman suggest four possible holiday locations in answer to Father Christmass request for help. Aqeels Story A is even more difficult for the hearer to process because he uses he for three different participants, often switching from one to another without employing any device to signal the switch. The only way to keep track of the participants is to number them as follows: (1) the Chinese man, (2) the Snowman, thought by (1) to be a sack of rice, and (3) Father Christmas: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Once upon a time there was a man - Chinese man. He sold rice. And rice um disappeared. And he saw someone else in the morning. He saw rice. He opened it. Then the Snowman - he helped him. He - um - taked a letter to Father Christmas. He wanted some rice krispies rice - yes, he bunged from the chimney. But he ate it all up on the food. After all he did have food for Christmas.
1 1 3 1 2 3 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 1

However, we are only able to number the participants because we know the original story; David, his interlocutor, also knew the original story and, as we saw in chapter 3, pages 66 67, he tried to take over and tell the story for Aqeel, which added to Aqeels problems. Karmiloff-Smith (1980, 1981) documents the first developmental stage in the acquisition of pronominal anaphora as the use of pronouns in utterance-initial position, marking the thematic subject. There is a change in thematic subject between 8 and 9 which is not

- 189 -

Chapter 5 signalled phonologically, lexically, or syntactically and this omission constitutes a discourse error. There is also a momentary switch from participants 1 to 3 in 10. Sheiba, in her Story A which we looked at above, introduces a prop by this, rather than by naming it: 3 4 5 6 7 He said, I can put this in my shop. And the shop people buyed it. The people buyed it and there was no more rice left.

Thus, we would expect her to be making a deictic reference to something in the immediate context but, no, this refers forward to rice in 7. However, it is not a direct cataphoric reference but more akin to Martins bridging inferences although, from Sheibas perspective, it is predominantly exophoric. It would seem that she intends us to bridge between this in 4 and no more rice in 7, for we are certainly led by what follows to the assumption that this does, in fact, refer to a sack of rice; but because of the amount of processing we, as hearers, are forced to do, we conclude that this use of a demonstrative without any antecedent amounts to a discourse error. Toolan (1988) briefly notes the importance of the appropriate and effective use of bridging inferences and other types of participant reference: frequency of noun phrases involving bridging is not in itself an index of maturity: rather it is increasingly appropriate recourse to bridging that we should look for.One final point to consider would be the ways in which entity introductions that are identical in terms of the system of choices [as set out on p. 281] are yet substantially different as regards effective storytelling. ( pp. 208209) As children mature they use more appropriate and effective ways of introducing their characters to their hearers; our subjects, both L1 and L2, still have some way to go yet, as evidenced by the kinds of errors which they make.

- 190 -

Chapter 5

5.4.2.5 Tense-Aspect Relations

In chapter 4, section 4.2.5, page 122, we briefly mentioned the use by some subjects of the conversational historic present (CHP) and the switching between narrative past tense and present tense as a means of highlighting certain portions of a narrative and dividing up the flow of action; it is also seen by Schiffrin (1981) as a dramatizing device. We looked at a section of Sakanders Story B and showed that, even though he was able to use the device effectively, he did not make the switch at the right place and so committed an error: 17 18 19 20 21 22 But suddenly when they kicked balls they keep on losing them. And if they tackle they keep on losing them. If they score goals they lose the ball.

Humira makes a similar incorrect switch in her Story B: 32 33 34 35 36 They were playing and one boy always throws it up in the air and it comes in your chimney - from the chimney and comes here in the box to shut ...

Sakanders 17 and Humiras 32 should also be in the present tense, and then both pieces would be even more effective; the initial clauses set the scene for those which follow. Aqeels use of the CHP in his Story D is certainly arresting but he does not follow it through successfully: ORIENTATION 1 One day there was a Father Christmas.

NARRATIVE 2 3 4 And he wants a holiday and he want^ to ^ this year and he said,

- 191 -

Chapter 5 5 I want holidays.

It is not clear whether 3 was intended as a present tense form or not, so the omission of the tense marker is unfortunate; if the whole piece had been narrated in CHP it would have made a very lively beginning to the story, cf. the following: 1 2 3 4 5 Father Christmas is feeling tired and cross. What he wants is a holiday. And he wants to go this year. He says to himself in a grumpy voice, I want my holidays.

L1 narrators also use CHP to highlight particular sections of their narratives. In her Story C, Clare V. switches from past to present between the opener and the scene-setting preliminary events which state the overall narrative point of the story: 1 2 3 4 5 Once there was a cowboy called Billy-the-Twit. He get^ muddled up with his cows. He does not know which is which.

However, the omission error in 3 means that we can only assume that Clare intends get to be a present tense form and not past tense got. Most of the narratives are told entirely in the past tense apart from the passages of direct speech. Therefore, tense-aspect errors tend to occur because of difficulties encountered in complex constructions. Nina (L1) is not quite sure how to handle an indirect request in her letter to Father Christmas in Story A: 63 Dear Father Christmas, please could you send me some rice on Christmas Eve. 64 65 66 67 Ill be very happy if you did because my customers need it. Thank you. - 192 -

Chapter 5 Probably the more appropriate correction would be to change 64 to I would be very happy if you did to match the could in 63, rather than changing 65 to Ill be very happy if you do which is less respectful. Tammy appears to have a similar problem in her Story B: 28 29 And Father Christmas asked can he borrow one of the balls

but, before correcting can he to if he could, there is possibly another explanation: she may be using free indirect discourse (FID) which is a mixture of direct and indirect speech. Toolan (1988) notes the following characteristics of FID which are relevant here: third person pronouns used to refer to the implied speaker, syntactic inversion in questions, and more prominent use of modality markers (p. 123). However, we are still left wondering if: 28 29 Father Christmas asked could he borrow one of the balls

would be a more correct rendering, or whether the use of the present tense can makes the request more vivid, reinforcing the sense of orientation to the character rather than to the narrator. But, as Toolan points out, typically this kind of reporting is in the past tense. The L2 speakers often use a past tense form instead of the present in direct speech, especially with modals, e.g. the following from Shvinders Story A: 7 8 9 10 11 12 And he [Mr. Wong] told his wife, Darling dear, there isnt any rice in the cupboard. She said, have But we had to open the shop today. And he said, Theres none rice left.

Mr. s Wong is not justifying her action in opening the shop but protesting that the shop must open despite the lack of rice. In the following opening from Faribas version of the same story, she gives background information in the Orientation but erroneously uses far past modality when she introduces the event line in the Narrative section:

- 193 -

Chapter 5 ORIENTATION 1 2 3 4 Once upon a time there was a man. His name was Mr. Wong. He used to sell rice and made his customers very happy.

NARRATIVE 5 6 7 8 9 was all But one day the rice had been gone. He had asked the shipman to bring some but um the shipman did not listen. So Mr. Wong went home.

Then in 23 she merges would and will, a similar type of confusion to Ninas above (p. 192): 20 21 22 23 And please would you tell Father Christmas to deliver some rice at Christmas night? Yes please, said Mr. Wong. will I would, said the snowman.

This is a developmental error which is unrelated to L2 status, as are the other L2 errors mentioned above. The following, from Humiras Story D, is more problematic: 29 30 31 32 33 ... he went home and he said, when/if ^ I dress everything changes. couldnt Before they cant see me different. [put on a disguise]

- 194 -

Chapter 5 It is very difficult for the hearer to decode; does she mean that Father Christmas must dress up if he wants to be unrecognizable to the general public or, as we have suggested, that before he put on his disguise there was no way of concealing his identity? The narrative continues: 34 35 36 So next time he went to a holiday and everybody didnt recognize him was that hes a Father Christmas.

Here we find the present tense of the verb to be when the happenings are clearly set in the past. These examples from Humira illustrate the way errors cluster together to present major processing problems for interlocutors; 31 to 33 is not a nativelike sequence and probably would not be produced by a native speaker. All the errors that we have discussed so far in this section are concerned with tense rather than aspect. Progressive forms are not used all that often, and when they are they are almost always evaluative. We have only one rather complex example of an aspectual error, from Sakanders Story A, where the progressive form of the verb is required but not supplied: 3 4 5 6 7 But something dreadful happened. His rice was ran out and so he couldnt do anything about it. So Mr. Wong was worried about running his rice ran out.

In 6 and 7, the depletion of Mr. Wongs rice supply is not viewed as a punctual event but as an ongoing state of affairs which was the cause of Mr. Wongs anxiety, and so the -ing form is the correct form with about. If we want to focus on the end point of the depletion, we can change the sentence to Mr. Wong was worried because/that his rice ran/had run out. Unlike the grammatical addition errors of was in 4 and so in 5, 6 and 7 involve considerable syntactic complexity which is perhaps beyond the range of even the average 6- to 7-year-old native speaker.

- 195 -

Chapter 5 5.4.3 Ellipsis The use of discourse ellipsis is a matter of style, and will normally only be employed in interactive situations and where missing item(s) are recoverable from the context (see quotation from Thomas (1979) on page 174. Inghams (1992b) manuscript Acquiring Subject Ellipsis in Discourse raises the question: how does the child acquire discourse ellipsis? and concludes that it is by attending to regularities in input speech; exceptions are regarded as just noise in the data. He also discusses the fact that the same mechanism operates for both grammatical and discourse ellipsis; so how can children differentiate between the two, when one involves grammatical competence and the other communicative competence? This is 7a question we will come back to after looking at the data.

5.4.3.1 L1 Examples of Ellipsis

Adrian: Subject and Verb Ellipsis The following example from Story D occurs in answer to a question where it is totally unnecessary, as far as successful communication is concerned, for the subject and verb to be repeated: 1 2 Father Christmas was so sad because he wasnt feeling well. - - [What did he need?] 3 4 5 ^ ^ to go to bed.

And he went to sleep and dreamed all about his holidays.

However, we might argue that the story narration was a formal situation, and that the conversational interlude was an interruption; an experienced storyteller might well choose not to respond directly to the prompting and carry on his/her narrative as if it had not occurred, i.e.: 3 He decided to go to bed.

Interestingly, the rest of the story is quite fluent and there are no more interactional exchanges.

- 196 -

Chapter 5 Matthew: Ellipsis of All Recoverable Information Matthews Story D, which was excluded from the data because it contained only one narrative clause, is, however an excellent example of the operation of ellipsis in question and answer couplets: [Who is the story about?] 1 Father Christmas (not The story was about Father Christmas)

[And what was his friends name?] 2 Walter [Thats right! And why was Father Christmas all fed up and cross?] 3 4 because he didnt want the children to have their Christmas [Why didnt he? What did he want?] 5 to go on a holiday [Thats right! He wanted to go on holiday. So how did he have his holiday?] 6 by putting on a disguise [What happened for Christmas - instead of presents and things?] 7 They played with the snow. [Thats right! Who organized it?] 8 Walter [Thats right! And they played in the snow, didnt they? Was there anything special about the snow?] 9 It was magic. [What did Walter feel like at the end of Christmas?] 10 Tired [Thats right! So what did Father Christmas do for him?] 11 12 Let him to go on a holiday. [Thats right! And where did he go to?] 13 Australia

- 197 -

Chapter 5 [ Thats right! And when did he go? When it was] 14 Snowing [Do you remember?] 15 Melted [No, he didnt melt, though youd expect him to because it was summer. Why was it he didnt melt? Do you remember that? - - - Father Christmas asked the fairies to make a spell, didnt he?] In all, Matthew gives 15 minimal responses; he ellipts everything that can be ellipted. Only two of the answers are grammatically complete, but in every case bar one the antecedents of the ellipted words are found in the preceding question. However, his final reply is only meaningful if the hearer has heard the original version; melted does not follow on from the question, which anticipates an affirmative answer and some details of the circumstances surrounding the events being questioned, and so is not a genuine case of ellipsis, but a discourse error and a violation of Grices Maxim of Quantity (see chapter 2, p. 50). Nina: Object Ellipsis Ninas example, from Story A, occurs in a conversational passage and the ellipsis passes almost unnoticed: 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 Father Christmas! Whos Father Christmas? said Mr. Wong. Hes a person who makes children happy and gives them presents and what they want. See! they write notes to him and he sends ^ and he gives them presents on Christmas Eve.

If we had not listened to the tape recording, we would have said that this was just a simple repair where she corrects herself and changes sends to gives; but the passage is remarkably fluent and she clearly intends the expression sends and gives because the two are linked phonologically.

- 198 -

Chapter 5 Thomas (1979) deals with ellipsis and transitivity, and subcategorizes transitive verbs into those allowing ellipsis, those insisting on object-manifestation, and a third subcategory which he calls reflexive object elision (pp. 5455). Here send allows ellipsis only because it is linked to the verb give which has two objects in both 51 and 55; we know from 50 that the indirect object them refers to children as recipients and, from the general context, that the direct object of send is things which make suitable gifts for young children.

5.4.3.2 L2 Examples of Ellipsis

We have evidence from the data that young second-language learners are also gradually acquiring discourse ellipsis, but some of our examples are less clear because they co-occur with addition, misformation or misordering errors. Shazia: Subject and Verb Ellipsis The example below, from Shazias Story E, is a clear case of ellipsis; the missing items he was carry a very low information load and the utterance as a whole gives the reason for the previous happening: 20 21 hurt Billy do his back again. Um ^ ^ a long time on horse.

Aqeel: Subject and Auxiliary Ellipsis Aqeels example, from Story B(2), possibly requires a wider application of the term context, to include situational context as well as textual context, or co-text: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Once upon a time there was Father Christmas and there was mess. And he saw boxes. There was footballs inside. He said, What I do now? - - And he went to London. And he - and the lady - - The Father Christmas said,

- 199 -

Chapter 5 10 11 12 13 14 What ^ ^ ^ ^ do with these balls?

go to football.

When they went to football it was on andthey, all the team was making plans.

In 10 shall I is ellipted but is recoverable from 6 if, in 6, the omitted shall (a grammatical omission error) is first inserted. Utterance 6 cannot be unequivocally interpreted as a question without shall because the intonation does not help, and he breaks off before the next utterance and could have intended something like What I do now is to go to London. In order to interpret 11 as the hortative Lets go to football, rather than the imperative Go to football!, we look at 12; the hortative is the only interpretation which would take the event line forward to 12 from the ladys answering suggestion. We might well question whether a child who had not heard the original would have been able to process the data in this way; our answer is possibly because this is the most obvious way to make sense of the piece, and hearers do make conscious efforts to decode the utterances they hear. Fehdah: Subject and Auxiliary Ellipsis Fehdahs example from Story F is clear because only one participant has been introduced and so the ellipted items he would must, of necessity, apply to him: 1 2 3 One day Mr. Wong was um - very (an)noyed because he didnt like Tableland. ^ ^ never ever come back.

The ellipsis is, therefore, legitimate, especially as it is reinforced by appropriate expressive phonology and the emphasizer ever. Shazia: Subject Ellipsis Shazias example from Story B is also unambiguous, though the narrative itself is incoherent. Her protagonist is Father Christmas: 1 Father Christmas look at box

and, after this briefest of introductions, he is thereafter referred to as he.

- 200 -

Chapter 5 18 19 20 21 He look in the window. He didnt saw it. and he didnt go ^ didnt see them - - -

21 is problematic because she does not tell us what it and them refer to, not because he is missing. Subject ellipsis of this kind is the most common form of ellipsis reported by Ingham (1992b). We now return to two examples by Sakander and Humira discussed above (pp. 179180), where the use of ellipsis is not legitimate: Humiras for semantic reasons and Sakanders because, although recoverable, the ellipsis is still ungrammatical. These add substance to Inghams (1992b) claim that a simple notion to the effect that ellipsis is allowed if the missing item is contextually retrievable, either linguistically or non-linguistically (Thomas 1979:45) cannot be a sufficient condition (p. 4); in our examples, both semantic and syntactic restrictions are involved. Although second-language learners have to acquire the communicative competence to know when ellipsis is permissible and when it is not, this is not just a matter of L2 competence but a universal and pragmatic issue. We have noted that some subjects have yet to grasp the importance of prior mention in discourse. Their grammatical knowledge tells them that, in English as well as Panjabi, subjects are overtly expressed; but their growing discourse, or communicative, competence also tells them that, if there is no change of subject, and it is clear from the co-text who he or she happens to be, then the understood subject may be ellipted in informal speech. This kind of ellipsis is probably a universal tendency, differing only in details across languages. Other subjects, such as Sakander and Humira, discover later that verbs and auxiliaries may also be ellipted under similar conditions, as long as the semantic and/or syntactic restrictions allow it; these restrictions may be universal or language specific. On page 196 above we mentioned the need to distinguish between grammatical and discourse ellipsis, and asked how children learn to differentiate between the two kinds of competence, grammatical and communicative, when the same input drives the acquisition of both (Ingham 1992b:6). This problem has been posed by Valian (1991) and has yet to be answered. After looking at the data, we can only conclude that the issue is multi-layered and that various factors are at work to determine acceptability: Ingham mentions

- 201 -

Chapter 5 formal/informal style, and phonological and syntactic factors; we, additionally, have examples of semantic factors which prevent ellipsis from taking place legitimately. 5.5 Summary We began the chapter with a few introductory remarks about the relationship between evaluation and event structure, or plot construction, and evaluation and the presence of errors. We were able to provide some statistical evidence for the hypothesis that an evaluated narrative will also have a well-constructed event line, but NOT for the hypothesis that an evaluated narrative will necessarily contain less errors. In fact, grammatical, phonological and lexical errors are seldom found to hinder otherwise good communication significantly. We followed this by an in-depth quantitative comparison of evaluation and other related issues in the narratives of L1 and L2 subjects, concluding that our L2 subjects use only about two thirds the amount of internal evaluation used by the L1 subjects. Discourse errors across the two groups of learners were then studied, both for their similarities and their differences. We noted that while most L2 errors are developmental in origin, a few may be directly attributable to L2 status. We concluded with a brief consideration of discourse ellipsis as a possible indicator of communicative competence. In the next two chapters, we discuss the various evaluative devices in detail and seek to show, with specific examples, when a particular feature is used evaluatively and when it is not. Chapter 6 deals with the Intensifier category and chapter 7 with Comparators, Correlatives and Explicatives, and also with External Evaluation.

- 202 -

Chapter 6

CHAPTER 6: A DISCUSSION OF THE EVALUATIVE DEVICES FOUND IN THE DATA: (1) INTENSIFIERS 6.1 Introduction Evaluation consists of all the means used by a narrator to establish and sustain the point of the story and to convey to the hearer his/her personal involvement in it. In the previous two chapters, we outlined our method of analysis and tabulated all the potentially evaluative devices identified in the data; we counted actual occurrences and noted our subjects preferences. We provided tables to support the hypothesis that the number, or percentage, of evaluated clauses a subject produces is directly related to other indicators of good or bad storytelling, namely, story length and the amount of subordination of various kinds which is employed. We also included a negative correlation between poor plot structure, indicated by the number of long pauses or discontinuities recorded, and the number of potentially evaluative structures found, and looked at the relationship between evaluation and the production of errors. But what we have not yet done is to separate the genuinely evaluative devices from those that are only potentially so. The only scientific or foolproof way of doing this is to record our hearers reactions, but this cannot be done effectively without using video-tape; however, hearers often verbalize their responses, or make appreciative noises, and these do get recorded on the tape and so can be used as evidence. In the majority of cases there is no audible response and it is a matter of the researchers subjective judgment backed up by persuasive argument. Sometimes, there is no convincing argument available to us; then we are forced to rely on our experience, and knowledge of the context and the personality of the narrator, and to state what we feel to be the case without necessarily being able to prove it. As we indicated in chapter 2 (p. 45) Labov questions the ability of young children below the age of ten to use devices such as quantifiers, repetition, negatives, futures, modals, and because-clauses for specific evaluative purposes in the course of telling a story. He allows that they do know how to use them but not how to exploit them for maximum impact: It is surprising that this use of complex syntax in narrative should fall so far behind competence in ordinary conversation. The contrast appears most sharply with comparators; there is no question that preadolescents are thoroughly skilled in the use of - 203 -

Chapter 6 other devices such as modals, questions, or futures. But they do not call upon these elements as freely as adults in presenting their own experience. The skilled adult complicates his representation of experience, moving back and forth from real to imaginary events. Children complain, question, deny, and worry, but adults are more aware of the significance of this activity and more likely to talk about it. (1972a: 395 396) Our experience is that children are actually more skilful than we expect them to be, especially when telling stories containing reported conversation. Opportunities to use direct speech have been taken by all eight subjects, and it is in these conversational passages that we find the complaining, questioning, denying, and worrying referred to above; these accurately portray real-life attitudes to the events of the story which are dramatically represented in the evaluative phonology, syntax, and vocabulary used. However, as we saw in chapters 4 and 5, some children make more successful storytellers than others, and so in the next two chapters we want to discover exactly how and why this should be, using evaluation as our yardstick. It is not simply the case that good storytellers use evaluation and poor storytellers do not, but that the good ones use it more effectively. Fleischman states that: Evaluation refers to the various EXPRESSIVE strategies through which narrators comment on the propositional content of their stories and communicate their significance. A strategic component of effective narration, evaluation operates both at the global level of the text as a whole and at the local level of individual elements. What transforms a straight chronicle of events into a narrative is in large part evaluation. (1990:143144) Successful storytellers are looking for an active response from their audience, i.e. attentive involvement in the events of the narrative being told. We might argue as to whether this is a conscious, or largely subconscious, motivation: our own view is that it is the latter. Clearly, audience reaction cannot be predetermined, but it can be skilfully manipulated to the tellers advantage. Good storytellers are confident both of the narrative material they are presenting and of their audiences appreciative reaction to it, and so temper the telling to suit the sensibilities of each particular audience. Dick Leith (1992), reporting on two separate narrations of the Scottish folk-tale The Green Man of Knowledge by Geordie Stewart,

- 204 -

Chapter 6 one recorded in 1954 and the other in 1983, demonstrates this point: the first telling, a dramatized version which included a variety of phonological and other expressive features, and narrated predominantly in the present tense from the heros point of view, was to a large mixed audience at a ceilidh; Leith describes it as a performance par excellence: the second telling was to a single hearer in an interview situation, narrated mainly in the past tense with considerably less dramatization. In chapter 4, page 106, we mentioned Wolfsons (1982) use of the term performance as dramatized re-enactments and we shall come back to a fuller discussion of the theoretical issues involved in the dichotomy performance versus retelling in chapter 8. The choice of audience for our storytellers was intended to be non-threatening, one child they knew well and one researcher, hopefully, regarded as a familiar teacher-figure. The situation they faced was roughly the same for each story they told, and came somewhere between a group telling and an interview. They were invited to pretend to be teacher and were, therefore, given the authority to perform their stories if they were confident and skilful enough to do so (for the use of the term authority in this context see chapter 2, p. 16). The narrations of those who did perform their narratives were notable for the way a variety of evaluative devices clustered together at key places in the story, with phonological features reinforcing the impact of syntactic and lexical devices, to articulate the point of the story and persuade the hearers that it was worth listening to. In the rest of this chapter we shall be considering the Intensifier category; we will discuss each device in turn, bearing in mind that it does not occur in isolation but in a relationship with the others which cluster with it. In the following chapter we will look at the other three categories of internal evaluation which, although being less widely used, are perhaps better indicators of narrative development in that they are sources of syntactic complexity (Labov 1972a:380). 6.2 Intensifiers Intensifiers not only comprise by far the largest single evaluative category, they are also the most widely and successfully used of the devices found in the data. Labov begins his discussion of intensifiers as follows: The major modifications of narrative clauses can best be understood in relation to the following basic scheme:

- 205 -

Chapter 6 This indicates a linear series of events which are organized in the narrative in the same order as they occurred. An intensifier selects one of these events and strengthens or intensifies it: intensifiers: There are many ways in which this intensification can be carried out; most of them involve minimal departures from basic narrative syntax. (1972a:378) He talks first about the gestures which usually accompanied a deictic this or that in his data. Shvinder used gestures as she told her stories but these were not noted down at the time and so cannot be discussed in this thesis. However, they were not so obviously evaluative or conventional as the examples quoted by Labov in which the gesture more or less took the place of a sound like slap! or pow! to indicate a punch in a fight story. Ritual utterances, which are described last, are culture and narrative specific and so do not apply to other kinds of narratives from different cultural backgrounds. The other devices in his list - Phonology, Quantifiers, Lexical items, Foregrounding, Repetitions and WHexclamations do apply, but it is a pity that he does not elaborate on them. He briefly mentions expressive phonology, quantifiers and repetition, and gives one or two examples of each, but the rest are left to our imagination. What, for example, does he mean by foregrounding? As he does not say, we are free to interpret the notion to suit our own purposes. As indicated in chapter 4, other devices, such as direct speech, have been added to Labovs list and the way the subjects use these will also be discussed in this section. 6.3 Expressive Phonology Labov (1972a) does have something to say about expressive phonology, although he confines his remarks to lengthened vowels and conventional verbal devices such as powww!! and shhhh! which are lengthened and uttered without voicing: Expressive phonology is superimposed upon other words of the clause. One of the most common modes is to lengthen vowels. In another of Larrys narratives - [the first one is quoted in full on pp. 356357] - he emphasizes: 25 And we were fightin for a lo-o-ong ti-i-me, buddy. (p. 379) We want to consider the features of pitch (intonation) and loudness (stress), as well as length, in our handling of the data. Our concern is to relate them directly to their pragmatic function in narrative discourse and the structuring of stories. Thus, we are extending - 206 -

Chapter 6 Labovs treatment of expressive phonology, and applying it to another variety of English, spoken by young non-native speakers of Panjabi origin. But we will begin with a few basic points, quoting freely from Cruttenden (1986): The prosody of connected speech may be analysed and described in terms of the variation of a large number of prosodic features. There are, however, three features which are most consistently used for linguistic purposes, either singly or jointly. These three features are pitch, length, and loudness. Pitch concerns the varying height of the pitch of the voice over one syllable or over a number of successive syllables; length concerns the relative durations of a number of successive syllables or the duration of a given syllable in one environment relative to the duration of the same syllable in another environment; loudness concerns changes of loudness within one syllable or the relative loudness of a number of successive syllables. The terms pitch, length, and loudness refer to features perceived by listeners; ... (Cruttenden 1986:2) Although, as explained here so succinctly by Cruttenden, there seems to be no problem in differentiating between these three prosodic features, in practice it is a different story; the three are closely interrelated. The listener certainly perceives variations in pitch, length, and loudness but is not always aware precisely which of the three features (or combination of features) (s)he is responding to, unless (s)he happens to be a phonetician. For example, judgments about comparative pitch levels are affected by the level of intensity at which these judgments are made; they depend, also, on the individual listener who is making the judgments, and even on his/her physical surroundings (see Crystal 1969:109). Then again, listeners not only perceive differences in vocal-chord vibrations, they also perceive the higher harmonics of such sounds; these are not heard as identifiable pitches, but as differences of sound quality. Similarly, with loudness and intensity, listeners certainly react to differences of intensity at the different frequencies of the spectra of sounds; however, these differences are not perceived as differences of loudness in the sense in which they hear one syllable or utterance as louder than another. Rather, they are perceived as differences of sound quality; (see OConnor 1973:102). 6.3.1 Length Length can be viewed as the length of time a speaker decides to continue to produce a linguistic unit, as the duration of the acoustic correlates of the unit on a spectrogram, or as the length of time during which a listener hears that unit (Cruttenden 1986:2). However, this is not as simple as it sounds: when we come to measure the duration of certain - 207 -

Chapter 6 syllables we discover that syllable boundaries are to some extent arbitrary; there is a difference in the phonological, or what Cruttenden calls the innate length of vowels (e.g. the vowel in peat is generally longer than that in pit); and finally, the last syllable before a pause is often lengthened. How aware is the listener of these influences, and how do they affect his/her subjective judgment as to whether a particular syllable is lengthened or not? 6.3.2 Loudness Loudness, as perceived by the listener, is related to the breath-force which a speaker uses. The acoustic correlate of loudness is intensity or the amount of energy which is present in a sound or sequence of sounds (Cruttenden 1986:3). Here, also, there are complicating factors: open vowels are acoustically of greater intensity than close vowels and listeners must in some way allow for this when interpreting relative loudness for other purposes; the relationship of absolute intensity to perceived loudness is by no means linear (a sound has to be much more than doubled in absolute intensity before it will be heard as twice as loud) and moreover the relationship is different at different frequencies; then there is the matter of the communicative purpose itself - I may shout because I am angry or I may make my accented syllables much louder than my unaccented syllables as an emphatic device (p. 3). Experiments have shown that accented syllables are more regularly indicated by length and pitch than by loudness, though the listener often interprets this as stress, or loudness. Then there is the opposite of loudness where, in order to achieve special prominence, a speaker uses a combination of lowered pitch and whisper which is highly effective, and perceived by the listener as significant (Charleston 1960:23). 6.3.3 Pitch Pitch is the prosodic feature most centrally involved in intonation. As far as the physiology is concerned, pitch is primarily dependent on the rate of vibration of the vocal cords within the larynx; this rate is produced by the length and tension of the cords, and reflected in the acoustic measurement of fundamental frequency. The average fundamental frequency for childrens voices is approximately 265Hz. As we have said above, pitch is used as a perceptual term, relating to listeners judgments as to whether sounds are high or low; however, such judgments are not linearly related to fundamental frequency. For listeners to judge that one tone is twice as high as another, the frequency difference between the two tones is much larger at higher absolute frequencies, e.g. 1000Hz is judged to be double 400Hz, but 4000Hz is judged to be double 1000 Hz (Cruttenden 1986:4). Even so, for most practical purposes pitch can be equated with fundamental frequency.

- 208 -

Chapter 6 6.3.4 The Transcription of the Data A very simple system has been used for recording the syllables perceived to be prominent in the data: unstressed syllables are written in the usual way, those which seem more prominent are written with capitals, and those which are perceived as being nuclear, or most prominent, are italicized (see also p. 117), e.g. the following from Shvinders Story A: Conj 3 4 THERE left? Lengthened vowels are indicated by V-V [V = vowel] as in RI-ICE. The analysis, therefore, is of necessity impressionistic. We have used our own judgment and knowledge of English syllable structure, and in nearly all cases our perceptions have been based on a combination of pitch and length, rather than loudness. We have been able to check this out, using the CECIL (Computerized Extraction of Components of Intonation in Language) programme and speech box (CI-500 Analyzer) developed by the Summer Institute of Linguistics (version 1.0, January 1990, version 1.2A, December 1990). However, as we have indicated above, the impressionistic analysis of a speech sample and the acoustic analysis of that sample are not directly comparable for two main reasons. In the first place, not all acoustic information present is, in fact, relevant to speech and so we need to ask how much of the acoustic data can we actually perceive? And secondly, human beings are, from an acoustic point of view, very variable in their performance (OConnor 1973:94) and two seemingly identical productions of the word saw [s], for example, would show acoustic differences on a CECIL print-out. OConnor points out that: This interplay between the acoustic record and what people hear is of extreme importance, not only in research but in general for the understanding of the communication process (p. 95) Although this is the case, the investigation of the relationship between the two is not part of this thesis. Our reason for looking at acoustic records here is simply to present some corroborative evidence for saying, for example, that a certain syllable is prominent because - 209 And Subj his WIFE Verb said, Is ANy um RI-ICE Comp

Chapter 6 it has a rising or falling pitch pattern, and nothing more. As expected, there is some disparity between the acoustic records and our perceptions: neither approach is truly accurate for the reasons outlined above. I am not a phonetician and have not been intensively trained to listen to pitch patterns: therefore, my perceptions are suspect. But so are the acoustic records: the original recordings were not made in quiet surroundings, and background sounds unintentionally recorded include traffic noise, the school steel band and a fire engine siren; the subjects themselves produced extraneous noises, such as banging the table, scraping chairs and heavy breathing into the microphone; the recording equipment used was adequate but not of the highest quality, and so all these additional factors have a bearing on the validity of the acoustic records and the computer print-out. See figure 6.1 for a print-out of Shvinders Story A 4. The first graph indicates stress (or the energy at particular points in the sound wave) and the average amplitude is used to give some indication of the relative stress. The second graph indicates the frequency, measured in Hz; this instrument is not designed to cope with frequencies above 500Hz (and version 1.0, not above 400Hz), and herein lies the first serious drawback: Shvinder produces frequencies of over 500Hz when she says, Is there any ...? and so the graph is distorted at that point, CECIL picking out only the lower frequencies inherent in the syllables instead of the significant ones, occurring above the range catered for by the programme. The problem with high pitched voices is that it reduces the accuracy with which the frequency at any point can be calculated (Hunt 1989:9). The top line is normally reserved for the phonetic representations of the sounds; we chose to write the data using normal English orthography. The playback feature of CECIL was used to determine where each syllable began and ended, and a broken vertical line indicates the termination of a syllable before a pause. In the transcription of Shvinders A3 and 4 above, we indicated that, to our ears the i [ai] of rice was lengthened, but that the um was not (probably because it was unstressed): CECIL reveals that the um actually lasted 0.745 secs. but that the i was only 0.246 secs. in duration, while the r was 0.343; however it is almost impossible to perceive the boundary between the r and the i.

- 210 -

Chapter 6

Figure 6.1 When we compare the amplitude trace in graph 1 with the frequency trace of graph 2, we see that stress and frequency seem to vary in harmony with each other. The frequency range is adjusted for each speaker by calculating the lowest and the highest significant frequencies recorded, and discarding the frequencies which lie outside this range.

- 211 -

Chapter 6

Figure 6.2 Figure 6.2 shows how the trace is smoothed by CECIL to give the intonation contour; breaks in the contour usually indicate voiceless sounds. Other adjustments can also be made to remove spurious traces from the graph: these are changing the voicing threshold and group size. Where there are unexpected gaps in the trace, these can often be filled in by increasing the interpolation gap and the percentage change parameters. The details of the adjustments to these parameters are given in the print-out. However, nothing can be done to improve a poor recording.

- 212 -

Chapter 6 6.3.5 Acoustic Data, Perception and the Attitudinal Function of Prosodic Features Before looking at some detailed examples of the evaluative use of prosodic features, it would be helpful to get a general picture of the speech characteristics of the eight subjects. Table 6.1 below gives some idea of the frequency range employed by each subject, varying from a range of nearly two octaves for Shvinder down to under one octave for all the rest, Fariba and Humira excepted. Table 6.1. Pitch
SPEAKER Shvinder Fariba Sakander Humira Sheiba Aqeel Shazia Fehdah FREQUENCY RANGE 159 - 500+ Hz 187 - 500+ Hz 201 - 359 Hz 159 - 360 Hz 158 - 300 Hz 279 - 485 Hz 249 - 369 Hz 205 - 333 Hz DIFFERENCE (341+) (313+) (158) (201) (142) (206) (120) (128)

The frequency figures have been compiled from data taken from Story A only, using the 1.2A version of the programme. Those for vowel length, shown in table 6.2, were also compiled from Story A (except for Shvinders data which came from Story B), but using the original 1.0 version. (The main difference between the two versions is the increased upper frequency limit from 400 to 500Hz.) Only a very small proportion of the data was recorded and analysed by CECIL: those examples in table 6.2 are the longest recorded from each child, not necessarily the longest produced. The vowels measured in these extracts range in duration from 0.260 to 0.750secs. - almost three times as long. Only Aqeels, marked with an asterisk *, was perceived as not having being lengthened.

- 213 -

Chapter 6

Figure 6.3 The figures are obtained by listening, looking at the active data (see print-out for Sakanders Story A 23, frame 1, figure 6.3), and then indicating as accurately as possible on the top line where each vowel and consonant begins and ends. The second frame shows points of change, and these can often be used to pinpoint where sounds commence or terminate. Using the HOME, END, and TAB keys of the Computer, it is then possible to focus on the particular vowel or syllable to be measured and obtain a display of its estimated length on the screen.

- 214 -

Chapter 6 Table 6.2. Length

Speakers Shvinder Fariba Sakander Humira Sheiba Aqeel Shazia Fehdah Duration of longest vowel recorded 0.750 seconds 0.391 seconds 0.460 seconds 0.409 seconds 0.449 seconds 0.328 seconds * 0.726 seconds 0.476 seconds Word Oh! rice not snow shop morning speak snow

Table 6.3. Expressive phonology

Objective criteria 1. Observed use of a wide key or pitch range /narrow key or pitch range; 2. Observed use of steep intonation contours/ shallow contours; 3. Greater duration on significant lexical items; 4. Observed variation in intensity between syllables; 5. Observed variation in tempo; 6. Observed rhythmicality produced by stressed and unstressed syllables, pause, or variation in syllable length; 7. Observed changes in voice quality, e.g. whisper or breathy voice for special effect; 8. Combination of features: length, loudness, pitch, rhythm, and voice quality. Subjective perceptions Perceived variation in relative pitch heights during an utterance; Awareness of pitch movements and contrast, and modulation of the speakers voice; Perception of lengthened importance in the utterance; vowels and their

Awareness that some syllables are louder or softer than others; Perception of changes in speed of utterance (i.e. speeding up or slowing down); Awareness of rhythmic patterns in speech;

Perception of changes in voice quality and their significance; Perceived animation and general liveliness of presentation.

Table 6.3 above is a crude attempt to correlate these subjective judgments with physiological or physical objective criteria. For most of these subjective perceptions there - 215 -

Chapter 6 are clear acoustic/articulatory correlates, but for others, such as 6. it is less straightforward: it is notoriously difficult to measure variation in syllable length, or even to measure accurately the number of syllables actually produced (Boves et al. 1984:35). So when we compare subjective judgments with objective criteria are we, in fact, comparing two versions of the same thing, or two different things? Should the measured acoustic features match the perceived contrasts in intonational form and interpretation? Jassem and Demenko (1986) state that unfortunately, we know next to nothing about human processing of the F0 (fundamental frequency) parameter in speech (p. 8), so are acoustic measurements correlates of intonational categories such as level, rising, falling and falling-rising tones? On page 209 we raised the issue in relation to the accuracy of our results; we raise it now as a theoretical point. OConnor (1973) warns against equating the subjective categories of pitch, loudness, quality, and length exactly with the related physiological or physical categories of vocal-chord vibration/fundamental frequency, breath effort/intensity, cavity shape/ spectral structure, and physical duration (p. 99) Then, tied in with this, is the phonetic-phonological issue. Although, we have headed this section Expressive Phonology, we need to stress that, when we talk above about intonational categories such as level, rising, falling, and falling-rising tones, these are not phonological categories as in OConnor and Arnolds (1961) system of 7 nuclear, functionally distinct (-emic) tones, but merely convenient phonetic labels for what is observed and perceived. OConnor (1973) calls phonology linguistic phonetics (p. 18), Lieberman (1967) seeks to demonstrate that the linguistic use of intonation reflects an innately determined and highly organized system rather than a set of unrelated facts that are fortuitously similar in many languages (p. 38), and Jassem and Demenko (1986) attempt to extract functional units of intonation from F0 traces (p. 17). We are not claiming here that we are able to set up any such set of systematic functional categories based on our narrative data. A second question refers to specific judgments as to whether a particular feature is used evaluatively or not: are these judgments merely a matter of equating phonological features with a speakers personal involvement in the story and the ability to convey the point to his/her hearer, or is there a bit more to it than that? For example, we might equate a wide pitch range or key with a speakers attempt to focus and maintain his/her hearers attention - clearly an evaluative device; in the course of telling the story, the speaker gives graphic details of some dreadful disaster, but if he/she continues to use this wide pitch range, is it

- 216 -

Chapter 6 then still being used evaluatively? The answer would appear to be no. We not only have to consider the medium (i.e. the non-segmental part of the speech signal) and the overall message being conveyed (i.e. this is a good story, pay attention), but also the pragmatic inferences and interpretations which are internal to the story (i.e. the feelings, attitudes, and intentions of the characters themselves). If the speaker uses a wide key in an utterance where a character is distressed or overcome with grief, the pathos of the episode is turned into a joke, the tragedy becomes a comedy, and the device is certainly not evaluative because it is inappropriate at that juncture. This three-way relationship of intonational cues, attitudinal message and pragmatic interpretation is mentioned in an article by Ladd, Scherer and Silverman (1986) on intonation and attitude. They question the directness versus indirectness of the link between intonational cues and the attitudinal message and, also, the very nature of the intonational cues themselves. If intonation is organized into linguistic categories, then the choices made among these categories must influence the pragmatic interpretation. Labov and Fanshel (1977:43) treat intonation together with voice quality, tempo, etc. as paralinguistic cues, and state that there is often a one-to-one iconic relationship between the movement of the voice and the emotions being conveyed; however, they also point out that the same physical signals can have radically different interpretations in different contexts (p. 356). 6.3.6 A Characterization of the Speech Styles of the Eight Subjects We will use the eight criteria listed in table 6.3 in an attempt to briefly characterize the speech styles of the eight subjects before discussing the evaluative use of these features in detail for two of the subjects. Shvinder: 1. Shvinder uses a very wide key, or pitch range (159-500+Hz), which we are choosing to call storybook intonation; considerable variation in relative pitch heights was perceived in a single utterance. 2. She uses steep intonation contours and these were perceived as continually contrasting pitch movements with an arresting singsong modulation of the voice. 3. She employs a large number of lengthened vowels to mark significant lexical items.

- 217 -

Chapter 6 4. She varies the intensity on her syllables and uses both loudness and softness to indicate special prominence. 5. She varies the tempo during her utterances and consciously uses slowing down devices before a termination. 6. She uses pauses and variation in syllable length to produce rhythmic patterns in her speech. 7. She employs changes in voice quality, i.e. whisper, as a terminating device. 8. Her general presentation is animated and lively and can be regarded as a performance in the Wolfson (1982) sense of the word. Fariba: 1. Fariba uses a wide pitch range (187-500+Hz) in conversational passages and when describing key events, but a much narrower frequency band for unimportant events and giving background information. 2. She uses steep rising-falling contours but also makes far greater use than Shvinder does of shallow and level contours. These are perceived as low level pitch movements. 3. She employs lengthened vowels less often than Shvinder does, although this varies from story to story. 4. She varies the intensity on her syllables and uses loudness or intensity as a means indicating prominence and to signal the importance of an item. 5. She does not vary her tempo quite as markedly as Shvinder; changes in tempo are often achieved through using brief pauses rather than lengthening vowels. 6. Unstressed syllables are often swallowed and brief pauses may produce a staccato effect in some utterances. 7. She does not use changes in voice quality, e.g. whisper or creaky voice, for special effect. 8. Her performance comes across as less animated, and more matter-of-fact than Shvinders. Sakander: 1. Sakander uses a pitch range of less than one octave (201-359Hz) which is much narrower than that of either of the two girls mentioned above.

- 218 -

Chapter 6 2. In his stories we find only shallow contours and perceive very much less modulation of the voice. 3. He uses few lengthened vowels. 4. He varies his intensity a little but many of his utterances are perceived as pretty uniform, as far as loudness is concerned. 5. There is very little variation in tempo and so his delivery is perceived as somewhat ponderous. 6. His utterances are punctuated by brief pauses to give a less fluid, rather monotonous rhythmic effect. 7. No changes in voice quality for special effect were perceived. 8. His delivery comes across as rather wooden and lacking in vitality. When he does use expressive phonology, it is appropriate rather than striking. Humira: 1. Humira uses a pitch range which is a little wider than Sakanders, i.e. just over an octave (159-360Hz). 2. Her intonation contours are perceived as shallow with slightly more pitch movement in the conversational passages. 3. She uses only a few lengthened vowels and these are found mainly in the conversational passages. 4. She varies the intensity on her syllables more than she does her vowel length. Prominence is achieved by a combination of pitch movements and loudness, but sometimes the prominence is misplaced. 5. She does not make very much use of speeding up and slowing down devices. 6. Humiras delivery is often very staccato with many brief pauses; in some utterances she pauses between each word, irrespective of which syllables are prominent. 7. She does not use voice quality for evaluative purposes. 8. Humiras performance is perceived as more animated than Sakanders, but often it is arresting because of her non-nativelike use of prosodic features. She does use expressive phonology effectively in some of her conversational passages.

- 219 -

Chapter 6 Sheiba: 1. Sheiba has the lowest voice of all the subjects and uses a narrow pitch range throughout (158-300Hz). 2. She uses shallow contours with only the occasional high rising contour in content questions. 3. She only rarely uses length as a means of achieving prominence or as an evaluation device. 4. She does use loudness, coupled with pitch movements, as a means of indicating prominent syllables. 5. There is very little variation in tempo perceived in any of her utterances, even at the end of a narrative. 6. Her delivery is not notable for its rhythmicality. 7. She often uses a whispery voice quality which is in keeping with her shy personality. 8. Her performance style often has a shared secret quality about it which brings the hearer right into the story. In general, she uses loudness, pitch, and whispery voice for evaluative purposes; she also uses length, but not very often. Aqeel: 1. Aqeel probably has the highest voice of the eight subjects, but he does not use a wide pitch range; CECIL recorded a range of 279-485Hz. 2. There is very little perceived modulation of the voice and intonation contours are shallow. 3. We have only two examples of lengthened vowels in the data and these are only marginally longer than most of the others in the utterances in which they are found. 4. He uses some variation in intensity and when this is coupled with pitch movements it can be evaluative. 5. He does not use speeding up or slowing down devices to any appreciable extent. 6. His speech is not always very clear and he tends to run his words into one another, and so there are no notable rhythmic patterns perceived. 7. No significant changes in voice quality have been noted.

- 220 -

Chapter 6 8. In his data generally, very few utterances are coded for expressive phonology. When they are, it is a combination of loudness and pitch movements which indicate the expressive prominence of important items. Shazia: 1. Shazia also has a relatively high voice but uses the narrowest pitch range of all the subjects (i.e. 249-369Hz). 2. Her intonation contours are shallow and are perceived as flat. 3. She uses some lengthened vowels which are strikingly long (over 0.5secs.). 4. She varies her intensity from syllable to syllable but often her prominent syllables diminish rapidly in intensity, especially if they are lengthened. 5. She frequently slows down her delivery rate while she thinks about what to say next. 6. As Shazia does not produce a coherent narrative, but a disjointed series of prefabricated language chunks, there are no overall rhythmic patterns discernible in her speech. 7. No significant changes in voice quality have been perceived. 8. Utterances which are coded for expressive phonology include a combination of two or more of the following devices: lengthened vowels, shallow pitch movements and loudness in order to make important syllables prominent. Fehdah: 1. We have recorded a frequency range of 205-333Hz for Fehdah; variations in relative pitch heights are perceived to be small. 2. There is little perceived modulation of the voice. 3. Only two vowels in his data are perceived as lengthened: snow (0.476secs.) and said, both occurring in Story A. 4. Fehdah uses loudness as a feature of his productions, but does not always use it expressively; occasionally he mistakenly gives prominence to prepositions and articles. 5. Variations in tempo occur because he pauses while he thinks what to say next. 6. He, like Shazia, has great difficulty in stringing his events together and producing a coherent narrative. Story F is a much more successful attempt than either his Story

- 221 -

Chapter 6 A or Story B. Only in Story F is there anything approaching rhythmic patterns in his speech. 7. No significant changes in voice quality have been noted. 8. Clearly, he does use the features length, loudness and pitch in his productions, but not often expressively. As we have seen, there is no such thing as a Panjabi English speech style; each subject has his/her own distinctive style, and the subjects vary enormously in the extent to which they use prosodic features expressively. Shvinder is the most successful, and Shazia and Fehdah the least. It is one thing to use the features length, loudness, and pitch in speech productions and another to use them effectively; the features by themselves do not mean anything. As we have said above, they must be related to both the overall message being conveyed to the hearer and also to the pragmatic interpretation of the utterance in its local context. Some subjects have still a long way to go in acquiring an understanding of how English intonation really works. 6.3.7 The Evaluative Use of Prosodic Features We will now look in more detail at some Story A data from Shvinder and Sakander and see how prosodic features work together with other evaluative devices in specific utterances. Shvinder The most obvious feature of all Shvinders narratives is the wide pitch range, or key, which she uses. Its immediate effect on the hearer is to focus his/her attention on the story being told. Figure 6.1 (p. 211) shows a range of 150-500+Hz, and we have already explained, on page 210, the break in the trace between 300 and 425, while she is saying there any, and her voice goes way up above the 500Hz mark. This is perhaps an extreme example; however, all her utterances, recorded and analysed by CECIL, show very few level contours. Typically we find in the traces a combination of rises, falls, fall-rises, rise-falls, rise-fall- rises, and rise-fall-rise-fall contours. Within the conversational passages, particularly, she exploits this wide key for dramatic effects, and it is only in the Orientation and Coda sections that she narrows her top line to below 450Hz. Johns-Lewis (1986) has the following to say about this use of pitch heightening: The speculative suggestion is, then, that heightening of pitch characteristics is attuned to attention-states in the hearer-organism, pitch heightening having the function of focusing and maintaining attention. (p. 217) - 222 -

Chapter 6 Her story introducer: 1 ONE DAY MR. WO-ONG / WENT INto a HOUSE

consists of two intonation groups with the nuclear accent on the final stressed syllable in each case. There is nothing unusual about this, nor about the intonation contours she uses which clearly signal the fact that she is beginning her story (figure 6.4 gives the acoustic record of the first intonation group). In our transcription we have coded it as an example of the use of expressive phonology; the rise-fall on one and the levelling out on day focus the hearers attention on the temporal lead-in to the story, and pave the way for the events that follow. The next example (see also figure 6.5, p. 225) illustrates her use of rhythm, not by the typical English use of long and short syllables, but by brief pauses between accented syllables: 5 6 But WHEN HE LOOKED / IN the / CUPboard it WAS / NO-OT / THERE.

Those syllables perceived as having been uttered with greatest intensity correspond with those analysed as loudest by CECIL, although the lengthened syllable NO-OT and the utterance final THERE are also given prominence by the slowing of the tempo, and the high rise-fall intonation on not followed by the final low rise-fall on there. Figures 6.1 and 6.5 show the interrelationship of rise-fall intonation, length and stress on focused items NO-OT and RI-ICE, in 6 and 4: 4
Is THERE ANY UM / RI-ICE left?

Although phonetically these are obviously rise-falls, phonologically, they could probably be equated with OConnor and Arnolds simple fall. Both utterances also commence with a high rise followed by a gradual fall (probably falls in OConnor and Arnolds terms) but they end differently, in that the statement ends in a low rise-fall and the question in a low fall-rise. They are expressively marked by these pitch changes and we are left in no doubt that the lack of rice must be a significant problem which needs a resolution before the story is done.

- 223 -

Chapter 6

Figure 6.4 The initial high rise in 4 terminates on the quantifier any, which is used evaluatively, and in 6 on looked, which focuses on the temporal orientation of the state of affairs being described. In fact, we can generalize by saying that Shvinder uses high rising tones when she wishes to focus on a particular lexical item or evaluative device such as the negative not. For example, in the following: 8
DARling dear / THERE / ISNT / ANy rice / in the CUPboard.

- 224 -

Chapter 6

Figure 6.5 there are high rising tones on the DAR- of darling, isnt and the CUP- of cupboard. Darling dear illustrates the evaluative use of direct address and a striking lexical combination; the negative isnt is also evaluative, and so is the repetition of the lexical item cupboard (see figures 6.6 and 6.7). There are low rise-falls on there, the heavily stressed existential subject, and the quantifier any. These seem to have a similar function to that of the high rise-falls and high rises, i.e. one of focus.

- 225 -

Chapter 6

Figure 6.6 The unaccented low fall-rise on rice links it with the following intonation group, as does the low rise on dear. We noted above a similar low fall-rise on the word left at the end of the question in 4; this seems to convey the same perceptible sense of incompleteness and so also has a linking function, anticipating the answer which finally comes in 8.

- 226 -

Chapter 6

Figure 6.7 We can cite other examples which add weight to these tentative suggestions (see figure 6.8): 11 12 13 And he said,
THERES NONE RICE LEFT. SO WHAT / can we DO-O?

- 227 -

Chapter 6

Figure 6.8 This looks like a classic OConnor and Arnold Rising Head + High Falling nucleus and the perceived prominence on the negative quantifier none is definitely one of pitch height, not stress: a fall onto rice; but that on what cannot be so clearly explained: the low fallrise on so what links it to the following intonation group, with the rise on what leading up to the high rise on the more heavily stressed can we do, thus bridging the perceived pause.

- 228 -

Chapter 6

Figure 6.9 Can we carries the greatest amplitude of all, the result of the greater amplitude of open vowels (see p. 208) and yet was perceived as less prominent than do, probably because the peaking and long fall (200Hz) on do, coupled with the slowing down in tempo (the vowel of do is 0.400secs.), emphasize, and thus evaluate, the need for action. The answer is also delivered in a slow tempo (see figure 6.9): 14 15
WELL / I / DONT / KNO-OW,

SAID Mr. WONG. - 229 -

Chapter 6

Figure 6.10 The high rise-fall on well, perceived as a fall, carries the greatest amplitude, focusing on the evaluative interjection which expresses resignation and delays the negative answer. But only the vowel in know is really long; so, it is possibly the brief pauses, the high jump up on I and the long fall on dont which are contributing to this sense of slowing down and finality. The heavy stress and low, almost level, tone on know, with a slight rise towards the end, suggest a veiled challenge, as well as an air of finality.

- 230 -

Chapter 6

Figure 6.11 Low level pitches or falling glides, linked with nuclear tones and/or lengthened vowels, are consistently used as a signal of termination: a good example is A81 (see figure 6.10): 81 So the CUStomers / WERE / VERy HAPpy / inDEED. Here we have a low rise-fall on the in- of indeed and a low fall on -DEED which is perceived as nuclear.

- 231 -

Chapter 6

Figure 6.12 Again, there is a high rise-fall which focuses on the lexical intensifier very and this is followed by lower pitches and decreasing intensity to give a slowing down effect and an air of finality. The trace for happy shows a considerable jump up on the HAP- followed by an immediate fall and a low rise on -py. The Coda shows even more clearly how she uses pitch, intensity and duration as slowing down mechanisms to signal that her story is ending (see figure 6.11):

- 232 -

Chapter 6 82 And MR. WONG / LIVED HAPpier / EVer / A-AFter.

This is a very common pattern (cf. OConnor 1973:190, 242ff.). The first intonation group is the highest, but all the tones used are below 350Hz and the utterance is characterized by predominantly level tones; only on happier do we get a significant rise. The HAP- of happier is perceived as the most prominent syllable in the intonation group but the -er carries both the greatest intensity and the highest pitch. This is followed by a pause, decreasing intensity and a drop of some 75Hz on to ever, which carries level tones on both syllables. After tails off almost to a whisper which is uttered at a frequency of below 200Hz; here the perceived prominence is one of length and deliberation which is accentuated by the change in voice quality. In this example there appear to be minor discrepancies between what is actually perceived and what is recorded by CECIL (cf. comments on p. 210). We have been describing here some of the general characteristics of Shvinders speech and also what we believe to be the evaluative use of expressive phonology; features of length, loudness, pitch, rhythm, and voice quality are used for particular purposes in telling a story, e.g. opening, closing, or focus, and for signalling to the hearer exactly what these purposes are. But does Shvinder always get it right? In particular, does she ever use a wide key when a narrower one would be more appropriate to the sentiments being expressed at that moment? The answer is yes and there are two such examples in the section of Story A we have been discussing (we will reproduce the whole section to give the context): NARRATIVE Conj 7 8 And Subj he Aux Verb TOLD Comp Loc Temp EVALUATION

his WIFE INT/Phon INT/D.Sp INT/D.Ad INT/Lex INT/Qua INT/Rep COM/Neg

DARling dear, THERE ISNT aNY rice in the CUPboard.

9 10 11
BUT

SHE
we HAD to

SAID,
OPen the SHOP toDAY.

INT/D.Sp COM/Mod

And

he

said, - 233 -

Chapter 6 NARRATIVE 12
THERE S LEFT. NONE RICE

EVALUATION INT/D.Sp INT/Qua COM/Neg INT/Phon INT/D.Sp COM/Mod COM/Que INT/Phon INT/D.Sp INT/Int COM/Neg

13

SO can we DO-O? DONT KNO-OW,

WHAT

14

WELL

15 Mr. WONG.

SAID

In 10 above she uses a wide key with rising and falling contours on shop today; shop is the nuclear syllable and there is a pause after had to which splits the utterance into two intonation groups. (See figure 6.12; the contour is not complete because shop today is virtually voiceless.) The rising tones and light skipping rhythm suggest the interpretation: Isnt it fun, we had to open the shop today! But that is not the correct interpretation from the context: Mrs. Wong is actually making a protest about the impossibility of not opening the shop as usual. (Shvinder says had when she means have but the intention is still clear enough.) A more appropriate intonation pattern would be something like: \ BUT we HAD to OPen the SHOP toDAY

10a

with a high-fall on the nucleus had and low pitches on the following syllables. Similarly with 12 (see figure 6.8) which we have described along with 13. Although the high rise and long fall on can we do are evaluative in 13, in that they expressively present the Wongs dilemma in a storybook, rather than real world, intonation pattern, the almost casual high-rising tone on none, in 12, makes the whole thing into something of a joke; whereas a more appropriate pattern would be a narrow key with falling tones to contrast

- 234 -

Chapter 6 with the wide key and rising tones of 13. (We will be saying more about storybook intonation later.) A quotation from Cruttenden (1986) makes a general observation on the contrast between falling and rising tones which is applicable here, in that it backs up the subjective comments above: The high-falling and low-falling tones both have serious overtones, the higher tone being more involved and the lower tone more business-like; whereas the rising tones are altogether lighter tones, the high-rising tone being the most casual. (1986:59) The whole matter of appropriateness raises two important questions which we need to address: firstly, why does Shvinder habitually use a wide key except when she is closing her story? Is it just because it is her usual way of talking and really nothing to do with the conscious use of evaluation at all? If so, can we honestly say that she is using expressive phonology? The second question follows on from the first: how far does the habitual use of such features as a wide key and rising tones rob those features of their impact? Now Cruttenden (1986) reports certain general characteristics which have been observed about Indian English: speakers use a rhythm which is considerably different from other types of English, because it makes very much less use of reduced syllables; speakers have many words which differ from other dialects in their stress patterns; it is said that nucleus placement is not as moveable as it is in other dialects, that it is generally fixed on the last stress, and that hence, like Edinburgh English , there is no de-accenting for old information; and that contrast is indicated by pitch height rather than by using a different nucleus placement or a different nuclear tone. Furthermore it is reported that the most common nuclear tone is a rise-fall (and hence Indian English is reported as sounding like Welsh English). (pp. 143144) These characteristics are certainly true of Shvinders speech and may, in part, help to explain the occasional discrepancy between perceived prominence and the instrumental acoustic records: there is a tendency to hear what we expect to hear, and we often fail to pick up the points of difference. But, more importantly, it also helps to explain the nonevaluative use of pitch height and rise-fall nuclear tone in 10 and 12 above. So the answer to our first question may be that Shvinder does use these features out of habit and that she - 235 -

Chapter 6 is not necessarily conscious that her speech has these characteristics; but that does not alter the hearers perceptions, and when they are used evaluatively they produce the desired impact. Both hearer and researcher responded to the general liveliness of her performance, and that liveliness had an irresistible appeal which was achieved by using a wide key or pitch range, intonational contrasts, rhythm and changes in pace such as pause and lengthened vowels, differences in intensity or loudness, and changes in voice quality. As reported by Labov, expressive phonology was superimposed upon other words of the clause, and often these other words were evaluative devices in their own right (see the codes beside the evaluated clauses in the sample above). We have reported on Shvinders performance at some length: Sakander produced much less expressive phonology and so his performance will be described more briefly. Sakander Sakander uses a much narrower pitch range than Shvinder does, frequencies measured being between 201 and 359Hz (a range of only 158Hz). So in his stories we find shallow falls, rise-falls, fall-rise-falls, and fall-level-rise-falls. His utterances are also less fluid, punctuated by many brief pauses between and within words, and much less use is made of expressive phonology. As a result his delivery comes across as rather wooden and lacking in vitality. However, this somewhat ponderous style is appropriate for the opening events of his story A (see figures 6.13, 6.14, and 6.15): 3 4 5 BUT / SOME / thing / DREAD / ful HAP/pened. His RICE / WAS / RAN / OUT AND / SO / HE / COULDnt / do / ANy / thing a BO-OU / tit.

In the transcription both 3 and 5 are marked as evaluated by expressive phonology because the general air of solemnity which is generated, (coupled with the lexical intensifier dreadful in 3, and the lengthening of the vowel in about in 5), is just right. Looking first at figure 6.13, we see that the intonation trace is a series of roughly level falling glides, plus the odd rise, within a very narrow frequency range of 230-250Hz, with a lower drop on the HAP- of happened (to 210Hz).

- 236 -

Chapter 6

Figure 6.13 There is also relative uniformity when it comes to loudness, or intensity, with nothing equivalent to stressed and unstressed syllables: in those perceived as unstressed other factors seem to be operating, such as the fact that open vowels are acoustically of greater intensity than close vowels, or that the unfamiliar rhythm is affecting ones subjective judgments.

- 237 -

Chapter 6

Figure 6.14 Figures 6.14 and 6.15 give two versions of A5: figure 6.14, giving just the end of the utterance, shows that the lengthened vowel of about is roughly 0.2secs. of vowel and 0.2secs. of pause, and figure 6.15 shows that there is a whole 2.0sec. pause between couldnt and do; this is not a discontinuity, but a pause for thought which breaks the utterance into two. If we look at the baseline of the series of falls, we find that in the first half they are getting higher (220-255Hz) and in the second half they are getting increasingly lower (235-190Hz).

- 238 -

Chapter 6

Figure 6.15 There is also some variation in the intensity: the AN- of anything carries the greatest amplitude; the do is not perceived as a stressed syllable but it is about equal in intensity to the two syllables of couldnt, although only the COULD- is perceived as prominent. The perceived prominence of the second syllable of about is one of length and a falling contour; in intensity they are about equal and similar to that of the -thing of anything. There are minor discrepancies in the shape of the contours in 6.14 and 6.15; these can be explained by the fact that there is a difference in the frequency levels chosen for the two graphs. - 239 -

Chapter 6

Figure 6.16 We do, however, have examples from Story A where there are longer glides and more elaborate contours than the ones just described; one such example is the following (see also figure 6.16): 9 10 11 BUT / he / THOUGHT
it / WAS / HIS / RICE

BUT / it / WAS NOT.

- 240 -

Chapter 6

Figure 6.17 The rhythm is similar to the example above; perceived prominence has to do with a mixture of intensity and pitch movement. Unfortunately, we only have a print-out for part of 10, and 11: here we have a contrast between rice and not, both made prominent by a rise-fall (cf. Shvinders fall-rise contours). There is also an initial fall on the /r/ of rice to give a fall-rise-fall contour, and a fall-rise-fall on was which is part of the same contour as not; however, the rise-fall is marked by greater intensity in each case. The antithetical but is made prominent by intensity only.

- 241 -

Chapter 6

Figure 6.18 This use of pitch and intensity, or loudness, is evaluative and must be compared, not with the performances of other subjects, but with passages where he has made no attempt to use phonology to focus on important lexical items or particular evaluative devices. Sakander does not use reported conversation as freely as Shvinder does, but we do have one example where he uses expressive phonology in a conversational passage (see figure 6.17): 21 Can YOU / deLIVer the RICE to / Mr. WONG? - 242 -

Chapter 6 The you is focused because in the previous utterance he confused his pronouns (I for you) and so the you is a clarification; it is marked phonologically by a high rise coupled with heavy stress. Rice is marked by a short burst of intensity and a very short, low rise; and Wong by intensity, and a short rise followed by a longer low fall. There is a 2.5secs. pause between to and Mr. while he thinks what to say next. The final example contains a particularly expressive verb and, though there is nothing dramatic about the phonology, it does seem to fit the sentiments being conveyed by the utterance (see figure 6.18): 23 SO / FAther / CHRIST / mas / CHUCK / some RICE

The focus is on chuck and this is marked in the phonology by greater intensity than that of the surrounding syllables and a short rise which is higher in pitch than the rest of the utterance. The causal so is marked phonologically by a long falling glide (265-210Hz) which is considerably longer than the others in the utterance; it is also the most heavily stressed syllable of the utterance. The prop rice is marked by a short rise-fall; we have seen above that there is a tendency for important lexical items to be marked by rise-fall contours. The conclusion of the story is rather bitty; Kenneth intervenes with his ideas and Sakander merely repeats them without too much conviction. 6.3.8 The Acquisition of Intonation It is reported that some young native speakers often mimic adult intonation patterns in the babbling period before they are a year old, particularly the pattern used by mothers on all gone, involving a sequence of high-level and mid-level tones (Nakazima 1962). Late in the babbling period they may even produce whole sentence intonations, sometimes called jargon intonation (Peters 1977). Other children show a special use of pitch during the early one-word period (one year to one year and nine months), each word being yoked to a particular pitch pattern (Cruttenden 1986:172). (See also Halliday 1975.) These early uses of intonation do not, however, appear to be the genesis of intonation. This lies in the ability to contrast a fall and a rise on one syllable or spread at most over two syllables. (See Leopold 1947:255.) This contrast may or may not be present in the babbling period; for many children it is certainly present during the one-word period, when falls are used for - 243 -

Chapter 6 deictics and rises for requests, with the falling tone being the most frequently used. Some of the meanings reported for rises during the one-word and two-word (i.e. one year and nine months to two years) periods are counting, echoing, listing, questioning, attentiongetting, and learning formulas such as thank you, bye-bye, and there you are. (See Wells, Montgomery and MacLure 1979.) The distinction between high and low varieties of falls and rises follows soon afterwards and there may also be present some uses of fall-rise, for warning or contrast. The ability to vary the nucleus placement comes at the two-word stage and, early in the two-word stage, nucleus placement is often linked to sentence-type (e.g. DADdy garden means Its Daddys garden, and Daddy GARden means Daddys in the garden). (See Wieman 1976.) Later, as children produce three- and four-word sentences, they are stringing sentences together and varying the nucleus to take account of old information. However, it is an over-statement to claim that children learn the intonation of their language before they learn any words. Studies of intonation comprehension have shown clearly that children at the age of ten are not able to use intonational meaning in the way that adults doSo certainty of judgment about the local meanings associated with intonation patterns is still being developed at least at the age of ten (Cruttenden 1986:174). (See also Cruttenden 1974, 1985.) So what about young second-language learners? How do they fit into the picture? Cruttenden suggests that there is undoubtedly an innate substratum to intonation: falls for closed meanings [i.e. assertive and non-continuative] and rises for open meanings [i.e. nonassertive and continuative]. But, of course, a child still has to learn the fine details of the types of fall and rise involved in a particular language. But the more difficult task for second-language learners, as we have demonstrated from the data, is the learning of the conventional overlay involved in a lot of local meanings and the conventional use of tones indicating certain attitudes (1986:174). In all our examples of the non-evaluative use of certain features of intonation, this has been the problem. If native speakers are still acquiring this knowledge at the age of ten, it is not surprising that our 5-7 year-old nonnative speakers sometimes use inappropriate intonation patterns which give the wrong signals to their hearers. Perhaps it is remarkable that they get it right as often as they do?

- 244 -

Chapter 6 6.4 Direct Speech Data Direct Speech, according to Coulmas (1986), evokes the original speech situation and conveys, or claims to convey, the exact words of the original speaker in direct discourse while indirect speech adapts the reported utterance to the speech situation of the report in indirect discourse (p. 2). He goes on to say: The fundamental difference between the two lies in the speaker perspective or point of view of the reporter: in direct speech the reporter lends his voice to the original speaker and says (or writes) what he said, thus adopting his point of view, as it were. Direct speech, in a manner of speaking, is not the reporters speech, but remains the reported speakers speech whose role is played by the reporter. (Coulmas 1986:2) Li (1986) states that any example of direct or indirect speech involves four elements: i) the reported speaker or the original speaker

ii) the reported speech iii) the reporter-speaker or simply the speaker iv) the hearer or addressee In direct speech, the reporter-speaker plays the role of the reported/original speaker. The reporter-speaker intends for [sic] the hearer to believe that the form, the content and the non-verbal messages such as gestures and facial expressions of the reported speech originate from the reported speaker.The full communicative pictureis composed of two parts. In one part, the reporter-speaker identifies the reported speaker. In the other part, the reporter-speaker acts as the reported speaker. The full communicative situation may be represented by (36):

- 245 -

Chapter 6 (36i) reporter-speaker identifies reported speaker (ii) form reporterspeaker acts as reported speaker content non-verbal messages direct reported speech

In indirect speech, the reporter-speaker does not play the role of the reported speaker. The form and the non-verbal messages of the reported speech belong to the reporter-speaker. The reporter-speaker intends for [sic] the hearer to believe that only the content of the reported speech originates from the reported speaker. Thus, the communicative situationmay be depicted in 37:

(37i) reporter-speaker identifies reported speaker

(ii)

reporterspeaker

form non-verbal messages indirect reported speech (Li 1986:38)

reported speaker

content

From the quotations above it would seem that the reporter-speakers involvement in the speech is far greater in indirect speech than in direct speech. (S)he has the freedom to communicate his/her personal feelings about what is being said and to colour its interpretation through the form (e.g. intonation) and non-verbal messages of the reported speech as a comment on the content of the reported speech (Li 1986:38); so why have we said that, in our data, direct speech is evaluative while indirect speech is not?

- 246 -

Chapter 6 The answer lies in the nature of the data. Coulmas and Li are talking primarily about reported speech in everyday conversation, where the reported speaker or original speaker is removed from the actual act of reporting, not about narrative discourse as such. In narrative discourse, the reporter-speaker is the originator or creator of both the reported speaker and his/her speeches, and so the relationship is more like that depicted below where the reporter-speaker creates his/her reported speaker and then gives him/her both a speech and a voice:

i) reporter-speaker first creates then ii) iii) reporterspeaker acts as reported speaker form content non-verbal messages direct reported speech identifies reported speaker

Figure 6.19 Tannen (1986) states that the creation of voices, more than the depiction of actions, occasions the imagination of alternative and distant worlds that is the stuff of dreams and art (p. 311). So the reporter-speakers involvement is there from the beginning, not just at the moment of the reporting. Now it might be said that the narratives we are discussing are not original creations, but retellings of stories created by the researcher, and therefore we cannot claim that the reporter-speaker is the true creator of his/her characters and their speeches. Our contention is that they are not just re-tellings, mere reproductions of the original, but new creations using the ideas and characters of the original. Shvinders Mr. Wong is not the same character as the Mr. Wong in the Model Story; he has conversational exchanges with his wife and with the snowman which are not even alluded to in the model version. Here the exact wording chosen by Shvinder for these direct quotes is crucial to the meaning of the whole sentence in which they are embedded (see Partee 1973); they do not - 247 -

Chapter 6 have the same meaning as similar sentences from the original, but are uniquely her own. We noted in chapter 2, pages 3738, how Wierzbicka (1974) talks about the theatrical nature of direct speech and the fact that it is a natural vehicle for vivid and dramatic presentation. Li (1986) cites the work of linguists studying folk literature from South and Central America (Mansen and Mansen 1976; Waltz 1976; Borman 1977; Witte 1977) to show how direct speech is used as the most common mode of expression at the peak of oral narrative in many languages (p. 40); by peak he means the high-point, or most important part of the narrative. Chafe (1982) notes that direct quotes express the reporterspeakers personal involvement in the actual events (s)he is reporting, and this is in line with Labovs findings that, in narratives of personal experience, evaluative material is concentrated at the high-point between the complicating action and the resolution. And so we have plenty of corroborative evidence for treating direct speech as an evaluation device. Tannen (1986) treats all direct speech represented in storytelling or conversation as constructed dialogue: What is commonly referred to as reported speech or direct quotation in conversation is constructed dialogue, just as surely as is the dialogue created by fiction writers and playwrights. A difference is that in fiction and plays, the characters and actions are also constructed, whereas in personal narrative, they are based on actual characters and events. But the difference is not absolute. Many works of fiction and drama are also based on real people and events, and many conversational storytellers - to the consternation of their children and spouses but the delight of their hearers - embellish and adjust characters and events. (Tannen 1986:311) Tannen argues that constructed dialogue in conversation and in fiction is a means by which experience surpasses story to become drama, and continues by stating that the creation of drama from personal experience and hearsay is made possible by and simultaneously creates interpersonal involvement among speaker or writer and audience (p. 312). Our stories are works of fiction, rather than stories of personal experience but, as examples of constructed dialogue, they foster interpersonal involvement between speaker and hearer, which is what evaluation is all about. (See also our comments in chapter 2, p. 40.)

- 248 -

Chapter 6 Now, having sought to justify the inclusion of direct speech in our list of evaluative devices, we need to look more closely at the examples we find in the data. Table 6.4 lists the constructions, both well-formed and ill-formed, produced by each subject, and the number of examples of each construction which occur. There is a significant correlation (p <0.005) between the total output of each subject and his/her independently assessed language proficiency, so that we can state unequivocally that the more able subjects produce more examples of direct speech than the less able. It will be seen that there are several examples of what we have labelled as Direct Speech which include the complementizer that. Clearly, these are ill-formed blends of both types of speech reporting; they are included here for two reasons: the pronouns used are those of direct speech, and the supporting intonation is also that of direct speech. Also ill-formed, are quoted speeches placed between double margins, e.g. the following from Faribas Story A: 11-13 HE said, WHY ARE YOU TAKing ME aWAY? said the SNOWman.

As we have indicated elsewhere, the double margins are not intentional; they are indications that Fariba is aware of the two possibilities and, having completed the speech, has forgotten that she has already used an initial margin. Direct speech without a speech margin at all is produced by six of the eight subjects. Some of these speeches are particularly vivid. The analysis adopted presupposes an underlying speech verb which is not realized in the surface structure of the sentence (see pages 116 and 149150). Now, traditionally, only an indirect quote is assumed to be a subordinate clause, serving as the direct object of the verb of saying. Haiman and Thompson (1984) reject this traditional notion that the difference between the two types of quote is merely one of subordination. Munro (1982) and Partee (1973) note that direct and indirect speech have different syntactic and semantic roles, and Li (1986) that they have different points of reference (i.e. for indirect speech, the speaker uses himself/herself as the spatial point of reference and the time of utterance as its temporal point of reference; for direct speech, the speaker uses the points of reference of the quoted speaker). He suggests that the real differences lie in the degree of syntactic-semantic influence or control of one clause over another in interclausal relationships which he calls fusion:

- 249 -

Chapter 6 Both the direct quote and the indirect quote are on the weak end of the fusion scale in terms of their respective relationships with the verb of sayingHowever, the direct quote is even more weakly fused with the verb of saying than the indirect quote. Thus, only the direct quote has the full latitude of the independent sentence. (Li 1986:37) This may well account for the effectiveness of the following from Shvinders Story A, but it certainly does not support our analysis. As we said on pages 149150, quoting Toolan (1988), Labovs model of narrative is based on the assumption that what is said (by yourself or others) will not be the core of a story; given this assumption, we analyse the saying as the core of the narrative, and the sayings as in some way subordinate to it, i.e. the saying verb represents the action; if the saying is not stated explicitly, it is nevertheless implicit: (The Snowman said,) 50-52
He makes CHILDren LAUGH. He MAKES them HAPpy, beCAUSE he GIVES them PRESents.

(Mr. Wong said,) 53

PRESents! will he give me some RICE?

(The Snowman said,) 54-5

WELL! if YOU send him a LETter he MIGHT.

The second and third utterances are particularly effective because the exclamation in 53, and the interjection of 54, are achieved through the phonology. Shvinder even attempts to create two distinct voices for her characters; so we might conclude that the speech verb would be redundant even if it were present, especially as Li points out that: the English verb, say, in its unstressed form, is often semantically bleached and displays the characteristics of a hearsay evidentialSince the semantic function of say tends to lean in the direction of a hearsay evidential or an epistemic quantifier, the new information transmittedrests in the quoted speech, whether it is direct or indirect. (Li 1986:35)

- 250 -

Chapter 6

Table 6.4: Direct speech: Speech verbs and margins

SHVINDER total 65 8 types said S (45), S said (7), called S (1), FARIBA total 42 6 types said S (31), S said (4), told X S (1), S wrote (1), # margins (8) said that S (1) , said S said (2), told S (1) # margins (3) laughed S (1) S shouted out (1)

SAKANDER total 25 6 types

said S (20), wrote S (1), # margins (1)

told X S (1), thought to himself S (1)

wondered S (1)

HUMIRA total 37 10 types

said S (18), asked X that S (1), told X that S (3), write a letter to X that S (1), # margins (5)

said that S (2), did say that S (1), said to X that S (1)

says S (2)

S said (3)

SHEIBA total 37 8 types

said S (14), say S (1), thinked that S (1),

said to X S (1), said S said (1), asked X S (1) # margins (2)

S said (9) # margins (9)

AQEEL total 10

said S (8),

SHAZIA total 6 FEHDAH total 4

said S (6)

said S (2), said to hisself S (1)

to say S (1)

Returning to the data and taking the figures from table 6.4, we can plot the relationship between the total number of well-formed constructions produced by each subject and the number of well-formed types of construction present in his/her data. However, because - 251 -

Chapter 6 the more able subjects produce more in quantity than the less able, we need to look at proportions rather than actual numbers. Table 6.5 shows a perfect correlation between the proportion of well-formed types found and the overall proportion of well-formed constructions produced by each subject. Only three subjects, Fariba, Humira and Sheiba, actually produce ill-formed sentences involving direct speech. Aqeel, Shazia and Fehdah produce significantly less in output but their constructions are well-formed. Table 6.5. Direct speech: well-formed data
SPEAKERS TYPES No. Shvinder Sakander Aqeel Shazia Fehdah Sheiba Fariba Humira 8 6 2 1 3 6 3 4 % 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 75% 50% 40% 3 3 3 3 3 6 7 8 RANKS CONSTRUCTIONS No. 65 25 10 6 4 35 38 28 % 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 95% 90% 76% 3 3 3 3 3 6 7 8 RANKS

Table 6.6 looks at the totals and percentages of all the constructions employed. Roughly 91 percent of all speech introducers are forms of the verb say, with said S accounting for 64 percent of the data. We can see, also, that initial margins are six times more common than final margins, i.e. nearly 87 percent of all the constructions with speech margins are margin initial and less than 14 percent are margin final. Some of the ill-formed sentences which include the complementizer that possibly represent subjects exploratory attempts to extend their limited repertoire of said S, S said, and zero margins to include other forms of the verb say, such as present tense forms and those with did as auxiliary, e.g. the data from Humiras Story B and Story D below:

- 252 -

Chapter 6 Table 6.6. Frequency of occurrence of speech introducers A: WELL-FORMED SENTENCES: VERBS SAY OR TELL
Constructions said S # margins S said say(s) S told X S said to X S to say S said to himself S Totals 144 28 23 3 2 1 1 1 % 64% 12% 10% 1% <1% <1% <1% <1% No. of Users 8 6 4 2 2 1 1 1

203/226 = 89%

B: ILL-FORMED SENTENCES
Constructions said S said said that S told X that S told S did say that S said to X that S asked X that S thinked that S write a letter to X that S Totals 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 % 1% 1% 1% <1% <1% <1% <1% <1% <1% No. of Users 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

15/226 = 7%

- 253 -

Chapter 6 C: WELL-FORMED SENTENCES WITH VERBS OTHER THAN SAY OR TELL

Constructions laughed S called S wondered S wrote S S wrote thought to himself S S shouted out asked X S Totals 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 % <1% <1% <1% <1% <1% <1% <1% <1% Sakander Shvinder INT/Lex INT/Lex Sakander INT/Lex Subject Shvinder Evaluated INT/Lex

8/226 = 4%

Story B: 6 7 8 9 And he saw in the CUPboard there WAS A BOX.

When he Opened it

INT/Phon INT/Phon INT/For INT/Phon COM/CHP INT/Phon INT/D.Sp INT/Rep COM/Que COM/Mod EMBEDDED ORIENTATION

there was a FOOTball.

10 He SAYS, 11 How - WHAT can I DO

with THAT FOOTball?

12 I dont PLAY FOOTball!

INT/Phon INT/D.Sp COM/Neg

- 254 -

Chapter 6 Story D: 22 EVrybody SAYS that 23 WHY DONT you COME INT/D.Sp INT/Qua INT/D.Sp INT/D.Quo COM/Que COM/Neg INT/D.Sp

24 and give PRESents? --53 SO when he THINK-ed that 54 I - he would GO to a HOLiday 55 but - and he DID SAY 56 and the FATHer CHRISTmas DID say that 57 I will as WELL with the SNOWman.

COM/Mod

EXP/Cl.Lex INT/D.Sp COM/Fut/Mod COR/O.PP

58 So he DID. 59 The END INT/Phon

In Story B the result is most effective; the switch from Orientation to Narrative, (i.e. background to foreground) is dramatically marked, among other things, by the tense change from past to present. As we noted in chapter 4 (pp. 122123), both Wolfson (1982) and Schiffrin (1981) have something to say about this use of the conversational historic present (CHP) which alternates with the narrative past tense in the performance of a story. Wolfson sees it as a means of focusing the hearers attention on certain portions of the narrative, and of dividing up the flow of action into distinct events; whereas Schiffrin sees it as a means of making the past more vivid by bringing past events into the moment of speaking (1981:58) and analyses it as an internal evaluative device. In our data we do not have a regular tense alternation of this kind, but we can certainly say that Humira is performing the first major event of her story, which is Father Christmas deciding how to dispose of the football. However, what is most striking about the performance is not just that the speech verb is in the present tense, but the cumulative effect of expressive

- 255 -

Chapter 6 phonology, direct speech, repetition, a modal, a question, a negative, and external evaluation, all in the space of two clauses. In the second example, from Story D, we have embedded direct speech; sentence 22/24 is problematic and, therefore, does not appear in Table 6.6. Grammatically it seems illformed and yet similar expressions are commonly heard, even among adults. What is it that makes the expression acceptable? Is it the present tense of the speech verb, the fact that there is embedding involved, or is the whole expression an example of free indirect speech (see the discussion in chapter 5, p. 193)? Free indirect speech is a sub-type of free indirect discourse, described by Toolan (1988:126) as a fascinating narrative mode where formal grammar and the unpredictabilities of creative language use meet. McHale (1978) has written about it as follows: The decisive indices of FID ought to be not the marks of its syntactical distinctiveness, or even its traces in the surrounding context, but the signs of its mimetic character, whether formal signs (the words of a character, his characteristic registers and idiom) or semantic signs (the content of utterances, the thoughts or intended meanings of a character as distinguished from those of a narrator). This account thus overturns the priorities of orthodox stylistics: FID is not so much the syntactical frame which permits the appearance of otherwise inadmissible mimetic material, as it is formal or, more problematically, semantic materials which evoke a voice or presence other than the narrators, and conduce to the recognition of free indirect syntax. (McHale 1978:269) By using the adjective mimetic McHale is referring to the classical literary distinctions between mimesis, showing, and diegesis, telling. Showing involves a direct characterological representation or impersonation and a scenic presentation of events (Toolan 1988:126). Humiras character is a boy who is complaining to Father Christmas about his opting out of his obligations to give the children presents at Christmas. We have only reproduced the end of the speech; he begins by accusing him, rather disrespectfully, of not wanting to do the job anymore and so the whole speech is acceptable in context. The third example, from the end of Story D, illustrates her confusion as to whether or not the that is needed; she decides incorrectly that it is. We could argue that the construction did say is used correctly in context as a finalizing clarification of the fact that both Father Christmas and the Snowman had a holiday, and that they agreed to go together; however, her interlocutor, Matthew, did not ask for any such clarification. - 256 -

Chapter 6 Other speech verbs include tell, ask, and also the quotative verbs think and write. Fariba makes the mistake in her Story B of thinking that tell behaves like say or ask in optionally dropping the indirect object: 21 he TOLD, 22 Do - DID you WON the GAME?

Semantically, too, there is a difference: said is a cover verb which can be used for statements and questions, but tell only has to do with conveying information or issuing commands - not questioning - and so ask is the correct alternative to say. Humira appropriately employs tell to mean convey information, but has difficulty in using it correctly in direct and indirect speech, e.g. the following section from her Story B, where there are four occurrences of tell in rapid succession: 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 and - and the Father Christmas TOLD SOMEone THAT about ALL of it - a LAdy that
CAN you COME with ME and TELL me WHO GAVE me the BALL? I CANT underSTAND with THAT BALL.

So the LAdy told all aBOUT it WHERE it CAME from.

She TOLD HIM THAT it CAME from the FOOTball. [i.e. game]

Tell has an indirect object in 3 out of 4 occurrences; that appears as introducer to direct speech in 23, and indirect in 30. Similar errors are made with ask, think, and write.

- 257 -

Chapter 6 The well-formed sentences with verbs other than say and tell are single examples. There is nothing particularly noteworthy about called S, wrote S, S wrote, and asked X S, but the other four are evaluative in their own right, so we will discuss them briefly; they are: wondered S, thought to himself S, laughed S, and S shouted out. The first is from Sakanders Story B: 7 8 9 10 11 And he WONdered,
I - WHAT I will DO. I will go to LONdon and ASK if ONE of the FOOTball PLAYers would LIKE eLEVen BALLS.

Wondered is a strikingly effective lexical item as it suggests an indecisive state of mind which is also (maybe unintentionally) reflected in the hybrid structure of 8. The second example is from Sakanders Story D: 1 2 3 4 FAther CHRISTmas was ALL CROSS and GRUMpy. HE THOUGHT to himSELF,
WHY DONT they let WHY CANT I HAVE A HOLiday in AustRALia?

Thought to himself is much more telling than if he had merely said thought without the reflexive pronoun. As in the previous example, the incomplete utterance of 3 unwittingly adds to this sense of grumpiness and uncertainty. The third example is from Shvinders Story B: 19 20 21 22 AND Father Christmas SAID,
WILL you HELP me to FIND the WORSest TEAM of EVer?

The lady just LA-AUGHED, HA, ha, ha.

- 258 -

Chapter 6 Here the combination of laugh with its lengthened vowel and its paralinguistic verbalization Ha, ha, ha are akin to Wolfsons performance features, expressive sounds and/or sound effects. The final example is from Shvinders Story F: 30 31
WHAT IS ICE-cream?

he SHOUted OUT.

In the context, Mr. Wong has been trying to explain to an Eskimo what Arctic Roll is, but without too much success. He mentions that Arctic Roll is a kind of ice-cream which prompts the question above. To use the verb shouted out, rather than said, helps to indicate the Eskimos growing frustration and general lack of comprehension. Tannen (1986) refers to verbs which add colour to a narrative (in this case literary narrative) as graphic introducers and calls them an evaluative device which the author uses to hone her description of the characters, their personalities and states of mind, and their relationships to each other (p. 322). 6.5 Interjections, Exclamations, and Direct Address Interjections, Exclamations, and Direct Address have been subsumed under the same overall heading as they have certain similarities of function. Curme (1935) defines an interjection as an outcry to express pain, surprise, anger, pleasure or some other emotion and his examples are, Ouch!, Oh!, Alas!, and Why! (p. 105); but Givn (1984) describes interjections as a mixed-bag category because they are not a unified category functionally, morphologically or syntactically (p. 84). In chapter 4, page 120, we noted that our categorization includes affirmation and denial, the formulaic adjunct please and other peripheral and intrusive material which interrupts the flow of the direct speech and brings it to life. Exclamations, according to the Penguin English Dictionary, are also expressions of surprise or pain; outcry, clamour; grammatically equivalent to Interjections. Labov does not include interjections at all in his list of evaluative devices, and the only exclamations he lists are WH-exclamations; so we have chosen to call all exclamatory words, such as Oh, interjections and to reserve the label exclamation for whole clauses or phrases, or exclamatory repetitions of phrases from previous utterances by the speakers conversational partner. Vocatives, or direct address, are noun phrases that refer to the addressee but are not syntactically or semantically incorporated as the - 259 -

Chapter 6 arguments of a predicate; they are rather set apart prosodically from the body of a sentence that may accompany them (Levinson 1983:71). All three devices are included in our list of evaluative devices for their dramatic impact as discourse markers which bracket units of talk (Schiffrin 1987; p. 31) and hence make the direct speech more authentic, vivid and immediate. Schiffrin explains what she means by the term bracket as follows: I motivate the decision to define markers in relation to units of talk, rather than a more finely defined unit such as sentence, proposition, speech act, or tone unitI define brackets as devices which are both cataphoric and anaphoric whether they are in initial or terminal position. (1987:31) Although part of the communicative force of a marker is due to the definition of the discourse slot in which it is used..., the linguistic properties of the expressions used as markers are also responsible for its communicative effect. (p. 317) Table 6.7, on page 261, lists the interjections produced by each subject; in this table double forms, such as Oh no! and Oh please!, are counted as single interjections. In nearly all cases, interjections occur in conversational exchanges within the story frame and there is a significant correlation (p <0.005) between the amount of direct speech produced by each subject and the actual number of interjections used. This is what we would expect, as children learn to participate in conversational exchanges by producing their own units of talk in appropriate places in specific interaction routines. In chapter 3, Section 3.6.1 (p. 69), we mentioned the work of Ratner and Bruner (1978) who discuss the acquisition of hello through the interactive routine of a peekaboo game between a mother and toddler; also Ninio and Bruner (1978) and Snow (1981) and their work on book-reading routines. Second-language learners in their early years at Primary School are also encouraged to participate in book-reading routines and joint storytelling tasks which involve both teacher and taught. As we noted in chapter 3 (p. 65), books for young children usually combine text and pictures. The pictures supply visual validation or confirmation of what the text asserts (Toolan 1988:211) and elaborate on it, thus providing further opportunities for conversational exchanges and discussion. So from

- 260 -

Chapter 6 their experience of units of talk about the story, and appreciation of the way conversation is handled within the story, they learn how to handle direct speech in their own stories. For example, in a very simple story, Mooty and Grandma, by Jessie Wee and Kwan Shan Mei (quoted by Toolan) although the characters, Mooty the Mouse and Grandma, do not actually talk to each other, they do use direct speech and the interjections Oh! and help!. The narrators also use exclamations as comments on the plight of their characters when they unwittingly frighten each other because Grandma takes Mootys tail to be her sewing thread. Both at the high point and the Coda they exclaim Poor Mooty! Poor Grandma! Table 6.7. Interjectionsclauses coded
Data SHVINDER Well O.K. Oh Oh no Oh, please Still Yes 13 FARIBA Mm-m Yes No Yes, please Please Now, please Hello 9 SAKANDER 4 Here Yes No No. 3 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 Reference A14, A53, F18 A60, B24 B9, F38 C31 B23 A39 A80, F29 F44 B9, E45, F25 B24 A22 A20 B18 D10 B27 B15, B26, D12 F21

- 261 -

Chapter 6
HUMIRA Yes Oh 5 SHEIBA Oh no O.K. Yes 5 AQEEL 1 SHAZIA 0 FEHDAH 1 38 38 No 1 A4 Oh Yes 3 1 1 2 2 1 1 A16, C14, F17 B38 F31 D12, D23 D16, E21 E24 A10

Table 6.8. Number of occurrences of each interjection

Data Yes Oh No Please O.K. Well Still Mm-m Hello Here Now No. 15 7 5 4 4 3 1 1 1 1 1 43 (Now, please (1)) 5 Double forms included Yes, please (1) Oh no (2), Oh, please (1) (Oh no (2)) (Oh, please (1), Yes, please (1)) Now, please (1)

- 262 -

Chapter 6 Table 6.8 above lists the number of occurrences of each interjection found, with Yes as the preferred interjection, followed by Oh!, No, Please, O.K. and Well!. Table 6.9 lists the four exclamations and table 6.10 the eleven examples of direct address. Not all the examples listed will be discussed, only those which show the variety in functional use of interjections, exclamations, and direct address, or illustrate particularly striking lexical items. Table 6.9. Exclamations
SHVINDER Presents! Father Christmas! FARIBA AQEEL Yes, he did! What a mess! A53 A48 E45 B(1)2

Table 6.10. Direct address

SHVINDER Darling dear Dear Father Christmas Ben Snowman SAKANDER Dear Father Christmas My Dearie Ben SHEIBA Father Christmas Dad Silly Billy A8 A63 E18 A60 A20 E25 E26 D12 E24 E25, E26

6.5.1 The Use of Oh! We have taken our first two examples from Shvinders Story B: 6/7 8 So he went and LOOKED in the BOX and there was SIX, MAGic footBALLS. - 263 -

Chapter 6 9 So he said, O-OH! FOOTballs.

Here we have an example of an outcry to expresssurprise, which is further intensified by the lengthened vowel. Father Christmas is talking to himself and his outburst is followed by a detailed description of the balls. The second example involves a conversational exchange: 19 20 21 22 23 AND Father Christmas SAID,
WILL you HELP me to FIND the WORSest TEAM of EVer?

The lady just LA-AUGHED, HA, ha, ha. AND FAther Christmas SAID, OH, PLE-EASE!

The Oh in this context acknowledges the laughter as a response to the request of 20 and 21 but also that it is not the yes which was anticipated, hence the pleading please that follows it. The third example, from Shvinders Story C, is also one of contraexpectation: 28/29 30/31 32 33 34 and they said, Its VERy, VERy COLD THERE. SO he said, OH NO! I THOUGHT
it was going to be VERy HOT and there was going to be GREEN GRASS but there ISnt.

Here Shvinders main character, Billy-the Twit, decides to take his herd of cows to Greenland to find lots and lots of grass - green grass, but the days become colder and they run into a herd of caribou. The baffled Billy asks them if they know where Greenland is. Their reply is totally unexpected and fills him with dismay. Schiffrin (1987) labels this use of oh as a marker of the receipt of unanticipated information (p. 89): Oh thus marks a reorientation toward a proposition whose completion had been differently anticipated. This kind of reorientation is similar to that achieved by a repair: both focus on a prior unit of information and anaphorically adjust the speakers representation of that information. And the processing task which is marked by the acknowledgement, is analogous to the replacement task marked by a speakers use of an other-provided clarification. (pp. 8990)

- 264 -

Chapter 6 If the oh indicates the unexpectedness of the information, the no registers the dismay; the no is a denial with the meaning surely it cant be true! 6.5.2 Affirmation and Denial Many of our examples of yes are simple responses to direct questions which Halliday and Hasan (1976) claim are readily interpretable as elliptical forms. They just express the polarity option in the clauseleaving the remainder to be presupposed (p. 138). But as Schiffrin (1987) notes, a polarity term such as yeh [or yes] can become a marker of other discourse components (p. 329). In our first example from Shvinders Story F, yes is an acknowledgement marker, where the questioner is checking whether he heard the unfamiliar expression arctic roll correctly: 25/6 27 28 29
I WONder if you CAN MA-AKE ARCtic RO-OLL?

he [Mr. Wong] said.

ARCtic RO-OLL? said the ESKimo. YES, ARCtic roll - ICE-cream.

The second example is from Faribas Story E: 39 40/1 42/3 44 45 And he [Ben] said,
THERES a GAME and YOU can COME and lets SEE if you WIN TWO PRIZes.

And DID Billy win TWO PRIZes? YES, he DID!

Here Fariba is using a rhetorical question and answer pair to highlight Billys achievement and reward as a clowning cowboy: one prize for his clowning and one for his horses skill in keeping him on his back. Schiffrin states that yes-no questions are propositions whose polarity is unspecifiedCompletion of the propositionfixes the polarity (pp. 8485), and Fariba does this in a dramatic manner. The question is certainly evaluative, for although rhetorical, it is asked directly of the listener; the yes is an emphatic affirmative coupled with an emphatic assertion he did which has been analysed as an exclamation in its own right. So in this way Fariba is indicating overtly to her hearer that this is the main point of her story. The story ends with Billy boasting of his achievements, making Ben cross, and the two of them starting to fight. - 265 -

Chapter 6 The third example is from Faribas Story B: 20/21 22 23 24 And WHEN Father Christmas went DOWN he TOLD,
Do - DID you WON the GAME?

And he [the girls son] SAID,

NO, I DIDnt.

This is the negative, first person counterpart to the positive assertion of the previous example; however, the exclamatory force is missing and so is the rhetorical usage of the yes-no question. Nevertheless, the no is evaluative as a dramatized first person denial. If 24 were expressed in indirect speech it would be something like, And he said that he didnt or he said that, no, he didnt but the immediate impact of the denial would be lost. 6.5.3 Please, Now, Well, and O.K. Our first example is from Faribas Story B, the section immediately preceding that of the last example quoted. 13/15 16 17 18 19 So he SAW a GIRL LAUGHing and she SAID,
MY team - my SON is NOT WINning and he has NONE GOAL. Now, PLEASE will you GO to the MATCH this AFternoon?

And they DID.

Number 18 is a direct request from the girl for Father Christmas to accompany her to the football match. She has explained the situation and now she wants him to see it for himself. (Fariba uses go when she means come because, in 13, she is narrating an event from outside the story and then, in 1618, she switches to direct speech and the girls perspective from inside the story, but fails to switch the verb accordingly.) The now, according to Schiffrin (1987), marks a speakers progression through discourse time by displaying attention to what is coming next. Both its focus on the speaker, and on the upcoming talk, reflect the proximal quality of the deictic now (p. 266). The please is not lengthened as in Shvinders version above; it marks the utterance as a direct request, but without the degree of urgency exhibited by Shvinders Father Christmas. Our examples of well both come from Shvinders Story A: - 266 -

Chapter 6 11 12 13 14/15 And he [Mr. Wong] said,

THERES NONE RICE LEFT. SO WHAT can we DO-O? [asked Mr. s Wong] WELL, I DONT KNO-OW, SAID Mr. WONG.

Number 14/15 is a response to Mrs. Wongs question, So what can we do? Mr. Wong hasnt the faintest idea. Schiffrin (1987) states that, in her data, well is more frequent when a larger set of answer options is encoded through the form of the question (p. 105). Mrs. Wong obviously expects her husband to know what to do and assumes that he has a set of possible options available to him; he hasnt, so prefaces his answer by well. Well is used when respondents do not match questioners assumptions as to what constitutes the ideational content of an answer - when they do not fulfil the question options (pp. 107 108). Mr. Wong certainly disappoints his wifes expectations. 53 54/5
PRESents! will he give me some RICE? [asked Mr. Wong] WELL! if you send him a LETter he MIGHT. [answered the Snowman]

This time the well is used as a delaying tactic, or deferral, to preface a somewhat tentative response by the Snowman. Mr. Wong is expecting a categorical yes or no, but the Snowman is not in a position to give either; all he can do is to offer a suggestion. In number 53 we also have an example of an exclamation where Mr. Wong picks up the last phrase of the previous utterance in which the Snowman explains that Father Christmas makes children happy: 52
beCAUSE he GIVES them PRESents.

This is dramatic storytelling, because the impact of the exclamation is to stress the sense of urgency in Mr. Wongs mind. (Shvinders version is far more telling than the original at this point!) O.K. has the function of a pre-closing item, or a pre-closing offer to close a conversation. For our discussion we will take the two examples from Sheibas Story D: 8/9 10 11 12 So he GOT up and PUT on his CLOAK and his SHOES and he TOLD WHITE CHRISTmas and HE SAID,
O.K., Father CHRISTmas, GIVE me your PRESents

- 267 -

Chapter 6 13 14/15 16
and ILL give them to the CHILDren EVry DAY. So can I have a HOLiday? said FAther CHRISTmas. YES, SAID the WHITE CHRISTmas.

Father Christmas has been telling White Christmas why he was fed up with delivering Christmas presents; White Christmas O.K. acknowledges his problem by cutting him short, and also prefaces his own suggested solution to that problem which Father Christmas clarifies briefly and then accepts. White Christmas then takes on the job himself but gets really tired in the process: 19 20/1 22 23 So FAther CHRISTmas SAID,
DONT WORry, YOU can have a HOLiday NOW and I can have one toMORrow. O.K. then, BYE, SAID the WHITE CHRISTmas.

In this example, the O.K. prefaces the actual goodbye which indicates the taking up of the offer of a days holiday, and there is no reciprocal O.K., goodbye from Father Christmas in acknowledgement. The then has a bridging function: it points back to the offer (21) and forward to the bye (23) which accompanies the act of leaving that concludes the story. There is very little to say about the use of Direct Address (table 6.10, p. 263) apart from a comment on those examples which are particularly striking as lexical items, such as Sakanders My Dearie (E25) and Sheibas Silly Billy (E25, 26). They are not prompted by anything in the original version of the story but may well have been remembered from songs and rhymes: e.g. there is a rhyme which ends with: Silly Billy hid a shilling, Isnt Billy Silly? In chapter 3, section 3.6.1, we mentioned rhymes and songs as a rich source of memorized language chunks or prefabricated patterns; they are used quite widely in the Infant School programme and are especially helpful with second-language learners. Shvinders Darling dear, however, does seem to be an original combination of darling and dear which she had previously heard as two separate endearments.

- 268 -

Chapter 6 6.6 Lexical Intensifiers and Other Lexical Items As we mentioned in chapter 4, page 120, Labov has but one single category labelled Lexical Items which we have subdivided into Lexical Intensifiers, a fairly restricted subclass of intensifiers, and Lexical Items where the choice is unlimited and degrees of effectiveness are possible. We will discuss the more restricted set first. Table 6.11. Lexical intensifiers Data very really too so Total Total Subject 21 3 2 2 28 Shvinder Fariba Sakander Humira Sheiba Aqeel Shazia Fehdah Total 9 8 1 3 6 0 0 1

The most frequently used lexical intensifier, according to Quirk and Greenbaum (1973), is very and this general statement is confirmed by our data (see table 6.11). Most of these examples are not particularly noteworthy. However, Sheiba in her Story C exaggerates, or emphasizes, the intensification by repetition and expressive phonology. Here her main character, Billy-the-Twit, is trying to find out about Greenland: 11 12 13 So BILly ASKED the EXsimo [Eskimo] and the EXsimo SAID,
It is VERy, VERy, VERy FROSTy there.

The heavily evaluated answer is also an example of embedded orientation, an external evaluative device, giving setting-type information about the real world that is the main point around which the story is constructed. So, in one sense, this is not an example of exaggeration at all, but an accurate assessment of the climate of the geographical Greenland.

- 269 -

Chapter 6 Humira, in her Story D, comes up with an interesting, non-standard combination of a lexical intensifier plus a lexical item: 40 41/2 43/4 45 SO-O the FAther CHRISTmas went HOME AND he SAW it was SNOWing. And he WENT OUT and GOT SNOW and it was VERy MAGic.

In standard English you cannot say that something is very magic; it is either magic or it is not. Humira uses the expression to mean and it was very powerful magic [snow] and in the very next clause she says: 46 and he MAGicked Everything up

using magic again as a verb. Although non-standard, these expressions are highly effective as indicators of the importance of the information being conveyed. Our best example of the use of really comes from the opening of Faribas Story D: 1 2 3 4 5 One DAY FAther Christmas was REALly ANGry He was ANGry
beCAUSE he DIDnt LIKE his PICTures on the CARDS

SO he WANTed on the CARDS SNOWmen PICTures And he WANTed a HOLiday.

The meaning of really is similar to that of very; it also emphasizes the truth value of the statement where the hearer might consider the possibility that the anger was only feigned. Hence, it is more expressive than very. Too has the meaning of more than enough or excess when referring to quantity and quality, and is, therefore, more specific than very, e.g. the following from Shvinders Story A: 56 57 58 59 SO the SNOWman SAID,
I am getting TOO HOT HERE. Im STARTing to MELT. I MUST go QUICKly BACK to my HOUSE.

- 270 -

Chapter 6 The intensifier so often has an exclamatory force, for example the following from Sheibas Story A: 1 2 3/4 5 ONE day Mr. WONG WOKE UP SO EARly. And he had a SHO-OP. He SAID, I CAN PUT THIS IN MY SHOP. AND the SHOP people BUYed it.

The exclamatory force is indicated by the expressive phonology; the intensification is strengthened by receiving nuclear prominence, marked by a short rising contour and heavy stress, and the hearer is led to expect a that which will introduce something really noteworthy, such as, he decided to open his shop at half past six, instead of the bald comment that he owned a shop. A more experienced storyteller would have placed 1 and 2 in the opposite order, i.e.: 1 2 3 4 Mr. Wong had a shop. One day he woke up so early that he said, I can put this in my shop (right now). (It was a bag of very special rice so he got up straight away and carted it off to his shop. ) 5 And the shop people bought it.

The second example is from Faribas Story B: 28 29 30/1 32 And they WON eLEVen SCORES [goals]. And THEN he was SO HAPpy that
Father Christmas WENT to apPLAUD HIM that he was BEing VERy GOOD.

Fariba uses so to intensify happy and to capture the sense of elation experienced by the girls son when his team scored eleven goals under his captaincy and Father Christmas congratulated him on his success. This marks the satisfactory conclusion to the story which is followed immediately by the Coda: 33 SO they ALL lived HAPpily Ever AFter - 271 -

Chapter 6 34 35 36 and THAT was the END of the TEAM. And HE won a BIG MEDal. THE END.

Also in the lexical category are a small group of emphasizers whose function is to either introduce some rather surprising information or to add a note of surprise to the event being described: they are just (eight examples), ever (four examples), even (two examples), only (two examples), own (one example), and indeed (one example). Some are not particularly striking but are, nevertheless, evaluative. In Shvinders Story B we have both just and ever in close proximity: 19 20 21 22 AND Father Christmas SAID,
WILL you HELP me to FIND the WORSest TEAM of EVer?

The lady just LA-AUGHED, HA, ha, ha.

Collins Cobuild Dictionary (1987) notes that just is used to give emphasis to what you are saying. The word following just is usually stressed (7.6); here it is both stressed and lengthened to emphasize the surprising nature of the ladys reaction to the question. In spite of the errors in number 21, the use of ever following a superlative evaluatively emphasizes the ultimate extent of the surprising lack of proficiency Father Christmas was after. Who in their right senses would sponsor such a hopeless cause? In Faribas Story E, ever is highlighting the surprising anomaly, expressed in number 34/5, of a cowboy who could not even ride a horse: 30 31 32 33 34 35
WHY ARE YOU LAUGHing at ME-E? BeCAUSE, he said, THATS the FUNniest thing I EVer SAW in the WHOLE TOWN. YOU ARE COWboy but you cant BALance on a HORSE.

In Shvinders Story D even also suggests that the information which follows is somewhat surprising, and contrary to expectation:

- 272 -

Chapter 6 1 2 3 4 ONE day Father CHRISTmas SAID,

I NEVer have a HOLiday, NOT EVen at SUMmertime. I HAVE to HAVE a HOLiday.

Faribas Story F gives us two good examples of the use of only; the first is misordered but this does not detract from the effectiveness of the passage. An Eskimo is very surprised to see one lone traveller in the back of beyond without a supporting entourage: 11 12 13 14 15 16 AND HE [the Eskimo] SAID,
WHERE ARE the Others? I ONLY can SEE ONE.

AND Mr. WONG SAID,

There ARENT ANy Others. Theres only ME!

Sakanders use of own, in his Story E, is slightly different: 40 41 SO BILly the COWboy let him
HAVE a RIDE on his OWN HORSE.

It comes at the end of a story about the rivalry of two friends: Billy, the cowboy, and Ben, the footballer. Ben had been laughing at Billy because of his lack of horsemanship. However, they managed to turn his poor performance into a highly successful comedy act and, as a reward for Bens support, Billy let him ride his precious horse. The use of own in 41 emphasizes the fact that the horse really belonged to him. Shvinder, in her Story A, employs indeed at the end of her pre-coda clause to give extra force to the lexical intensifier very: 81 82 So the CUStomers WERE VERy HAPpy inDEED. And MR. WONG LIVED HAPpier EVer A-AFter.

The effectiveness of these devices is reinforced by the use of expressive phonology (see pp. 233235).

- 273 -

Chapter 6 The remaining lexical devices, which form the bulk of those coded, can be divided into two groups (see chapter 4, p. 120): (1) items that are directly evaluative, such as the adjectives listed in table 6.12, and (2) expressions showing a creative flair and memorable use of language. Table 6.12. Evaluative adjectives Data happy/(happily) * magic/(magicked) messy/(mess) funny/funniest good big shiny fed up * bad nice cross * Total 14 10 7 7 6 5 4 4 3 3 3 Data angry * strange stupid boring delicious ordinary right slimy cruel special dreadful Total 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Data sweet lovely grumpy * annoyed * worried * sad * sorry * pleased * fair Total 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 89

Those marked with an asterisk (*) indicate the items which specifically describe how story characters feel about story actions and happenings; the rest describe how the narrator, from outside the story frame, feels about a character, prop, or situation (s)he is describing. Bamberg and Damrad-Frye (1991), in their study of evaluative comments in childrens narratives, coded lexical items as falling into one of five categories: (1) frames of mind, (2) character speech, (3) distancing devices, (4) negative statements, and (5) causal connections. Their category (1), frames of mind, overlaps rather than coincides with what we are calling direct evaluation: These [frames of mind] consisted of references to emotional states (primary and secondary) such as being sad, happy, scared, and anxious, perturbed, amazed and the like. (1991:694)

- 274 -

Chapter 6 Descriptions of mental states or of evaluated outcomes of actions take the discourse outside its referential, ideational context, and indirectly shift focus from the action on to the narrator, particularly on the perspective from which he/she views the action descriptions as being related. (p. 690) Bamberg and Damrad-Frye also include transitive actions which initiate emotions in others (e.g. scare, frighten) and other references to purely mental states or activities, such as thinking, or being interested in something, which we have not taken account of, unless the item in question is particularly effective or colourful, or is an example of mature usage. Verbs we have coded as evaluative include interrupt, balance, magicked, rolled around, congratulated and applaud, the speech verbs mentioned under direct speech (see pp. 254 and 257259), and verbs expressing emotions such as liked, loved, enjoyed and dont care; adverbs coded as evaluative include suddenly, after all and after a while. We do not have the space to discuss all these examples in context; some such as magicked (p. 270) have already been discussed elsewhere. However, we will look at some examples of what we consider to be the creative use of language; the choices made here are obviously highly subjective. The favourite comes from Humiras Story C as she introduces her main character, Billythe-Twit: 1 2 BILly-the-TWIT WAS STUpid and he COULDNT find the MIND in his HEAD.

Number 2 is highly original and there is nothing remotely like it in the model story; unfortunately, what follows does not match this opening. It is remarkable both for the clarity of thought and the aptness of the words chosen to express it. Aqeels example of an intriguing speech, from his Story E, is also a colourful and creative use of language but the precise meaning in context is more opaque: 1 2 3 4 5 ONCE upon a TIME THERE was BILly - - BILly his HORSE was OUT and HE - um - HE RAN to the HORSE AND HE RIDE on the HORSE AND THEN he FELL OFF.

- 275 -

Chapter 6 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 And HE GOT ON aGAIN and HE RIDE. And HE FALL DOWN aGAIN and COME BACK UP aGAIN. And HE [the horse?] RUNNED to - BILly and he [Billy?] SAID,
YOU STEALED MY PUFF.

Thats the END of STOry.

If Billy is, indeed, reprimanding his horse for making him out of breath, then this is a very picturesque way of expressing his predicament, the grammatical error adding to its appeal. The last three examples are equally apt but more conventional. Shvinder, in her Story A, has just described Father Christmass delivery of rice to Mr. Wong via the chimney: 74 75 And Mr. WONG when he WAKED UP in the MORning he COULDnt beLIEVE his EYES.

Mr. Wong had written off to Father Christmas without any firm conviction that his wish would be granted, so when it is, he is incredulously overjoyed. Sakander has picked up a clich beloved of government politicians which he uses to effect in the coda to his Story B: 33 34 And THEN, at the END of the DAY, FAther CHRISTmas WENT AND um HE SAID, GOODBYE.

The final example is from the coda of Faribas Story C: 24 25 And THAT was the END of BILly-the-TWIT. THE END.

She does not intend to dispatch her hero quite so literally, but merely to wrap up her story in a satisfactory way so that John, her interlocutor, is left in no doubt that the narration is over.

- 276 -

Chapter 6 6.7 Foregrounding Labov does not mention foregrounding at all in The Transformation of Experience in Narrative Syntax and so we have to look elsewhere for any discussion on the topic. Clearly, the simple foreground background distinction suggested by Labov and Waletzky (1967) is inadequate, for it equates the foreground of a narrative directly with the sequence of temporally ordered main clauses; but, as Fleischman (1990) points out, not all temporally ordered events are of equal importance (p. 170). Hasan (1989) states simply that a foregrounded element is one that is highlighted (p. 33) and that by being itself highlighted, foregrounding also brings to attention that against which it is highlighted (p. 95). So what we have seems to be a three-way distinction:

background information

non-important events

salient (important) events

rather than a binary view of grounding. Hasan (1989) discusses three specific foregrounding devices: logical relations, grammatical subordination, and tense-aspect contrasts; while Fleischman deals with various criteria for identifying foregrounded material in a narrative, one of which is whether or not a clause serves to advance the plot (Kalmr 1982) or move narrative time forward (Dry 1981, 1983) (p. 175). Table 6.13 below shows examples from the data which seem to have, in most cases, both of these functions: Table 6.13. Forgrounding devices (continues overleaf) Temporal Subordinate Clauses: Totals

When-cl + simple past (preterit) tense 23 Suddenly + when-cl + simple past Whenever-cl + simple past tense Every time-cl + past/present tense 1 2 2 28 Temporal Phrases After two days After that After a while - 277 Totals 1 1 1

Chapter 6 Temporal Phrases At 12 oclock in the afternoon In Christmas night In the morning In the end Next time One day On Christmas That night The first thing The next day Then, at the end of the day Then, at night Then, in the night Then, in the morning Totals 1 1 1 1 1 8 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 25 Temporal Adverbs First Now Once Suddenly Tomorrow Totals 2 1 1 1 1 6 Grand Total 59

Dry (1983) points out that the distinction between references to points or spans of time is crucial here; only time adverbs or phrases that refer to points (e.g. suddenly, at 12 oclock in the afternoon), not those that refer to spans (e.g. after a while), can be used to move narrative time. This holds true, also, for the above examples of subordinate when-clauses; as Dry (1983) indicates, only perfective when-clauses are on the time line and generate a sense of temporal progression. However, all the foregrounding types displayed in table 6.13 serve to advance the plot in some way by indicating that what follows is of particular importance

- 278 -

Chapter 6 to its outworking. For example the following passage from Shvinders Story A, where we have several examples of foregrounding: 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26/7 28/9 30 31 32 33 34 35 36/7 38 39 40 AND Father Christmas SAID,
WILL you HELP me to FIND the WORSest TEAM of EVer?

The lady just LA-AUGHED, HA, ha, ha. AND FAther Christmas SAID, OH, PLE-EASE! So she said, O.K.
The worsest team of ALL is MY team. WHENever I see THEM THEY NEVer WIN.

INT/For

SO they went to have a DRINK. And, at TWELVE Oclock in the AFterNOON, they watched the FOOTball players THEY WERE WO-ORSE. SO FAther Christmas gave them the SIX BLACK and WHITE MAGic BALLS and they said, THANKyou. So they started to PLAY aGAIN. And WHEN they kicked IT, it WENT ANywhere IT LIKED. And they WINNED.
Because, in the END, the BOY was JUST going to KICK it

INT/For

INT/For

INT/For

and the WORSest TEAM of EVer WO-ONNED.

In number 26/7 we have an example of foregrounding which does not move narrative time forward; yet the fact that the team in question never win is the whole point of the story, and the Whenever-cl highlights this for the hearer. The precise time reference in number 30 clearly does move narrative time and, also, advances the plot by pinpointing the exact time that the teams fortunes began to change because, unknown to them, one spectator already had the matter in hand. Number 35 highlights the point at which the - 279 -

Chapter 6 magic football took the initiative and overruled the players lack of skill, and also how the desired outcome was achieved. In number 39 Shvinder fails to spell out exactly what happened at the end of the game, because she failed to understand the force of the original. However, her version seems to suggest that the other team were just about to score when the match was terminated, and we are left to imagine the referees whistle. In the end contrasts with the unspecified time span of the course of the match as a whole and focuses on the end-point, wrapping the story up and bringing it to a successful conclusion. Number 39 is marked by a whole battery of evaluative devices: expressive phonology, the emphasizer just, progressive aspect, and the causative because, as well as the terminating in the end. 6.8 Quantifiers According to Labov: Quantifiers are the most common means of intensifying a clause, used by narrators of all age levels. The intensifier all is often inserted at a critical point in preadolescent narrativesSome operations with quantifiers are fairly mechanical. If two guys jump someone, that is bad; but if six guys jump him, that is an event of another degree of magnitude and calls for a different kind of action. (1972a:379) Table 6.14 below shows that, in our data, single quantifiers are either numerals which give specific, precise quantification, or non-specific quantifiers such as: all, any, both, every, none* (no); most are stressed and are certainly evaluative, even if they are not particularly memorable. Table 6.14. Single quantifiers (continues overleaf) Non-specific All Any Both Everybody Every day Everyone Totals 23 5 4 6 1 2 Numerals One Two Three Six Seven Ten Totals 4 4 1 1 1 1

- 280 -

Chapter 6 Non-specific Everything Much None * (error No) Whole Totals 2 2 2 2 49 Partitives All of it Lots of One of Some of A bag of A box of Totals 1 2 2 2 1 1 Comparisons No more One more Some more So much Such * many (error So) 15 Totals 1 1 1 1 1 Numerals Eleven Twelve Totals 2 1

A big, large packet of 1 Loads of Lots and lots of 1 2 13 5

As suggested by Labov, all is the most ubiquitous, e.g. Sakanders All the messy football players (B15), Shvinders The worsest team of all (B25), Shazias there was all grass there (C2), and Sakanders he gives rice out all to his customers (A2) where it is misplaced, and so it is not clear whether he means that Mr. Wong gives all the rice out or that he gives it to all his customers, which is the more likely reading. In addition, we have examples of quantification which further intensifies other evaluative constructions, e.g. the following from Humiras and Shvinders Story E: 24 25/6 27 BEN SAID that
I dont CARE if you PLAY. I can play with the FOOTball.

- 281 -

Chapter 6 28 29 30 31
Im MUCH BETter than YOU.

BILly SAID,
IM GOing to be MUCH BETter than YOU TO PLAY COWboy.

Here Humiras use of the quantifier intensifies the extent of the comparisons being made in the boasts of the two boys; Ben claims that his performance as a footballer is vastly superior to Billys and Billy claims that his potential skill as a cowboy will one day far outstrip Bens. 15 16 SO-O he [Ben] said,
YOU could be the FUNniest man in the WHOLE WIDE WORLD.

Although, in collocating whole with wide world, Shvinders usage is almost conventional, it is, nevertheless, highly effective, backed up as it is by expressive phonology, with its contrasts in pitch, stress and tempo, plus alliteration. The whole phrase modifies man in such a way as to highlight the superlative quality of his clowning potential. Similarly, numerals used on their own are not particularly striking, but put them with other attributives and they assume another degree of magnitude, e.g. the following from Shvinders and Faribas Story B: 8 32 and there was SIX, MAGic footBALLS. SO FAther Christmas gave them the SIX, BLACK and WHITE, MAGic BALLS.

In number 8 we find a combination of expressive phonology and the emotive item magic as a following attributive; while in number 32 we find a similar combination with the addition of a compound adjective phrase denoting colour. 4 5
When he Opened it

he SAW TEN SHIny BALLS.

In Faribas version the six balls of the original become ten balls and so the actual number is deemed to be remarkable in its own right, hence the nuclear prominence on the quantifier.

- 282 -

Chapter 6 Phrasal quantifiers are of two kinds: partitives and comparisons but, as with single quantifiers, they only become noteworthy when they combine with other evaluative devices such as repetition, e.g. the following partitive construction from Shvinders Story C: 16 17 He THOUGHT
there was going to be LOTS and LOTS of GRASS-GREEN GRASS.

Expressive phonology, the appositive amplification green grass, and the use of progressive aspect also add to the effectiveness of the sentence. The following, from Faribas Story A, contains the error of putting synonyms together as fellow attributives: 26 27 IN CHRISTmas NI-IGHT FAther Christmas CA-AME and he PUT a BIG, LARGE PACKet of RICE in the CHIMney.

However, if the noun phrase in number 27 were corrected to, a great big packet of rice, the partitive construction would be most effective as a means of indicating precisely how, and in what form, the rice arrived. There are only five examples of phrasal quantifiers involving comparisons, e.g. the following from Sheibas Story A, which describes a negative comparison to an assumed initial state of plenty that is not fully spelt out: 7 AND THERE WAS NO MORE RICE LEFT.

Aqeels example, from his Story B(2), leaves even more processing work for the hearer to do: 22 23 SOMEone KICKED and the MAN - - and THEY said, One MOMent, one MORE.

The phrasal quantifier one more refers to the possibility of scoring one more goal and presupposes a comparison with other goals that had previously been scored. Having heard the original, Kenneth is able to recover the ellipted head and make the right connections. 6.9 Repetitions Unlike Labovs findings, in our data repetitions are more numerous than quantifiers, although in some cases these are no more than restatements in order to gain more time in which to think out what to say next, as in the following from Shazias Story E: - 283 -

Chapter 6 1 2 Once upon a TIME BILly PLAYED with BALL. He PLAYED with the BALL - - -

where, in spite of the repetition of most of the clause, she still has not been able to continue; finally, after a long pause and some prompting she manages: 3 4 THEN - BILly SAID,
IM NOT PLAYing. - - -

However, not all our subjects are struggling in this way to produce a coherent narrative. According to Labov: The device of repetition is relatively simple from the syntactic point of view but is effective in narrative in two senses: it intensifies a particular action, and it suspends the action. (1972a:379) Labovs examples, like Shazias above, are also repetitions of whole clauses, but they are used intentionally to create suspense and bring the hearer into the action. Table 6.15 below shows that only 13 percent of our examples involve the whole clause, while 74 percent represent repetitions of single phrases used as highlighting devices to focus attention on a particular participant or prop, or prolong a significant action. Table 6.15. Repetitions Types Whole clauses Totals Percentages 14 13% 31% 28% 8% 1% 6% 2% 11% 100%

Verb phrases (analysed as separate clauses) 33 Nominal phrases Locative phrases Temporal phrases Descriptive phrases (following BE) Auxiliaries Repetitions within the same phrase 29 8 1 6 2 12 105

- 284 -

Chapter 6 We will take a few examples of some of these types; the first, occurring at the peak of Sakanders Story B, describes exactly what happens to the opposing team when Father Christmas gives out the magic footballs: 17 18 19 20 21 22 but SUDdenly when THEY kicked BALLS they KEEP on LOSing them. And if they TACKle they KEEP on LOSing them.
If they SCORE GOALS

they LOSE the BALL.

Line 20 is a complete repetition of line 18, and line 22 repeats the subject they and the main verb lose. The piece effectively spells out exactly what takes place in three common footballing situations: kicking, tackling and scoring; in each case they lose the ball. Even though Sakander seems to take the expression lose the ball literally, the repetition does, nevertheless, create suspense and intensify each action so that the hearer is led to feel that everything is totally out of control. Now, not all repetitions of verb phrases are equally effective, and some may even constitute errors; for example, in her Story F, Humira twice mistakenly uses the device in the expression cooking and cooking to mean all this cooking: 4-6 7
I am FED UP beCAUSE for COOKing and COOKing FOR GIVing EVryBOdy FOOD ...

42 43/4

... and I CANT DO NOthing NOW for COOKing and COOKing.

In contrast, both Fariba and Sakander use the repetition of laughed evaluatively in their Story E when they describe Bens reaction to the crazy antics of Billy the cowboy: 24-6 27-8 and Ben LAUGHED and LAUGHED and LAUGHED and BILly got A-ANgry beCAUSE he was LAUGHing.

27-8

BEN LAUGHED and ROLLED aWAY HIGH - 285 -

Chapter 6 2931 32 AND HE LAUGHED and LAUGHED and LAUGHED. SO they MADE a SHO-OW ...

The whole point of the story is that a cowboy who cannot stay on a horse can be great entertainment value and this is vividly conveyed by the repetition which prolongs the laughter. Repetitions of nominal phrases have a slightly different function, i.e. that of focusing on particular participants or props and keeping them in the hearers consciousness. For example, the following partial repetitions of the immature expression in line 13 and line 14, from Shvinders Story B, are some of the most memorable in the data: 13 14
I must SELL them to a WORSest TEAM that NEVer WON beFORE.

--20/1
WILL you HELP me to FIND the WORSest TEAM of EVer?

--25
The worsest team of ALL is MY team

--40 and the WORSest TEAM of EVer WO-ONNED.

No hearer can be left in any doubt that the team Father Christmas helped really were the worst team ever. Similarly, Shvinder leaves her hearers in no doubt about the description of the footballs which Father Christmas found in his cupboard, nor about their importance to the teams change of fortune and the outworking of the plot: 6/7 8 9 10 So he went and LOOKED in the BOX and there was SIX, MAGic footBALLS. SO he said, O-OH! FOOTballs. They were SHINy, BLACK and WHITE FOOTballs. --32 SO FAther Christmas gave them the SIX, BLACK and WHITE, MAGic BALLS.

- 286 -

Chapter 6 In line 8 she tells us, from the narrators omniscient viewpoint, that they are magic balls, but in line 9 Father Christmas refers to them only as footballs. This raises an intriguing question for the hearer: did Father Christmas know that they were magic? The repetition of the facts of lines 8 and 10 in a full description in line 32, omitting only their shininess, ensures that her hearer bears these facts in mind as she listens to the rest of the story. Repetitions of locative, temporal and descriptive phrases are often coincidental rather than devices deliberately chosen to produce a particular effect: the opening of Faribas Story D is perhaps one of the exceptions: 1 2 3 One DAY FAther Christmas was REALly ANGry. He was ANGry
beCAUSE he DIDnt LIKE his PICtures on the CARDS.

The repetition, following as it does the deployment of the lexical intensifier really in line 1, combines with it to focus the hearers attention on Father Christmass uncharacteristic and unexpected emotional state, while line 3 gives the reason for this anger. Repetition of lexical items within a single phrase include expressions such as lots and lots of (mentioned above under quantifiers), colder and colder and several examples of the repetition of the lexical intensifier very, the best of which is probably that quoted and discussed on page 269, from Sheibas Story C: 12 13 and the EXsimo [Eskimo] SAID,
It is VERy, VERy, VERy FROSTy there

where the repetition intensifies an embedded description rather than a particular action. 6.10 Single Appositives Labov does not include single appositives at all in his list of evaluative devices, only correlative double appositives which are comparatively rare both in his data and ours. The single appositive is more commonplace, but it does, nevertheless, have the effect of strengthening or intensifying a particular event or description. Quirk and Greenbaum (1973) state that:

- 287 -

Chapter 6 Apposition resembles coordination in linking units having grammatical affinity. But, in addition, for units to be appositives, they must normally be identical in reference or else the reference of one must be included in the reference of the otherThe relationship underlying apposition is therefore an intensive relationship (p. 276) In our data, of the thirty-four single appositives coded: twenty-two (65 percent) are nominal phrases, seven (20 percent) are temporal expressions, four (12 percent) are locatives, and one (3 percent) is an appositive reason clause particularizing a more general causal statement (he was happy togo outside for giving for Christmas, giving all the toys (Humira B44/45)). The most controversial are the nonstandard examples of full NP + pronoun combinations which appear in error taxonomies such as that of Politzer and Ramirez (1973). We are claiming that the majority of these combinations are used intentionally for special effect and do not constitute errors, as they spell out for the hearer the exact identity of the referent concerned and his responsibility for the action, e.g. the following from Shvinders Story C where there is a non-restrictive pause between the two appositives: 8 BILly-the TWIT, he FOUND a MAP

Shvinders C8, which is superficially similar to Politzer and Ramirez example: My brother he go to Mexico, is a recapitulation of 5-6 (So Billy-the-Twit went to school and he found a map) and precedes 9-11 which spell out for us the important fact that poor Billy could not read maps. The effect of the apposition is to focus our attention on Billy himself rather than on the action: he may have found a map but that, in itself, does not guarantee a successful trip. 9 10 11 12 13 14 but he DIDnt know
the BLUE parts were the WATer and the RED were the COUNtries.

So he SAID,
Ill go to GREENland.

But he DIDnt know what GREENland WAS.

So he was expecting to find plenty of grass there for his cows. The next two examples, where the pronoun precedes the naming of the referent(s), are not so controversial: and HE - BILly-the-TWIT - TOOK his SHEEP to GREENLAND they - ALL the TEAM - was making PLANS (Sakander C28) (Aqeel B(2)14)

- 288 -

Chapter 6 Sakander is saying in C28 that it was Billy-the-Twit, and no-one else, who took his sheep all the way to Greenland (fortunately Sakanders Greenland did provide his animals with sweet, green grass), and Aqeel in B(2)14 is making sure that the hearer understands that the whole team were involved in the half-time discussions. Quirk and Greenbaum specifically mention identification of this kind in section 9.52, page 279; their example is: We - (that is to say) John and I - intend to resign. Other examples of non-restrictive apposition in our data include: Appellation: One DAY his FRIEND, CALLED BEN, came over Designation: A-AND Mr. SONG, the ESkimo, lived in ALASka Attribution: and gave them FOOTball, a MAGic ONE (Fariba E5) (Humira F14) (Aqeel B(2)16) (Aqeel A1)

Reformulation: ONCE upon a TIME there was a MAN - ChiNESE MAN Temporal appositives function as additional foregrounding devices, e.g.: SO ONE DAY, WHEN HE was asLEEP, And THEN, in the MORning, he WOKE up EARly

(Shvinder A16) (Sheiba A10)

and locative appositives give more specific positional or directional information, e.g.: Position: and COMES HERE, in the BOX, to SHUT Direction: And THEN he went BACK, into his HOME (Humira B35) (Sakander D23)

Some appositives, such as reformulation, are akin to what we have analysed as simple (explicative) clarifications, rather than simply packing more information into the clause. In adult usage appositional relationships are often explicitly indicated by the insertion of expressions such as: or, namely, that is, particularly, for example between the appositives, but all our appositives are simply juxtaposed. 6.11 Use of the First Language Only two subjects, Aqeel and Fehdah, use their first language, Panjabi, with Panjabispeaking interlocutors and then only on one occasion each, while retelling Story B. (Fehdah also told his Story E entirely in Panjabi, but it did not constitute a coherent narrative and was not included in the data.) In Story B, the Panjabi utterances cannot be analysed in the same way as the English ones for several reasons: firstly, the transcriptions are only an approximation of what was heard; secondly, Shamsa, the language support teacher who helped in the transcription and translation of the Panjabi data, complained that it was very - 289 -

Chapter 6 bad Panjabi and at times she had considerable difficulty herself in deciding what the two boys intended to say; and finally, this thesis is about the acquisition of a second language and so, in that sense, the Panjabi data is not relevant. However, as we argued in chapter 4, pages 121122, such departures into Panjabi are judged to be evaluative. After commencing his narrative in English, Aqeel uses his L1 to describe what really went on at the football match; his is the unofficial version (differing substantially from the model story) which gives a blow by blow account of some very unprofessional behaviour, and the eleven clauses are full of evaluative comments. While Fehdah goes even further and uses his three clauses of Panjabi to make derogatory remarks about one of the teams in language which Shamsa was reluctant to translate. Yet such material is clearly comparable to some of the more colourful expressions reported by Labov and judged as evaluative. The hearers, Shaid and Sukhbir, certainly got the point of what was being said and reacted to it with giggles and grins behind the hand, with a few surreptitious glances in the researchers direction to see if she realized what was going on. The evaluative content was thus self-evident, even before we had the benefit of Shamsas translation. 6.12 Summary We introduced the chapter by mentioning the need to discriminate between the effective use of evaluation and cases where similar devices are NOT used effectively; occasionally these subjective judgments on the part of the researcher are actually confirmed by verbalized positive responses from interlocutors. In the rest of the chapter we dealt with the Intensifier category, giving specific examples of what we considered to be the effective use of evaluation. As Expressive Phonology and Direct Speech, between them, make up 63 percent of all Intensifiers coded, we discussed these two categories at some length; we sought to justify our analysis and interpretation of the findings, noting in particular the areas of potential controversy, as well as describing our data in quantifiable terms. The other devices, such as Lexical Items, Quantifiers, and Repetition were then considered, each being given space according to its relative importance, and the variety found within the category. There was considerable overlap in the discussion as devices tend to appear in clusters, one intensifier reinforcing another, and so the same memorable data examples appeared in more than one section.

- 290 -

Chapter 6 In the following chapter we will be looking at Comparators, Correlatives, and Explicatives, as well as at External Evaluation. These are the devices which contain the most complex syntactic structures and hence often cause problems for young narrators.

- 291 -

Chapter 7

CHAPTER 7: MORE ON EVALUATIVE DEVICES FOUND IN THE DATA: (2) COMPLEX EVALUATIVE SYNTAX 7.1 The Notion of Syntactic Complexity Labov (1972a) describes Comparators, Correlatives, and Explicatives as sources of syntactic complexity (p. 380). Toolan (1988) contrasts these narrative-clause-internal modes of evaluation with modes of evaluation which involve a temporary suspension of the action, a brief time out from the telling of the story proper (p. 157). As we noted in chapter 4, pages 124126, we have not adopted Labovs use of the term external evaluation because we have no examples of the action being suspended by subjects interrupting their stories to address their interlocutors directly: rather, we have followed Tannen (1982b) in calling ANY kind of evaluation which is outside the story-frame external evaluation. As we saw in chapter 2, page 39, Tannen links external evaluation with written discourse and literate discourse strategies. We have labelled our subcategories evaluative action, suspension of the action, and embedded orientation; all of these involve a measure of syntactic complexity. Thus, it seems reasonable to discuss both kinds of evaluation, the internal and the external, in the same chapter and to take as our primary contrast the one between these more complex structures and the Intensifier category discussed in the previous chapter which is more akin to Wolfsons (1982) Performance Features. Perera (1984) questions how the analysis of grammatical structure can contribute to judgments about grammatical complexity, arguing that there must be a principled basis for ordering these structures on a scale of complexity (p. 11); however, she concedes that the real problem is determining exactly how to rank grammatical structures according to their intrinsic complexity (p. 11). One solution sometimes put forward is to turn to the rules of a generative grammar but Perera attacks this view, known as the Derivational Theory of Complexity, on the grounds that it in no way reflects the speakers own production and comprehension processes (p. 11). Her solution to the problem is to consider the sequence in which grammatical constructions are acquired by children (p. 12): This approach rests on two assumptions. The first is that those constructions which are part of the adult language and which occur early and frequently in childrens speech and writing will be easier for children to read than those constructions which appear later and more rarely. The second assumption is that adult constructions that appear late and rarely in childrens language are likely to be indicators of linguistic maturity. - 292 -

Chapter 7 Clark and Clark (1977) mention similar assumptions made by other researchers: All the proposals investigators have made start, naturally enough, with the same assumption, that children learn the simplest structures and functions first and work up to more complex ones later. Investigators have identified two interrelated sources of complexity: cognitive complexity - the complexity of the childs ideas being mapped onto language - and formal complexity - the complexity of the linguistic devices available in each language. (1977:337) Labov takes up this idea of ranking devices on a scale of complexity, which he follows through in his discussion of the Comparator category, and to a limited extent, also, in his treatment of correlatives. 7.2 Comparators In the data there are three-and-a-half times as many intensifiers as comparators; however, this does not mean that the presence and/or function of comparators is relatively insignificant. Labov claims that these are significant precisely because they involve an indirect evaluative departure from the simple direct telling of the narrative actions. Using the function of negatives in narrative discourse as his example, Labov makes the following general points about comparators: The use of negatives in accounts of past events is not at all obvious, since negation is not something that happens: rather it expresses the defeat of an expectation that something would happen. Negative sentences draw upon a cognitive background considerably richer than the set of events which were observed. They provide a way of evaluating events by placing them against the background of other events which might have happened, but which did not. Comparators, including negatives, compare the events which did occur to those which did not occur. In terms of the narrative scheme:

comparators: (1972a:380381)

- 293 -

Chapter 7 Labov cites specific examples to illustrate the association between syntactic complexity and evaluation, but he does not actually produce any proof for his claims. As stated above, according to Labov, not all comparators have the same degree of complexity: Comparators then include negatives, futures, modals, quasimodals, questions, imperatives, or-clauses, superlatives, and comparatives, more or less in increasing order of syntactic complexity. (p. 387) We would agree with this generalization which seems to be confirmed by our data, but would, with Kernan (1977), question the unwritten assumption here that all of these devices are in a one-to-one relationship with the evaluation function, and, therefore, in each instance of occurrence, fulfill that function (p. 100); clearly, this is not the case. However, in spite of the fact that no one-to-one correspondence can be established, because the same syntactic device may in one context be evaluative and in another have a purely referential function, we can say that in the majority of instances there is a direct correlation between syntactic complexity and evaluation. From our data, therefore, we can draw a correlation between the total numbers of each type of comparator found and the rank of that device in Labovs complexity scale above, on the broad assumption that subjects will produce more of the less complex structures than they will of those which are higher on the complexity scale; table 7.1 gives the details: Using the Spearman test described in chapter 4, page 143, we find a positive correlation of 0.817 which is significant at p <0.01 (i.e. the odds of obtaining this result by chance are one in 100). This is a fairly high correlation and seems to lend support to the hypothesis that subjects will proceed from the relatively simple to the more complex structures; Labov goes so far as to state that it is quite possible that some of the more complex comparators and correlatives are outside of the linguistic capabilities of the preadolescents he was working with (1972a:394). Although we cannot claim priority of acquisition on the basis of the number of occurrences of each device found in the data, because the occasions for their presence must be provided by the story content which has to be expressed, our findings do seem to tie in with Labovs as far as the notion of a complexity scale is concerned.

- 294 -

Chapter 7 Table 7.1. Syntactic complexity and evaluation Comparators Negatives Futures Modals Quasimodals Questions Imperatives Or-clauses Superlatives Comparatives Totals Labovs Ranking Data Ranking d 116 22 99 47 70 19 3 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 5 2 4 3 6 9 8 7 0 3 1 0 2 0 2 0 2 d2 0 9 1 0 4 0 4 0 4

d2 = 22

Gibbs (1990), in describing her study of the second language acquisition of the English modal auxiliaries can, could, may, and might by seventy-five Panjabi-speaking pupils from both primary and secondary schools, notes that: Modal auxiliaries in a negative environment were shown to be the earliest acquired, followed by the declarative and then interrogative contexts. This result is not surprising, in view of the difficulty of auxiliary inversion involved in expressing interrogation in English. (p. 307) She also states that modal acquisition by second language subjects follows first language order (p. 297) but that the second language subjects pass through the developmental stages more quickly (p. 309). This finding is relevant to our own informal observations of the way infant school Panjabi-speaking subjects acquire modal auxiliaries. In our data we have eighteen examples of negative modals, including two which are illformed; fifty-seven examples of declarative modals, including six which are ill-formed and one that is not coded because the modal auxiliary is omitted altogether; and twenty-eight examples of modals in interrogative contexts, three of which are not coded as the modal

- 295 -

Chapter 7 auxiliary is missing. If we express these findings as a ratio of errors (E) divided by the total number of examples (N) we get the following results: Negative Declarative Interrogative Totals: Errors: E/N: 18 2 0.111 57 7 0.123 28 3 0.107

with the lowest ratio of errors for interrogatives and the highest for declaratives: most of these declarative errors are in complex sentence types where the subject has chosen present tense for past, or vice versa, e.g. the following from Sakanders Story C: 36 37 38 BILly-the-TWIT FELT VERy HAPpy
beCAUSE the ESkimo said that could his SHEEP can EAT the SWEET, GREEN GRASS.

or the subject has problems with form-function relationships, e.g. the following from Faribas Story A, where would, which is the correct form for the polite request in 20, is also used for the positive response in 23: 20 21 22 23
... And PLEASE would you TELL FAther CHRISTmas to deLIVer some RI-ICE at CHRISTmas NIGHT? (YES) PLEASE, said Mr. WONG. WILL

I WOULD, said the snowMAN.

For the collection of her data Gibbs used a restricted response elicitation instrument and so her subjects were not required to produce natural language data of this kind. One wonders if she would have obtained the same results if she had used a story retelling task for her research instrument? It is likely that she would not, for the fact that natural communication tasks and linguistic manipulation tasks produce conflicting results is wellknown, and as Gibbs (1990:301) herself points out: The controversy over the methodology for obtaining language samples for examining oral expression is recorded in the literature (Richards 1980; Kellerman 1983; Altman 1984; Wells 1985).

- 296 -

Chapter 7 7.2.1 Negatives As we saw in table 4.9, on page 148, negatives account for 28 percent of all comparators in the data. Halliday and Hasan (1976) note that polarity is normally expressed at the beginning of the verbal group and that a negative verbal group, if it is finite, has nt or not attached to the first word (p. 176). This is the most common pattern found in our data, e.g. the following from Shvinders Story A: 8
DARling dear, THERE ISNT ANy rice in the CUPboard.

Here the negative co-occurs with a whole battery of intensifiers - expressive phonology, direct speech, a novel expression of direct address, quantification, and the repetition of the locative in the cupboard; however, the syntax itself is relatively simple in spite of its obvious effectiveness as a first-hand description of an unexpected lack of a basic commodity. The following example from Faribas Story A has only expressive phonology to reinforce the negation: 6/7 8 He had ASKED THE SHIPman to BRING some BUT um THE SHIPMAN DID NOT LISTen.

yet it clearly expresses the defeat of an expectation that something would happen and is, therefore, equally effective. Halliday and Hasan (1976) refer to the assignment of special prominence to the selection of positive or negative in order to draw attention to it as marked polarity (p. 179); a clear example of a marked negative is the following from Sakanders Story C: 20 And the ESkimo was NOT a STRANger.

However, we need the context to see its import. Billy-the-Twit had just arrived in Greenland when he met the Eskimo but the Eskimo had been less than welcoming to Billy and his cows; later he changed his mind and offered them hospitality. Thus line 20 serves to indicate the turning point in Billys fortunes as the Eskimo stopped behaving like a stranger and became his friend. After this evaluative comment comes the next significant event: 21 He TOOK BILly-the-TWIT IN his HOUSE

Shazia, in her Story A, gives us an example of a negative with a correlative progressive form, apparently used to signal a refusal: 13
Im a SNOWMAN.

- 297 -

Chapter 7 14
Im not HAVing the RICE.

However, Shazia does not produce coherent narratives so it is difficult to be sure of the meaning intended. (In the original, the Snowman says, But Im not rice - Im snow - a snowman, in fact.) We have many examples in the data of negative answers to questions which involve ellipsis; Halliday and Hasan note that in such cases the polarity cannot be presupposed and the responseserves precisely to SUPPLY the polarity, all else being taken for granted (1976:177). For example, the following from Faribas Story B: 22 23/4
Do - DID you WON the GAME?

And he SAID, NO, I DIDnt.

We also have examples of what Quirk and Greenbaum (1973) call alternative negative elements where instead of the verb, another element may be negated (p. 185), e.g. the following from Humiras Story B where the negated element is assigned nuclear prominence and the clause is coded for expressive phonology: 22 NObody was PLAYing with the BALL

and a similar example from Faribas Story C: 18/19 He asked HIM but he said NOthing.

Labov notes that it is often more helpful to look at negation as it co-occurs with modals, futures, and auxiliary structure in general, rather than considering each of these possibilities separately (1972a:381). As we have seen above, in our data, too, negatives often cluster with other comparators; for example, the following from Sakanders Story A: 3 4 5 BUT SOMEthing DREADful HAPpened. His RICE WAS RAN OUT AND SO HE COULDnt do ANything aBO-OUT it.

where the negative nt is attached to the modal could. We also have examples of nonstandard double negatives, and the use of never as a negative, as in the following from Shvinders Story B: 13 14 15/16
... I must SELL them to a WORSest TEAM that NEVer WON beFORE.

SO he went out and LOOKED for teams

- 298 -

Chapter 7 17 but he couldnt FIND not EVen O-ONE team - the WORST ...

In spite of the non-standard forms and errors like attaching the superlative suffix to the comparative form worse instead of the absolute form bad, or omitting something like let alone before the appositional afterthought the worst, the passage is nevertheless effective. 7.2.2 Modals, Futures and Quasimodals We have chosen to group these comparators together as they have a similarity of function. Table 7.2 shows the different auxiliaries found in the data and is an attempt to group them according to their semantic function. Table 7.2. Modals, futures and quasimodals (continued overleaf) MODALS CAN FUNCTION Ability Permission Possibility * can (could) COULD Past ability Possibility MIGHT MUST Possibility Intention Obligation Prediction SHALL [Fut/Mod] Future intention Permission SHOULD Obligation TOTALS 28 8 2 3 8 3 5 2 3 1 2 1 2

- 299 -

Chapter 7 WILL [Fut/Mod] [Fut/Mod] Future intention Prediction Willingness * will (shall) WOULD Characteristic activity (past) Insistence Probability Willingness * would (will) 11 7 2 1 1 1 2 5 1 99 FUTURES GOING TO SHALL [Fut/Mod] WILL [Fut/Mod] [Fut/Mod] FUNCTION Fulfilment Intention Intention Prediction TOTALS 2 2 11 7 22 QUASIMODALS ALWAYS BEGIN TO DECIDED TO (HAVE) GOT TO HAVE/HAD TO KEEP + -ing KEEP ON LIKED TO START + -ing FUNCTION Habitual action Inchoation Volition Obligation Obligation Iteration Iteration Volition Inchoation TOTALS 4 2 1 2 6 3 2 2 2

- 300 -

Chapter 7 STARTED TO STARTING TO USED TO Inchoation Inchoation Habitual action 4 1 1 17 47

WANT/WANTED TO Volition

Palmer (1971) states that there is a real sense in which English has NO future tense (p. 193) and Quirk and Greenbaum (1973) point out that: There is no obvious future tense in English corresponding to the time/tense relation for present and past. Instead there are several possibilities for denoting future time. Futurity, modality, and aspect are closely related, and future time is rendered by means of modal auxiliaries or semi-auxiliaries, or by simple present forms or progressive forms. (p. 47) The future and modal functions of the auxiliaries will and shall are almost impossible to separate and so it was difficult to decide whether to code such items as COM/Fut/Mod, COM/Fut or COM/Mod. Future intention and prediction seem to belong to both categories and are coded COM/Fut/Mod, but willingness (will) and permission (shall + question cf. can) seem to have a more immediate here and now application and so are coded COM/Mod. Quirk and Greenbaum (1973) describe shall and, particularly, will as the closest approximation to a colourless, neutral future (p. 47) but, in our data, they are not neutral and so we have none coded COM/Fut. Items marked with an asterisk (*) are used erroneously and the correct form is displayed in brackets. Gibbs (1990:297) comments that: Conceptual and semantic definitions of modality abound in descriptive studies, but there seems to be a concensus (Lyons 1977; Palmer 1979, 1986; Perkins 1983) that concepts of possibility and necessity are central to modality and that the speakers stance is inherent in its expression. Coates (1983) distinguishes Root Modality from Epistemic Modality, exemplified in You may/must go to the shop versus She may/must be coming today. The former is regarded

- 301 -

Chapter 7 as qualifying or constraining events and the latter is thought to be used for the expression of propositions, reasoning, or the speakers assessment of a probability. She conducted a card-sort test for similarity of meanings and found that semantic concepts seemed to group themselves into four clusters: 1. Obligation/Necessity; 2. Intention/Prediction/Futurity; 3. Possibility/Ability/Permission; and 4. Epistemic Possibility. Gibbs (1990) based her theoretical approach on that of Coates (1983), but in limiting her study to the modals can, could, may, and might, elicited responses for four Root Modality functions - Ability, Permission, Possibility, and Hypothetical Possibility - plus the Epistemic Possibility function. As mentioned above, Gibbs found that modal acquisition by second language subjects followed first language order. So what is this first language order? Stephany (1986) has reviewed and discussed the development of these modal verbs and, interestingly, it is the quasimodal forms wanna, gonna, and hafta which are the first to appear, followed by cant. Only later is can used, appearing together with will, wont, and should (Wells 1979). However, these modals only have a limited range of meanings compared with adult usage: can is used to state the childs own ability and the possibility that (s)he can do something, to request permission or request actions from someone. Wells (1979) found that will is used first for intentions and later for predictions, and Shepherd (1980, 1981) studied a child who used a different word for intention (gonna) and prediction (will) for a period of seven months between the ages of two-and-a-half and three. Table 7.3. Categories and functions of four modal verbs (continued overleaf) DATA CAN GIBBS CATEGORIES Root Ability Permission Possibility INFANT LEVEL FINDINGS Ability (28%) Permission (8%) Possibility (2%)

- 302 -

Chapter 7 COULD Past Ability Past Permission Past Possibility Hypothetical Use Epistemic Possibility MAY Permission Epistemic Possibility MIGHT Hypothetical Use Epistemic Possibility Past Ability (8%) Past Possibility (3%) Epistemic Possibility (5%) (Total = (54%)

Table 7.3 shows the categories Gibbs set up for the four modals she studied, as used by primary and secondary level subjects, and these are compared with the more limited range of meanings found in our own infant level data. It is not clear from her report whether well-formed examples of all these functions were actually elicited from her primary and secondary level L2 subjects. If they were, then table 7.3 is very revealing as far as the acquisition of these modals and their various functions is concerned. However, we cannot compare data as Gibbs was looking at mean error scores, rather than counting actual occurrences in natural language. In her tables she recorded a few zeros (i.e. absence of errors) but these could also, presumably, indicate the non-occurrence of an item. Space does not allow us to give examples of all the categories listed in table 7.2, so we will confine ourselves to two clear examples of the main semantic functions: Ability: CAN COULD Intention: MUST
I MUST go QUICKly BACK to my HOUSE. LOOK! I can BALance it ON my HEAD, ON my FEET and ON my HEAD. I didnt KNOW RICE could SPEAK!

(Fariba E18) (Shvinder A31/2)

(Shvinder A59)

- 303 -

Chapter 7 WILL Obligation: MUST SHOULD Permission: CAN

CAN I come IN? YOUR SHEEPS canNOT - er EAT GRASS in MY LAND. I will SHAVE off my BEARD and THEN I will PUT ON my Other clothes.

(Shvinder D15/6)

YOU MUST go HOME QUICKly as you CAN.

I THINK he SHOULD go HOME.

(Sakander C31) (Sheiba C22/3)

(Humira A15) (Sakander C16)

Possibility: COULD MIGHT Prediction: MUST WILL Willingness: WILL WOULD

PRESents! will he give me some RICE? DEAR FAther CHRISTmas, I WISH you would GIVE me some RICE ... The SNOW could FALL on your SHEEP and they MIGHT be COLD. WELL! if YOU send him a LETter he MIGHT.

(Sakander C33/4) (Shvinder A54/5)

He SAW a BAG COMing DOWN THE CHIMney. THAT must be the RI-ICE!
NOW MY CUStomers will be VERy PLEASED at ME.

(Fariba A29/31) (Fariba A36)

(Shvinder A53) (Shvinder A63/4)

We have already discussed the overlap between modal and future functions for shall and will, both in their predictive and intentional meanings. The only other future construction found in the data is BE GOING TO + Infinitive, e.g.
Im going to MELT. Im going to PLAY with the COWboy.

(Sheiba A26) (Humira E22)

Quirk and Greenbaum (1973) state that this construction denotes future fulfilment of the present (p. 48); Sheibas A26 also has the meaning future of present cause, the immediate cause being the warm weather, and Humiras E22 also has the meaning future - 304 -

Chapter 7 of present intention. Both of these specific meanings are mentioned by Quirk and Greenbaum (1973) and suggest that the event is already on the way. Quasimodals have similar functions to the true modals, and are in some cases interchangeable with them, e.g. the following which all signal obligation or necessity: MUST SHOULD GOT TO HAD TO YOU MUST go HOME QUICKly as you CAN.
I THINK he SHOULD go HOME.

(Sakander C31) (Sheiba C22/3) (Shvinder C39) (Shvinder A10)

and toMORrow you gotta LE-EAVE

BUT we HAD to Open the SHOP toDAY.

For the rest, we have categories which are more aspectual in meaning: the inchoative BEGIN TO, STARTED/STARTING TO, and START(ED) + -ing; habitual action signalled by USED TO and the preverbal adverb ALWAYS; volition with the specific meanings of preferential choice as in DECIDED TO and LIKED TO, or desire as in WANT(ED) TO; and iteration indicated by KEEP + -ing and KEEP ON + -ing. Examples of these are: Inchoation: Habitual Action: Volition: Iteration:
Im STARting to MELT.

(Shvinder A58) (Fariba A3) (Fariba D5) (Sakander B19/20)

HE used to SELL RICE. And he WANted a HOLiday. And if they TACKle they KEEP on LOSing them.

All these devices - Modals, Futures, and Quasimodals - are evaluative because they take punctual events and represent them as processes viewed from the speakers perspective, rather than as completed wholes. It is significant that a large proportion of the data examples given above contain direct speech. Fleischman (1990) highlights the dichotomy between narrative events, reported in the dynamic past and presented as chunks of completed action, and situations viewed as processes representing the perceptions of an eye - 305 -

Chapter 7 witness or the direct experiences of a character in the narrative. Fleischman was not specifically looking at modality, but at perfective versus imperfective aspect, yet her remarks are relevant here. She states that: narrators often choose to depart from the normal retrospective perfectivity of narration so that their reports may instead give the appearance of being verbal replicas of an experience as it was occurring and at the same time registering itself on the consciousness of the observer. If this is their objective, narrators will accordingly choose a tensewhose IPFV [imperfective] aspect enables situations to be viewed not as completed wholes whose endpoints are in focus, but as ongoing processes whose endpoints are left out of consideration. Among the IPFV tenses, it is the PR [present] thatis ideally suited to the task of representing experience prospectively and as process, as if it were happening now. (Fleischman 1990:74) This is exactly what we are claiming is the function of modals, futures, and quasimodals in the data we have been discussing above. 7.2.3 Questions Labov (1972a) sees questions as operating as evaluative devices on two levels. On one level, in Shvinders Story A below, when Mrs. Wong asks her husband, Is there any rice left?, according to Labov she is asking about an unseen state of affairs, presupposing the existence of the rice (in Labovs example it was candy); but on a higher level, she is making a request for action, and in the light of previous experience, it is heard as (p. 384) a demand that he go and look into the whole situation: 4 5 6 IS THERE ANy UM RI-ICE left?
But WHEN HE LOOKED IN the CUPboard

it WAS NO-OT THERE.

Mr. Wong immediately went off to investigate, but in the discussion that follows it is quite clear that he is required to do more than simply carry out an investigation, and his dilemma is that he cannot NOT do something about the lack of rice and yet he has no idea how he is going to obtain any. In line 13, Mrs. Wong is really saying, What are you going to do about it? It is your responsibility.: 13
SO WHAT can we DO-O? (asks Mrs. Wong.)

- 306 -

Chapter 7 14/15
WELL I DONT KNO-OW, SAID Mr. WONG.

She says we but intends you, and the rest of the story describes how a snowman finally solved his problem for him. Labov argues that: If we consider the compelling character of all questions (mands in Skinners terminology), it is clear that all requests, even the most mitigated, are to be heard against an unrealized possibility of negative consequences if they are not answeredThese brief considerations show us that the evaluative force of questions cannot be assigned on the basis of their superficial interrogative form. A deeper study would require the analysis of each quoted speech act in terms of the hierarchical series of actions being performed: e.g. request for information display. (Labov 1972a:384385) Labov also discusses the direct evaluative function of overt questions that are not embedded in the dramatic action, but asked directly of the listener; we have none of these in our data, and our examples, such as the following, consist mainly of requests for information and requests for action, and a small minority which might be regarded as challenges or displays of aggression: Requests for information:
ARE you [the football team] WINning?

request for action

challenge

And they said, YES.

(Fariba B8/9)

DO YOU KNOW the WAY to AustRAlia?

And the SNOWman said, YES.

WHICH WAY DO I HAVE TO GO?

(Sakander D 11/13)

Faribas example is quite straightforward, but in Sakanders, the second question, which follows on directly from the first, is not answered verbally. The outcome is that the Snowman goes with Father Christmas, so presumably he conveyed the information by showing him, rather than telling him the way.

- 307 -

Chapter 7 Requests for action:

I WONder if you CAN MA-AKE ARCtic RO-OLL? he said. ARCtic RO-OLL? said the ESkimo.

(Shvinder F25/28)

This indirect request is countered by an echo question and this is because the chief character, Mr. Wong, has asked the Eskimo to perform a task which is outside his experience. In the clauses that follow, Mr. Wong tries to explain what Arctic Roll is and then, in line 41, Shvinder tells us: SO he MADE it. (Shvinder F41)

but we can only infer that it was actually the Eskimo who performed the requested action because, between line 28 and line 41, Shvinder uses he for both participants. Such a request would be heard as something of a challenge, especially coming as it did from a stranger to Alaska. In the following example the request is more direct:
Now, PLEASE will you GO to the MATCH this AFternoon?

And they DID.

(Fariba B18/19)

A girl asks Father Christmas to go to a football match with her and he agrees, not because he feels obligated or threatened in some way, but because of who he is, a benign old gentleman whose aim in life is to make others happy. Challenges: The best example of a challenging question is a deeply embedded quoted question in a whole conversation which is an impertinent challenge to Father Christmas benevolence, taken from Humiras Story D:
who

HE [Father Christmas] SAW a BOY ^ SAID,

YOU DONT WANT to come to CHRISTmas. YOU DONT WANT to give PRESents to CHILDrens and thats WHY you CHANGED yourself not to BE a FAther CHRISTmas. So THATS why EVrybody SAYS that, WHY DONT you COME and give PRESents?

(Humira D14/24) The story opens with Father Christmas deciding that he did not want to give out the usual Christmas presents; he wanted a rest and a holiday. But while he was on holiday he was - 308 -

Chapter 7 recognized and challenged directly by this disrespectful youngster. Instead of a version of the model story, Sheiba tells her own story for Story E and, in it, she has a bully of a father interrogating his son:
SILly BILly! WHAT yer DOing? WHAT yer DOing toDAY, SILly BILly? WHY you WENT to the PARK? BeCAUSE I WANted TO. WHY DID YOU WANted TO?

BeCAUSE I JUST WANted TO.

WHY DID YOU WANted TO?

(Sheiba E25/31)

The whole thing is a convincing dramatization, without speech margins, of an intimidating display of behaviour. At the end of this tirade of five questions, fired at him in rapid succession, they both had a fight, but Billy had his finger bitten and ended up in tears. It is not clear whether this would come under Labovs heading of a display, or not, as Labov does not give examples to illustrate the hierarchy he proposes above. It is one of only two stories which portray scenes of violence: the other is Aqeels Panjabi version of the football match, in his Story B(1), but that contains no direct speech. Having thus established the evaluative function of questions, we now need to look more closely at the actual syntax. Table 7.4 shows the interrogative sentence types found in the data: Table 7.4. Questions (continued overleaf) YES/NO QUESTIONS: Subj-Aux Inversion + Rising Intonation Direct Is there ? Will ? he/you 2 4 3 Do/ Did/ Are you ? Can I/you/he/we ? Do you know ? 7 8 3

Would you ?

- 309 -

Chapter 7

Indirect I wonder if you can ? Total WH-QUESTIONS (MAIN CLAUSE): WH-word, Subj-Aux Inversion (+ Rising Intonation) Structurally Well-formed What ...? Where ...? Who ...? 9 7 3 When ...? How ...? Why ...? (1 error How?) Which ...? Total Ill-formed (no Aux) What ...? Where ...? Why ...? Total EMBEDDED QUESTIONS: WH-word, no Subj-Aux Inversion Well-formed Where ? Who ? Total ECHO QUESTIONS: + Rising Intonation Arctic roll? Food? Total Grand Total 1 1 2 70 1 1 3 Ill-formed (Subj-Aux Inversion) Where ? 1 2 1 2 Ellipsis What ...? Dialect What yer doing? 2 9 2 0 0 8 1 28 1 28

- 310 -

Chapter 7

Foster (1990) notes that: Questions in English involve three devices which combine to produce different interrogative sentence types. The first feature is rising intonation; the second is special question words (who, what, why, etc.), usually called wh-words because (in English) most of them begin with these letters; and the third is an inversion of the subject with the first auxiliary verb (as compared with non-interrogative clauses). (Foster 1990:97) For first-language learners, rising intonation seems to be the earliest marker of a question (Klima and Bellugi 1966), both in Yes/No and Wh-questions, but there is no Subj-Aux inversion because there are no auxiliaries. In our data we have five examples of Whquestions without auxiliaries. The second stage begins when Yes/No questions start including auxiliaries, although the order of the Subj-Aux is that of a non-question in the adult system (Clark and Clark 1977). There is some discussion about what happens at the third stage. All researchers agree that children are reliably using Subj-Aux inversion in Yes/No questions, but Klima and Bellugis data seem to suggest that in Wh-questions Subj-Aux inversion did not occur; but, Hecht and Morse (1974), Kuczaj and Maratsos (1975), and Ingram and Tyack (1979) found no stage at which there was such a discrepancy, and Erreich (1980) even found some children who inverted more in Whquestions than they did in Yes/No questions. The Wh-words do not all appear in production at the same time. Ervin-Tripp (1970) and Wooten et al (1979) found that what, where, and who preceded when, how and why. Tyack and Ingram (1977) found a similar order, except that who and when were rarely used at any stage, and who was the last to emerge. In our data, we have no examples of how or when, and one case where why is used where the sense requires how (Humira B36). Foster (1990) discusses various possible explanations for the late emergence of when, how and why questions: the earlier emerging words are generally the question words for the basic sentence roles: subject, object and direct object (p. 169). On the other hand, when, how and why only ever address optional information. They also have pragmatically different consequences when they are used and are more cognitively complex to answer, because they require more syntactically-complex linguistic responses.

- 311 -

Chapter 7 The piecemeal acquisition of question words raises a general issue about language development. Whenever words of the same category are acquired at different times, we need to ask whether children realize they belong to the same category or not. (p. 169) Unfortunately, we have very little information on L2 acquisition of interrogatives and Foster warns that: It is extremely important not to equate acquisition with production/use of a construction, and also to be sensitive to the possibility that syntactic, semantic and pragmatic factors are likely to be at work together in explaining the actual production of interrogatives. (1990:170) Humiras use of why for both how and why, and the non-appearance of when seem to suggest that L2 acquisition follows that of L1 subjects. Lightbown (1978) shows that adult L2 learners have the same order of emergence as young L1 learners, and so her findings can probably be generalized to include all L2 learners. We have three examples of embedded Wh-questions: two which are well-formed and one which is ill-formed because Subj-Aux inversion erroneously occurs:
Do you know where GREENland is? CAN you COME with ME and TELL me WHO GAVE me the BALL? * Do you know WHERE is the GREEN LAND?

(Shvinder C25/6) (Humira B24/6) (Humira C12/13)

Givn (1990) refers to these embedded forms as WH-question complements and states that semantically, verbs that allow such WH-complements are all epistemic (knowledge) verbs (p. 805), such as know and tell above. 7.2.4 Imperatives Labov states that in his data: The imperative is also a comparator, since the force of the command in narrative is frequently: You do this or else (1972a:385) He also notes the close connection between the imperative and the future; both of them involve unrealized events that are weighed in the balance (p. 386). In our data we have

- 312 -

Chapter 7 nineteen imperatives and three hortatives; many imperatives, such as the following from Story C, do indeed involve some kind of threat:
GO to anOTHer COUNtry beFORE you get BEAT. TAKE your COWS SOMEwhere E-ELSE.

(Fariba C 3/4) (Shvinder C4)

In Faribas version the threat to Billy-the-Twits safety by the other cowboys if their command is not obeyed is overtly spelt out, whereas in Shvinders it is merely hinted at by Billys immediate compliance and hasty preparations for departure. Later in the story, as Billy arrives in Greenland there is a further threat, this time to his animals from the elements; in his version Sakander ambiguously calls him a cowboy yet tells us that he has lots of sheeps: THEN the ESkimo said, YOU MUST go HOME QUICKly as you CAN. The SNOW could
FALL on your SHEEP and they MIGHT be COLD.

(Sakander C30/4)

Shvinder seems to imply below, by the use of otherwise in place of because, that noncompliance with the command will actually cause the rapid deterioration in the weather:
and toMORrow you gotta LE-EAVE, otherWISE the DAYS will GET VERy COLD and it will START SNOWing.

(Shvinder C39/41)

Other imperatives are simple invitations to escape from adverse circumstances; Shvinders C39/41 above is preceded by: SO-O he said, COME INSIDE. Its going to be VERy hot in THERE. (Shvinder C36/8)

which, put in more idiomatic English, means: Come inside, it is nice and warm in here or Come inside out of the cold. They may also be invitations to witness particularly noteworthy activities, as in the following from Faribas Story E:
LOOK at ME-E! I can DO GOOD THINGS, said my HEAD, ON my FEET, and ON my HEAD.

BEN. LOOK! I can BALance it [the ball] ON (Fariba E14/18)

Later the boastful Ben, using a hortative construction, invites Billy the cowboy to demonstrate his horsemanship (or lack of it):
Lets see YO-OU BALance on a horse!

(Fariba E37/8)

- 313 -

Chapter 7 This invitation carries with it threatening overtones such as: If you do not comply, I will brand you a coward or a sissy; if you do comply, yet fail in the attempt, I will hold you in contempt. This is followed by a further hortative, challenging him to compete in the local rodeo:
THERES a GAME and YOU can COME and lets SEE if you WIN TWO PRIzes.

(Fariba

E40/3) In the original Ben admires Billys ability to turn his lack of prowess into a comedy act and the suggestion is to let a wider audience enjoy the fun too, but here the challenge is less innocent, for when Billy succeeds against the odds and then boasts about his good fortune, the rivalry between the two lads is out in the open: And BILly said, LOOK! IVE won two PRIzes - YOU havent. And BEN got CRO-OSS and they BOTH started FIGHting. Givn (1990) notes that: Under the generic label imperative fall a potentially large number of speech-acts - and constructions that code them. The common denominator has to do with attempted manipulation; that is, verbal acts by the speaker aimed at prompting the hearer to act. (p. 806) This sounds uncommonly similar to what Labov has to say about the compelling character of all questions. In fact, Givn sees a continuum between prototypical imperative and interrogative speech acts (p. 815) with the mid-points on the scale exhibiting intermediate features both functionally and syntactically. We are able to demonstrate this continuum in a limited way using our own data and comparing different treatments of the same incident, e.g. the following from Story B, where the round-faced lady tells Father Christmas about her sons hopeless football team: Imperative:
COME and SEE HIS TEAM. THEY ARE VEry BAD.

(Fariba E54/9)

(Kenneth [L1] B22/4)

Hortative:
(Lets) GO TO FOOTBALL. When they WENT to FOOTBALL it was ON.

(Aqeel B(2)11/13) Interrogative:

Now, PLEASE will you GO to the MATCH this AFternoon?

(Fariba B18)

- 314 -

Chapter 7 The manipulative force of the speech act decreases as we move from the subject-less imperative towards the interrogative. A further set from Story C, where the Eskimo tells Billy-the-Twit to return home, illustrates the merging of imperative constructions with what Givn calls obligative-manipulative modality (p. 821): Prototypical Imperative:
Go HOME!

(Aqeel C10)

Quasimodal Construction:
toMORrow you gotta LE-EAVE ...

(Shvinder C39)

Modal Construction:
YOU MUST go HOME (as) QUICKly as you CAN ...

(Sakander C31/2)

Subjunctive:
you I THINK he SHOULD go HOME.

(Sheiba C22/3)

In these four parallel examples from the data the manipulative force decreases from prototypical imperative, through the quasi-modal gotta and modal must, to the subjunctive construction used by Sheiba (where she erroneously uses the third person form in direct speech). That young second-language learners are able to handle such constructions, occurring as they do at different points on the manipulative scale, is significant; it is also significant that the precise pragmatic relationships involved vary slightly from subject to subject and also from those portrayed in the model story. 7.2.5 Or-clauses Labov gives us no examples of or-clauses, neither does he discuss them, apart from listing them in their place in his complexity rankings. Halliday and Hasan (1976) state that: The basic meaning of the conjunctive or relation is ALTERNATIVE in its external sense, the offering of a range of objective alternatives, or, together with its expansion or else, is largely confined to questions, requests, permissions and predictionsIf it is associated with statements, or takes on the internal sense of an alternative interpretation, another possible opinion, explanation, etc. in place of the one just given. (p. 246) In our data we have only three examples of or-clauses and the first two, from Humiras Story B, have to do with alternative modes of transportation; Father Christmas is making his choice:

- 315 -

Chapter 7 14/15 16/17

... I just TELL someone and GO in the BUS or in the CAR or in my SLEIGH.

The third example comes from Shvinders Story E where she is describing a situation which is surprising and contrary to expectation: 23 24/5 26 And WHEN he [Billy] got on the HO-ORSE he DIDnt FA-ALL or do NOthing. He RI-Ided the HORSE.

This is in sharp contrast to Billys antics in the opening scene: 1 2/3 BILly was a HORSE rider but EVry TIME he GOT on his HORSE HE FALLED.

In 25 the or-clause is almost a throw-away comment, linking the negative statement he didnt fall with the positive he rided the horse. In both situations where or is used there is a degree of uncertainty and some unanswered questions: in Shvinders line 25, what else besides falling did Billy not do? We are not told; in Humiras lines 15/17 which form of transport did Father Christmas finally choose? The answer seems to come in line 18: 18/19 SO he TRIED a BUS to GO to the FOOTball MATCH.

But the selection of the verb tried, rather than caught, still leaves the outcome unclear: was he successful in catching the bus, or wasnt he? It is doubtful whether the lack of clarity here is intentional, but the hearer is, nevertheless, anxious to solve the problem and so keeps listening attentively. Toolan (1988) makes a general comment about the role of comparators which seems particularly applicable to or-clauses; he states that they evaluate indirectly, by drawing attention away from what actually happened by alluding to what might have been, what could be, but what doesnt happen (p. 160). 7.2.6 Comparatives and Superlatives Labov places superlatives before comparatives in his complexity scale, for he says that: Of the various comparators, it is the comparative itself which reaches the highest level of syntactic complexity. (1972a:386)

- 316 -

Chapter 7 Halliday and Hasan (1976) state that: The most generalized comparative is, actually, the superlative: highest means, simply, higher than any other. Superlatives are non-referential because they are self-defining. (p. 81) It is the referential factor which makes comparative constructions more complex than superlative ones. In our data we have ten comparative constructions and nine superlatives; however, of the comparative forms, none are really complex and some are deficient, in that they lack the overt mention of a standard of reference when this is clearly required, as in the following from Shvinders Story B: 25 26/7 28/9 30
... The worsest team of ALL is MY team. WHENever I see THEM THEY NEver WIN.

SO they went to have a DRINK. And, at TWELVE Oclock in the AFterNOON, they watched the FOOTball players.

31

THEY WERE WO-ORSE.

In line 31, does she mean that they were as bad as the lady reported them to be, or does she mean that they were even worse than they usually were? From the expressive phonology we could deduce that the second reading is the more likely. Interestingly, in line 25, it is the superlative which has the standard of reference overtly expressed as a means of specifying and defining the particular team in question. Others are deficient in that, although the intention is clearly comparative, the form is not, e.g. the following from Humiras Story F:
ter ter They ALL like SAUSages and they get FAT^ and FAT^ from them for EATing SAUSages, SO WHAT shall I GIVE ^ ? SOMEthing ELSE?

19/20 21/2

Then lower down we find: 45 45a

I am GETting BORED and BORED I am GETting MORE and MORE BORED,

instead of:

- 317 -

Chapter 7 followed by: 46 47

and the Others are GETting FATter and FATter from for eating SAUSage and SAUSage.

where she does use an acceptable comparative form. Humira is still at the stage of experimenting with comparative constructions, and here she is combining comparison with repetition in order to add more colour to her narration, but is not yet able to handle the degree of complexity involved. Labov comments on the difficulty younger L1 speakers have with comparatives: Among the various syntactic forms that give younger speakers trouble, the comparative is foremost, and in our strange syntax file we have collected a great many odd problems with complex comparative constructions. (1972a:386) In her Story E, Humira produces, and repeats, an acceptable and effective comparative construction, complete with an overt standard of comparison: 25/6 27 28 29 30 31
I dont CARE if you PLAY. I can play with the FOOTball. Im MUCH BETter than YOU.

BILly SAID,
IM GOing to be MUCH BETter than YOU at PLAYing TO PLAY COWboy.

Lines 28 and 30 are well-formed even if line 31 is not. Sheiba produces a well-formed construction in her Story A, where the comparative is an adjunct: 25/6 27/8
Its VERy HOT over HERE. Im going to MELT. where Ive got to RUN as FAST as I CAN back to the COUNtry that I live.

But in his Story C, Sakander attempts to produce a similar construction and leaves out a correlative as:
as YOU MUST go HOME ^ QUICKly as you CAN ...

31

- 318 -

Chapter 7 Although not regarded as being as complex as comparatives, superlatives do also cause problems. On page 317 we quoted Shvinders overgeneralized superlative form worsest for worst which is repeated several times in the same narrative. Interestingly, she does produce the target form once in: B17 but he couldnt FIND not EVen O-ONE team ^ the WORST

In her Story E, she uses the antonym best in: 18/19

ONE day Ill be the BEST, Ben, Billy said.

It is significant that it is only the two most able L2 speakers who actually produce superlative constructions; whereas, with the comparative we have two examples from Shvinder, three from Humira, three from Sheiba, one from Shazia, and one from Fehdah, but in the main these are simple comparative adjectives and adverbs. 7.2.7 The Conversational Historic Present (CHP) As we have already said elsewhere, the Conversational Historic Present is NOT one of Labovs original evaluative devices but one of Wolfsons (1982) performance features; Schiffrin describes it as follows: HP is an INTERNAL EVALUATION DEVICE: it allows the narrator to present events as if they were occurring at that moment, so that the audience can hear for itself what happened, and can interpret for itself the significance of those events for the experience. (Schiffrin 1981:58) It is in many ways an arbitrary decision to add the CHP to the Comparator category rather than to the Intensifiers. If, as the traditional grammarians claim, a claim that Schiffrin seems to endorse, HP merely: makes the past more vivid by bringing past events into the moment of speaking (1981:58), then it is functioning more as a type of intensification: but if, as Wolfson argues, the historic present in conversational narratives is there to play a distinct functional role, relating to the patterns of switching between historic past and present tense, then it is more akin to Labovs comparators which, as we have seen above, provide a way of evaluating events by placing them against the background of other events. According to Wolfson, the switches or alternations create three main effects: (1) an intervention by the teller (cf. External Evaluation); (2) a focusing of attention on certain portions of the narrative (cf. Intensification); and (3) a dividing-up of the flow of action

- 319 -

Chapter 7 into distinct events (a cohesive chunking device which is clearly syntactic). We mentioned points (2) and (3) briefly on page 122 of chapter 4, quoting a short extract from Sakanders Story B as exemplification. (See also the discussion on errors in tense-aspect relations, chapter 5, pp. 191195.) Toolan (1988) raises the following query to point (3): Do the tense-switches really create the chunks, or do they merely accompany a prior separation of the flow of action into distinct events, a separation made on other grounds? Or is the argument merely circular, i.e., are we identifying chunks of discourse as events only because they are bounded by tense-switches? (p. 167) Schiffrin deals with some of these issues directly. As noted on page 122, Schiffrin finds that CHP is nearly always confined to the complicating action of the adult conversational narratives that she analyses; she argues that this is significant because it is in the complication section of a narrative that tense is not being used for its special function of temporal orientation (since temporal and presentational order can be assumed to be congruent). The most typical pattern is one in which the complicating action begins with past-tense verbs, switches after a few clauses to the HP, possibly switches between the HP and the P[ast] a few more times, and then concludes with past-tense verbsThere is a tendency for verbs in the same tense to cluster togethersequences with rapid alternation between the HP and P are not typical. (Schiffin 1981:51) Schiffrin, therefore, seems to be relating tense-switching to the Labovian criterion of interclausal temporal juncture and sees them as two possible ways of separating out events; with tense-switching temporal conjunctions are not essential, and with temporal conjunctions tense is maintained rather than switched due to other constraints (p. 168). However, Schiffrin does find a relatively high correlation of clauses with BOTH temporal conjunctions AND tense-switching. We looked at Sakanders Story B, first dividing up the narrative according to the placement of narrative events and orientational comments (see the appendix for a full display of this story); we then looked at the placement of temporal conjunctions and tense-switches, and the status of the various clauses, main or subordinate, and also at their function in the narrative. The findings are set out in table 7.4; N =

- 320 -

Chapter 7 narrative section, O = orientation, C = coda, P = past, Pr = present, F = Future, M = main clause, and S = subordinate clause. Table 7.5. Sakanders Story B: (Continued overleaf) THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TENSE-SWITCHING AND THE PRESENCE OF TEMPORAL CONJUNCTIONS N/O/C 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 N O N N N O N N N N N O N N N N O N O and if and so but suddenly when and if and and and so and then suddenly and and and Conj Tense P P P P P P P Pr[Mod] F [Mod] Pr Pr[Mod] P P Pr[Mod] P P P Pr[Q.Mod] Pr M/S M M M M M M M S S S S M M S M M S M S Verb look be tidy up see open be wonder do go ask like be say like say play kick lose tackle Function preliminary event comment resulting event new development resulting event comment speech introducer question answer answer answer comment speech introducer question answer resulting event turning point significant event condition

- 321 -

Chapter 7 N/O/C 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 N O N N N N N N N N N N N C C C C C and then and then at the end of the day and and but and and and but then and if Conj Tense Pr[Q.Mod] Pr Pr P P Pr[Mod] P P P[Neg] P? P[Neg] P Pr P P P [-ing] P M/S M S M M M S M M M M M M S M M M S M tidy up Verb lose score lose go say like say tackle disappear score disappear say be go say go off Function consequence condition consequence new development speech introducer question answer significant event non-event significant event non-event speech introducer embedded comment temporal orientation speech denouement additional information concluding event

Apart from the quoted conversations, the only occurrences of present tense forms are found in the fifth section of the narrative, i.e. lines 1722, at the high-point or peak which forms the turning point for the whole narrative. As we noted in chapter 5, page 191, line 17 is reported in the past tense and introduced by two temporal conjunctions; the switching would have been even more effective if line 17 had been reported in the present tense as well as lines 1822, the temporal conjunctions reinforcing the break between lines 16 and 17. However, from Sakanders data it would seem that it is not the tense-switches alone - 322 -

Chapter 7 which are creating the divisions or chunks, but a combination of temporal conjunctions and orientational evaluative comments, with a change of tense, plus condition consequence subordinate - main clause relations, marking off the most important section of the narrative. Just by looking at the conjunctions, we can see that there are logical grounds for the break between lines 3 and 4, rather than between lines 2 and 3, even though two of the other sections are terminated by a similar orientational evaluative comment. Altogether in the data there are thirteen clauses where the verb is in the historic present, but only Humiras Story B has a section similar to Sakanders which is marked out by the use of present tense forms in contrast to past tense forms everywhere else. Humiras climactic section consists of a long speech by a lady, explaining to Father Christmas the presence of a mystery ball, in a box in his cupboard, which had been puzzling him; putting this speech into the historic present presents the whole series of unlikely circumstances as if they were happening at the very moment of the telling. However, Humiras story is not as well constructed as Sakanders. 7.3 Correlatives Correlatives only account for 6 percent of the evaluative devices coded in the data and this is not surprising in view of the degree of complexity involved. Labov states that: Correlatives bring together two events that actually occurred so that they are conjoined in a single independent clause. Correlatives: This operation requires complex syntax; it quickly goes beyond the syntactic range of young narrators. In order of their increasing syntactic complexity, we can list: 1. Progressives in being which are usually used in narratives to indicate that one event is occurring simultaneously with another, but also may indicate extended or continued action ... 2. Appended particles: One or more verbs in -ing are aligned, with tense marker and be deleted; the action described is heard as occurring simultaneously with the action of the main verb of the sentence, which itself may be a progressive. (Labov 1972a:387388)

- 323 -

Chapter 7 Both of the above mentioned devices emphasize simultaneity of occurrence of actions. Double appositives, double attributives, and left-hand participles or deverbal adjectives (e.g. an unsavory-looking passenger) are also mentioned by Labov, but these are considered to be comparatively rare. In our data we have, additionally, included compound phrases (with or without and) and optional prepositional phrases: as we have said elsewhere, all these devices pack more information into a single clause. This information is used to heighten or deepen the effect of a particular description (Labov 1972:388), either of a participant or a significant prop. Although Labov suggests that most of these correlative devices are beyond the range of young narrators, we do, in fact, have examples of ALL of them except doubled progressives and left-hand participles. However, when we try to arrange these devices on a complexity scale, using Labovs comments and information from first language-acquisition where it exists, we run into difficulties for three main reasons: (1) information on some of these constructions is completely lacking; (2) age-related inferences can be misleading for, as Perera (1984) states, chronological ages may be suggested for particular levels of development, but these need to be treated with great caution (p. 89); and (3) there is a vast difference between the first appearance of a construction in a childs linguistic repertoire and his/her ability to use it successfully on every occasion. To quote Perera again: A description of the childs language, say at the age of three, entails an account of some grammatical structures that are just beginning, others than are in process of change, and yet others that are firmly established. (1984:89) Large-scale studies by Strickland (1962) and ODonnell et al (1967), and data from Fawcett and Perkins (1980) show that for first-language learners the early school years are a period of particularly active language development and a time of considerable variability in language production. Palermo and Molfese (1972) comment that such periods are marked by instabilityand are followed by growth to new levels and subsequent stable linguistic performanceIt is during theseperiods that large increases in new grammatical constructions and high error rates on some kinds of constructions are reported (p. 422). For second-language learners instability, rapid growth, and high error rates are even more noticeable. Synthesizing what we can from Pereras account of the acquisition of progressives, optional prepositional phrases (particularly as postmodification of the noun), compound - 324 -

Chapter 7 phrases (especially noun phrases), and double and multiple attributives, we can tentatively suggest a possible complexity scale for the correlatives which we find in our data. (See also Slobin and Welsh (1973), Crystal et al. (1976), and de Villiers et al. (1977).) Table 7.6 compares this order with the total numbers of each device found in the data; we assume, as we did for the comparators, that subjects will produce more of the less complex structures than they do of those that are really complex. The Spearman test gives us a positive correlation of 0.671 which is significant at p <0.05 (i.e. the odds of obtaining this result by chance are one in 20). Although only a weak correlation, it lends some support at least to the idea that subjects proceed from the simpler to the more complex structures both in acquisition and performance. Table 7.6. Syntactic complexity and evaluation Correlatives Be...-ing Part. Right Doub. Attrib. Compound N P Comp. Adj P Compound L P Optional P P Mult. Attrib. Double Appos. Totals Relative Complexity Data Ranking d 31 21 14 22 3 2 14 12 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 3 4.5 2 8 9 4.5 6 7 0 1 d2 0 1

1.5 2.25 2 3 3 4 9 9

2.5 6.25 2 2 4 4

d2 = 39.5

7.3.1 Progressive Be...-ing In Labovs data most of the progressives were found in the orientation sections or suspending the action in an evaluative section (1972a:387). Of the thirty-one examples we have found: ten are in orientation sections, six are in narrative sections, three of these being in because-clauses involved in explication, and fifteen are embedded in direct speech. None are particularly arresting and only one involves a note-worthy error. Even Shazia and

- 325 -

Chapter 7 Fehdah have managed to produce them correctly, e.g. the following from Shazias Story E and Fehdahs Story B: 3/4 6 THEN - BILly SAID, IM NOT PLAYing. HE - he was goin to GIVE it TO the FOOTBALL TEAM.

Shvinder uses the past progressive for her conventional opening to Story B: 1/2 Once upon a TIME FAther CHRISTmas was looking in his CUPboard and he saw this STRANGE, GREEN, SHINy BOX. Fariba uses a similar opening for her Story C: 1/4 ONE DAY BILly-the-TWIT was GOing somewhere with his COWS. THEN the PEOple said of his land, GO to anOTHer COUNtry beFORE you
get BEAT.

She has a misplaced postmodification of the noun people in line 2 and produces beat for beaten up in line 4, but there is nothing wrong with the way she introduces her main character. Both girls use the present progressive for embedded orientation within reported conversations, e.g. the following from Shvinders Story A and Faribas Story B: 56/9 SO the SNOWman SAID, I am getting TOO HOT HERE. Im STARTing to
MELT. I MUST go QUICKly BACK to my HOUSE.

13/17

So he [Father Christmas] SAW a GIRL LAUGHing and she SAID, MY team

- my SON is NOT WINning and he has NONE GOAL.

Faribas sounds a little quaint because of her use of none instead of no but she handles both the present progressive in line 16 and the appended particle in line 14 correctly. Aqeel gives us an example of the progressive in a because-clause in his Story C: 7/11 A LAdy give BILly FOOD - - - and said, - - - Go SOMEwhere the NEXT
DAY - - - Go HOME! beCAUSE it was GOing to be RAINy.

He has the normal non-standard simple past form give instead of gave for the simple past, and he has used an incorrect time reference for the direct speech but his progressive construction in the explication is fine. Perera states that although the progressive aspect is an early acquisition for L1 subjects, omitting the auxiliary be is an error that persists for

- 326 -

Chapter 7 some years (p. 110). Sakander gives us our L2 example of an omitted auxiliary in his Story E: was And, ONCE, he DID BUMP BALL in - on HIS HEAD and um ^ and KICKing ^ JUMPing, KICKing on THE BALL- JUST um PUTting ONE leg UP
and KICKing the BALL and the OTHer leg UP KICKing the BALL.

7/14

In this piece which, in spite of the once in line 7, is really part of an extended orientation section describing preliminary events, we have a whole series of appended participles but no BE verb to append them to; we have coded them as COR/P. Rt but the first kicking should have been a progressive construction. According to Labov, doubled progressives are frequently used in orientation sectionsbut more often such devices are used to highlight and evaluate the event of a particular narrative clause and such multiple participles serve to suspend the action in an evaluative section; they bring in a wider range of simultaneous events (1972a:388) which keep the hearer on the edge of his/her seat waiting for what comes next. Sakander as an inexperienced storyteller does not capitalize on this build up in the description of Bens footballing skills; instead he breaks off and picks up the narrative proper by returning to the exploits of his main character, Billy the cowboy. 7.3.2 Right-hand Participles and Embedding As we have seen from our discussion of Sakanders example above, right-hand participles are often linked to a main verb in the progressive aspect. In our data we have ten participles appended to a progressive verb if we include Sakanders E lines 714 quoted above; four are linked with the past tense form went; four follow a noun stating what a particular participant or prop is doing; two are linked with a preposition; and one with the verb fall indicating the result of the fall. We will give the best examples of these constructions and then discuss some of the problem areas. Aqeels Story D has a vivid example of a progressive + participle construction which could, perhaps, have been analysed as a doubled progressive in Labovs terms: 7/11 They [the children] was PLAYing SNOWballs AND RUSHing aBOUT and SKIPping and SKIDding.

- 327 -

Chapter 7 This is probably the most complex sentence Aqeel has produced in any of his narratives and the alliteration of skipping and skidding is most effective. Sakanders Story D has a nice example with went as the main verb: 23/4 And THEN he went BACK into his HOME FEELing HAPpy.

This is the conclusion of the story; Father Christmas was happy because all his problems had been solved. Fariba has two examples of an appended participle with saw; the following comes from her Story A: 29/30 he [Mr. Wong] SAW a BAG COMing DOWN THE CHIMney.

This is the high point of Faribas Story; in line 27 we are told how Father Christmas put the rice in the chimney and here we see its arrival through the eyes of Mr. Wong: 31/4
THAT must be the RI-ICE! he

SAID. WHEN he OPened it there was LOTS and

LOTS of RICE. Our examples of a participle following a preposition both come from Humiras Story F and contain several errors: 42/7
I CANT DO NOthing NOW for COOKing and COOKing. I am GETting BORED and BORED and the OTHers are GETting FATter and FATter for eating SAUSage and SAUSage.

We have already mentioned elsewhere the inappropriate use of repetition here and the use of bored for the comparative more bored. She also uses the preposition for instead of about and from in lines 43 and 47 respectively, and so the piece is not all that effective in spite of the number of devices coded. The final example from Shvinders Story E also contains errors: 7/11 So ONE DAY he went on his HORSE and HE-E got on his HORSE and THEN FALLED down STRAIGHT LYing on his BACK. but these do not detract from its impact; the piece is still graphically clear and leaves us in no doubt about Billys predicament.

- 328 -

Chapter 7 7.3.3 Compound Phrases Compound Phrases are not discussed at all by Labov; Perera refers to them as co-ordinated phrases but only talks about the acquisition of co-ordinated noun phrases: Not surprisingly, co-ordinated noun phrases first appear rather later than simple NPs and pronouns, probably between 2;6 and 3;0. The earliest forms of co-ordination to occur are N + N sequencesIn the pre-school years the construction is not used extensively. ODonnell et al (1967:70) found a noticeable increase in its use between the ages of five and six and a doubling of frequency between eight and thirteen. Several studies have shown that the earliest co-ordinated noun phrases occur almost exclusively in object position; subject position is harder. (1984:107) We have twenty-one examples of compound noun phrases in object position and just one in subject position, produced by Sakander for the coda of his Story F: 33 And the STRANger and MR. WONG LIVED HAPpy EVer AFter. Of those which occur in object position we have a very wide range of constructions from the bare N + N combination to the combination of six nouns and their attributives. It is interesting to look at the rich variety of patterns found in the data; table 7.7 below shows the main ones in ascending order of complexity, the constituents are coded as follows: N = noun, NS = possessive N, D = determiner, A = adjective, Pos = possessive, T = title, Dem = demonstrative, and P = preposition. The only errors are the omission of the odd article and conjunction which, in running discourse, could probably be regarded as ellipsis. (See chapter 5, pp. 174 and 196202.) In the three most complex of these compound constructions the narrators, Shvinder and Fariba, were describing their characters aided by the brightly-coloured picture cards from the previous activity, which were still lying on the table in full view of both speaker and hearer. It is unlikely that they would have given such full descriptions without a visual prompt of this kind; however, in all three cases the listing was accompanied by expressive phonology. We will display each one in context; the first is from Shvinders Story D: 24/8 Then he [Father Christmas] found a GOOD STICK and the BROWN HAT and BROWN TROUsers and BLACK SHO-OES. SO he STARted his JOURney. He WENT to INdia, PAKiSTAN. He WENT to EUrope and the WEST INdies. - 329 -

Chapter 7 Table 7.7. Compound noun phrases PROPER NOUNS Structures N+N N + and + Ns N N + and + D A N D N + and + T N N + N + N + and + N Data India, Pakistan Billy and Billys Dad Europe and the West Indies the stranger and Mr. Wong India, Pakistan, Australia and America COMMON NOUNS Structures N + and + N N + and + A N N + and + N P Dem D N + and + D N D N + and + A N Pos N + and + Pos N DN+N+AN D A N + and + D A N + and + A N + and + A N A N + A N + A N+ and + D A N AN+DAN+DAN+DAN+ and + A N + and+ D N Data soup and sugar meat and soup drink sausage and things like that the bowl and the spoon the drink and rice krisps his bowl and his spoon rice krips and drink and nice dinner a good stick and the brown hat and brown trousers and brown shoes yellow coat, red boots, black gloves and a pink face brown hat, a orange jumper, a green coat, some orange trousers and black shoes and a stick

Here we find three compound N Ps in close proximity, plus the use of repetition in line 28, and expressive phonology throughout; even the repetition of and is acceptable when items are listed one by one. The last two examples come from Faribas Story C and Story D: 15/17 Then he [Billy] DID and CAME to a MAN. He had YELlow COAT, RED BOOTS, BLACK GLOVES and a PINK FACE.

- 330 -

Chapter 7 15/19 But the FIRST thing he [Father Christmas] DID he SHAVED HIS BEARD off AND put some DIFFrent CLOTHES on. The CLOTHES were - brown HAT, a Orange JUMPer, a GREEN COAT, some Orange TROUsers and BLACK SHOES and a STICK. He preTENDed to be a OLD MAN. Both these examples are performed with an exaggerated listing intonation which is highly effective. Of the other compound phrases, the most arresting is contained in the opening of Sakanders Story D: 1 FAther CHRISTmas was ALL CROSS and GRUMpy.

Sakander describes this uncharacteristic behaviour of the kindly old gentleman in the minimum of words and yet the compound A P is all that is needed to set the scene, with the quantifier all acting as intensification. 7.3.4 Double and Multiple Attributives In the data we have fourteen double attributives and twelve where we have three or more attributives of various kinds. Labov comments on the rarity of double attributives as follows: One would think that such noun phrases as big red house and cold wet day would occur often enough but the fact of the matter is that they are uncommon in colloquial style. In subject position, even a single attributive is uncommon (other than demonstratives, articles, and possessives) (1972a:389) Perera (1984) discusses the acquisition of attributives by native English speakers: From about 2;6 the noun may have two pre-modifiers and, from around the third birthday, three or even more, e.g. that red car, my new velvet skirt, this very bumpy old train. Another structure that may occur before the fourth birthday is the noun with a pre-determiner, e.g. all my friends, both of the kittens. (1984:99) The discrepancy between the two quotations is interesting. Is it just a matter of language variety and the fact that American speakers who use black vernacular style do not go in for modification in a big way while young English-speaking children do? In ODonnell et al.s (1967) samples of childrens speech, the use of pre-modifying adjectives increased by a third between the ages of six and thirteen years. Crystal et al. (1976) suggest that nouns post-modified by prepositional phrases begin to appear about the age of three, and Perera

- 331 -

Chapter 7 (1984) notes that there is remarkably little published data on childrens acquisition and use of the N P prep N P construction, concluding that it seems not to be extensively used in the early years (p. 99). Figures given in ODonnell et al. (p. 59) show that, on average, the six-year-olds in the study used prepositional post-modification only one tenth as often as they used adjectival pre-modification. Table 7.8. Double and multiple attributives DOUBLE Structures Dem A N Pos A N Pos Ns N QAN DAAN Data these strange animals my magic ball his nannies house six magic footballs a big green box MULTIPLE Structures Data

A [A + and + A] N shiny back and white footballs D A Ns N QPDAN Dem A A A N QDAAN DNPDAN the round-faced ladys boy one of the football players this strange green shiny box all the messy football players the lady with a round face

Table 7.8 gives an example of each of the patterns found in our data. As you will see, we have only one example (out of 26) which includes post-modification. Interestingly we have one example which includes a compound A P black and white and another which includes a compound adjective word round-faced. All the examples coded are evaluative and some are particularly effective, e.g. Shvinders this strange green shiny box which sounds very mysterious, Sakanders all the messy football players - we are not told

- 332 -

Chapter 7 specifically if messy applies to their play or to their appearance but we have no problem picturing them, and Sheibas the round-faced ladys boy - does HE have a round face too? There are three examples in the data that include noteworthy errors: the first demonstrates Sakanders problem with the order of English adjectives:
YOU can GO to the GREEN LAND to FETCH your SHEEP some GREEN GRASS - GREEN LOVely GRASS.

(C25/6)

Mature native speakers put lovely before green; however, in line 38, he has his sheep can eat the sweet green grass, where he does place the colour adjective next to the noun. Fariba puts big and large together in: ON CHRISTmas he saw a BIG LARGE SNOWman. (A10)

instead of a great big snowman, where great acts as an intensifier rather than as a synonym for large or big. She also comes up with an ingeniously creative compound expression when she cannot remember the word caretaker: A D [N V - P] N But THEN he WENT to the SCHOOL-look-after MAN. (C10) (See chapter 5, page 163, for a possible derivation of this invention.) 7.3.5 Optional Prepositional Phrases By optional prepositional phrases we mean phrases which are not included in Labovs eight elements of the basic narrative clause. Because they are not part of the basic narrative clause they must, therefore, constitute evaluative departures from it. It is of interest to look at the semantic roles which they encode; the roles exemplified in the fourteen data samples are: accompaniment, benefactive, source, instrument, and an additional locative or temporal phrase, and these roles are crucial to the effectiveness of the event descriptions. Our first two examples come from the openings of Sheibas Story B(1) and Faribas Story C: ONE day FAther Christmas WOKE UP EARly in the MORning. Here in the morning adds to the meaning of early and emphasizes the importance of the temporal setting to the narrative. (It seems that significant happenings are often associated with early rising, in both fact and fiction.) ONE DAY BILly-the-TWIT was GOing somewhere with his COWS.

- 333 -

Chapter 7 In Faribas example we find an accompaniment phrase which is much more effective than if she had said, One day Billy was taking his cows somewhere, which rather suggests that he has nothing special in mind; whereas Faribas opening implies that Billy and his cows were definitely on the move. The following clauses tell us why: 2/4 THEN the PEOple said of his land, GO to another COUNtry beFORE you get
BEAT.

Sakander gives us examples of the three semantic roles, benefactive, source, and instrument; the first comes from his Story C: 9/12 HE said, I think Ill GO to the GREEN LAND and GET some GRASS for MY
SHEEP.

Here the benefactive emphasizes the importance to Billy of the welfare of his livestock. If he had said, Ill goand get my sheep some grass, we might well have been tempted to say So what? The second example comes from his Story D: 5/7 And Father CHRISTmas SAID, CHILdren
alREADy HAVE presents from ME. ALways WANT PRESents but they

A cross and grumpy Father Christmas is complaining that children are never satisfied with what they have been given. Perhaps he is saying, They had some last year - wont those do? The from me (source) seems to suggest that he thinks he has discharged his responsibility to them already. Sakanders last example is from Story E: 5/6 BEN was a football MAN and HE could do ANything with BALLS FOOTballs. The instrumental with balls is a most important piece of additional information here, and Sakander follows this idea through by spelling out for us exactly what he could do with them in lines 8/10 (see p. 327). Fehdah provides us with the example of a double locative in his Story F: 6 And he WENT to the SHOP beHIND the SHOP.

His narrative is not a coherent whole so he does not really explain the signficance of the shop behind a shop. Does he mean a small shop in a lean-to behind a bigger shop? He does not tell us; however, we do at least know exactly where his Mr. Wong went even if he does not tell us why.

- 334 -

Chapter 7 7.3.6 Double Appositives Labov remarks that the double appositive is relatively rare but when it does occur it is used to heighten or deepen the effect of a particular description (1972a:388); his example: 32i and then, they gave him a knife, a long one, a dagger,

enables the hearer to see that knife very clearly and the very real danger for any opponent. The double appositive does not seem to be discussed in any of the acquisition literature, and our four data examples do not really compare with Labovs quoted above. The first from Shvinders Story A involves the heightening effect of a temporal orientation which is used to suspend the action and so highlight the climactic events of the narrative:
1 2

72/5

And THEN, in the NIGHT, when the FIRE was out, a RICE CAME DOWN the CHIMney. And Mr. WONG, when he WAKED UP in the MORning, he COULDnt beLIEVE his EYES.

Next, we have two examples of the same device from Shvinders Story E, which are used in the identification of a supporting character, contrasting him with the main character and highlighting the relationship between the two characters: 1/6 BILly was a HORSE rider but EVry TIME he GOT on his HORSE HE FALLED. SO-O BEN, BILlys FRIEND, BEN, SHOWed him and HE-E could even do A-ANything with a BALL as he was a FOOTballer. Shvinder is emphasizing the fact, in line 4, that Billy and Ben were indeed friends, even though the two were not equally competent in their chosen sports. Other narrators have emphasized the rivalry between the two boys: but Shvinder uses the double appositive to insure that her interlocutor, Michael, does not interpret Bens actions in that way. Lower down, in line 20, Shvinder employs the device again at the point where Ben intervenes to change Billys fortunes. Ben had just been laughing at Billys antics on and off the horse, and telling him that he could turn his poor horsemanship into a comedy act; but Billy wanted to be a good horseman as well as a clown:
1 2 1 2

20/9

SO-O one DAY BEN, Billys FRIEND, BEN, said, YO-OU could be the
FUNniest ACtor.

So HE Opened a SHO-OW. And WHEN he got on the

- 335 -

Chapter 7
HO-ORSE

he DIDnt FA-ALL or do NOthing. He RI-Ided the HORSE

and EVrybody - THEY LAUGHED and THEY CLAPPED. THE-EN the MAN gave HIM the PRIZE. The final example comes from Humiras Story B but, here, the apposition probably has more to do with production difficulties than with narrative skills: 22/6 NObody was PLAYing with the BALL and the Father Christmas TOLD SOMEone THAT - about ALL of it - a LAdy that CAN you COME with
ME and TELL me WHO GAVE me the BALL? I CANT underSTAND with THAT BALL.
1 2

The piece is confused and the hearer has the added difficulty of coping with the errors (i.e. her use of told instead of asked, the two occurrences of that before direct speech, and her use of with instead of about); so, Father Christmas told someone that - about all of it - a lady that is an example of a narrators efforts to get the facts straight for her hearer, rather than a highlighting device, even though it is fluent and confidently produced, with some expressive phonology. 7.4 Explicatives Labov contrasts explication with the other types of evaluation described above in that, unlike intensifiers, comparators, and correlatives, explicatives often involve the attachment of separate subordinate clauses: Some of the evaluation and explication of a narrative is necessarily done in separate clauses, appended to the main narrative clause or to an explicit evaluative clause. These may be qualifications connected with such conjunctions as while, though; or causal, introduced by since or because. We further distinguish three types of attachment to the main clause: simple, complex, and compound. (1972a:390) These appended subordinate clauses qualify, or give reasons for, the main events reported. Such clauses, therefore, contribute to the establishment of a storys tellability, its point, by more fully specifying the extent or motivation for a particular action (Toolan 1988:161). To quote Labov again: We may represent explicatives in the narrative scheme as Explicatives:

- 336 -

Chapter 7 The explication of the various complications inherent in the narrative situation may serve an evaluative function - e.g., to explain why a person was frightened or how big someone was. But explication may itself be required only to describe actions and events that are not entirely familiar to the listenerSome of the syntactic featuresoccur in clauses which have a purely referential function: they clarify for the listener the simple factual circumstances surrounding the narrative. (1972:392) In chapter 4, pages 123124, we advocated a broader view of evaluation, pointing out that clarifications of factual circumstances and corrections of tongue slips are, in many cases, also evaluative in that, without them, the hearer would miss the main point of the story. So, in our analysis and classification, we have included clarifications as additional explicative devices. In the data, we have forty-four examples of simple causal constructions, six simple qualifications, and twenty-five clarifications of various kinds. 7.4.1 Causal Constructions Of the forty-four causal constructions: thirty-three are because-clauses but two of these have otherwise and that where the sense demands because; six are introduced by to with a non-finite verb form; three are introduced by for and a verb + -ing, although one of these should correctly be from; and two are introduced by thats why + a finite verb form. We will look at a few examples of each. We have already discussed Shvinders use of otherwise in place of because, in her Story C, in chapter 5, page 186, so we will not discuss it again here. The error with that comes from Faribas Story B: 29/32 And THEN he was SO HAPpy that Father Christmas WENT to apPLAUD HIM
that he was BEing VERy GOOD.

Although we have coded the two causals as separate devices, what we really have here is a complex construction with one causal embedded in the other:
1 2

and then he was so happy [that Father Christmas went to applaud him [because he was being
very good]]

and the second one should be introduced by because, not that. Labov comments on the embedding of finite clauses as follows:

- 337 -

Chapter 7 Here we can explain an event by referring to something that happened long before or long afterThus explicatives do not necessarily serve the evaluative function of bringing several actions together. The action of the narrative is suspended, but the attention of the listener is not maintained at that point in time - it may be transferred backward or forward, or into a realm of abstract speculation wholly unrelated to the narrative. (1972a:392) In our example above, we have two time changes and the clauses are arranged in reverse order of the actual happenings being described: Time 1: The football captain was playing a good game of football and his team won the match. Time 2: Once the game was over, Father Christmas went to congratulate him on the teams success. Time 3: This made him feel very pleased with himself and his team.

This is a complex example of double embedding and it is clear that Fariba cannot yet fully handle the complexities involved in it. However, in her Story E, she does successfully produce an example of double embedding, involving direct speech and ellipsis, where the because is front-shifted and split off from the rest of the first subordinate clause: 29/35 And BILly said, WHY ARE YOU LAUGHing at ME-E? BeCAUSE, he said,
THATS the FUNniest thing I EVer SAW in the WHOLE TOWN. YOU ARE COWboy but you cant BAL-ance on a HORSE. [because] he said [thats the funniest thing [ I ever saw in the whole town]]
1 1 2

The causal construction is only a sophisticated case of simple embedding while the doubly embedded clause is a relative clause with a deleted relative pronoun. However, the piece is evaluated by a variety of devices, and the only error is the omission of the indefinite article before the noun cowboy; the conversation is certainly a dramatized re-enactment and highly effective. A more straight-forward example is the following from Shvinders Story A: 51/2
He MAKES them HAPpy beCAUSE he GIVES them PRESents.

The explication is evaluative and the information about Father Christmas is orientation embedded in direct speech, which we will be discussing below. Explication introduced by to and a non-finite verb is less obvious, e.g. the following from Humiras Story A:

- 338 -

Chapter 7 1/2 One DAY MR. THOMas went OUT TO GET some RICE.

However, there IS a causal relationship here: if we ask the question, Why did Mr. Thomas go out? The reason given is to get some rice. Our example of for + -ing also comes from Humira, this time from her Story B: 40/6 So he [Father Christmas] was HAPpy to GO HOME and put - set EVerything OUT and go outSIDE for GIVing for CHRISTmas - giving ALL the
TOYS.

The END The expression seems a little odd, in line 45, probably because the second for would be better expressed as at Christmas. Humira also provides us with our examples of thats why, e.g. the following from her Story D: 16/20
YOU DONT WANT to come to CHRISTmas. YOU DONT WANT to give PRESents to CHILdrens and thats WHY you CHANGED yourself not to BE a FAther CHRISTmas ...

Father Christmas is on holiday and a nameless boy has just realized the reason why he is in semi-disguise: Father Christmas no longer wishes to give the children presents at Christmastime. So he challenges him in this unpleasant way, but Father Christmas does not bother to answer him; he just goes home, and decides to wear a better disguise next time he goes on holiday. Humira does not express it quite as clearly as this, but her use of the causative in the dramatized dialogue is certainly effective and clearly explicates the point of the narrative (p. 390). Labov notes that, in his data as in ours, among the explicatives the most frequent item is the simple causative clause (p. 395) but, as we have seen above, some are not quite as simple as they at first appear. 7.4.2 Simple Qualifications With only six examples we are not able to generalize on the semantics of qualifications because each example is different. Shvinder gives us four of the six and they all seem to add additional information, almost as an afterthought; the first is an expansion of a previous statement from the coda of her Story F: 52/3 He [Mr. Wong] had CUSTomers - that was INdian CUStomers, ENGlish CUStomers and ALL the CUStomers. - 339 -

Chapter 7 By all the customers she means all kinds of customers, and the elaboration here slows the action down to its conclusion: they came every day to eat and drink. She uses a different kind of elaboration in her Story A: 44/7 And he SAID, I LIVE NEAR THE POLar bears and thats WHERE FAther
CHRISTmas LIVES.

Within the story-frame, the Snowman appeals to Mr. Wongs assumed knowledge of the existence of Father Christmas, but Mr. Wongs reply: 48
FAther CHRISTmas! WHOS FAther CHRISTmas?

shows that this assumption was false. However, at another level, outside the story-frame, Shvinder is appealing to Ninas knowledge of his existence as a means of ensuring her continued involvement in the development of the story. Her third example could be taken as an additional observation, intended to play down the information given about a second character in some way; it comes from her Story E: 5/6 HE-E could even do A-ANything with a BALL as he was a FOOTballer.

The even in line 5 is an error if the underlying assumption here is: he could do anything with a ball - but then, he was a footballer. It is also unnecessary if Shvinders intended meaning is: he could do anything with a ball because he was a footballer, which is a simple causal construction, giving the reason he was so skilful in positive terms (cf. section 7.4.1). It is hard to tell whether she intended it to be a qualification or a causative, as either of these constructions would fit the context. Her fourth example, from Story F, is unclear and we will not take the space to discuss it here. Sheiba has an example of an unless-clause which is interesting; it comes from her Story C: 12/15 ... the EXsimo SAID, It is VERy, VERy, VERy FROSTy there - unLESS you want
to SEE the SNOWmans - and your HAND will get COLD and COLD.

The Eskimo starts explaining to Billy just how cold Greenland is and then breaks off as if a sudden thought hit him which could be paraphrased as: Oh dear! perhaps youve come all this way to see the snowmen, and then he carries on with what he was saying before. It is the sort of thing people DO say in ordinary unplanned conversation, but one wonders whether a young L2 speaker would construct such an intrusive qualification intentionally especially in view of her basic error with the repeated comparative construction; a more natural sequence would be to give the unwelcome information and then query Billys

- 340 -

Chapter 7 intentions as an afterthought. Perera (1984) comments that unless-clauses seem to cause serious comprehension problems (p. 143), and Palermo and Molfese (1972) report on a study by H. F. Olds which revealed that children do not understand the basic negative meaning of unless until they are ten. 7.4.3 Clarifications As we have mentioned elsewhere, clarifications do not involve complex syntax; they are tagged on as afterthoughts and are very much akin to the qualifications discussed above. Clarifications can be divided into two basic kinds: (1) clarification relations in which one part is to some extent saying the same thing as the other; and (2) clarification relations in which one part is NOT a restatement of the other. An example of (1) is Shvinders clarification in her Story C: 1/2 BILly-the-TWIT HAD some COWS AND SOMETIMES the COWS SOME of the COWS - WENT OFF. Here Shvinder adds the additional information that it was only SOME of the cows which went off; the basic information is amplified in the restatement. The evaluative function here is to focus the hearers attention on those cows for, in the following clauses, we are told what a nuisance they were to the other cowboys: 3/4 SO ONE of the COWBOYS SAID, TAKE your COWS SOMEwhere
E-ELSE.

and the rest of the story tells us where he took them. An example of (2) above is Sakanders self-repair in the concluding event of his Story B: 37 and THEN he TIDied UP his DRAWER - CUPboard.

His story opened with: 1 FAther CHRISTmas LOOKED at his CUPboards. AND it was MESsy.

so it was important to keep the facts straight and ward off any challenge from Victor if he was found to be inconsistent. The boys, particularly, were quick to pick each other up on technicalities of this sort. Another lexical tongue-slip needing instant clarification comes towards the end of Aqeels Story D: 13/15 POOR WALter SMELT - MELT and the WHITE CHRISTmas MELT and THAT was the END. - 341 -

Chapter 7 Aqeels statement that poor Walter smelt was greeted with an amused giggle by Nasir and so he quickly changed it to melt. However, there is nowhere in the story that Aqeel actually tells us that Walter is a snowman (in the second mention he refers to him as White Christmas); so we are left to draw our own conclusions. Also, he does not use the correct past tense forms within the story-frame and, secondly, he does not make clear to his hearers, in the coda, whether he is simply concluding his story and leaving the storyframe for the here-and-now, or whether Walter literally melted out of existence. Aqeel makes two attempts to clarify the situation; he changes smelt to melt and then Poor Walter to (the) White Christmas: one involving a substitution of a single lexical item, the other a repetition of the whole clause. But is this really evaluation in view of the production problems outlined above? In chapter 2, pages 4751, we argued that plot construction and evaluation are two interrelated parameters which are, in principle, distinct. Aqeel works hard at trying to make things clear to Nasir, even though, strictly-speaking, this is not necessary because both boys heard the original version of the story. However, as we have argued in chapter 4, page 106, and elsewhere, most narrators DO make their stories uniquely their own and so Aqeels Story D is a different story from the model Story D; therefore, he has to ensure that Nasir does not interrupt him with What a rotten story! I cant make any sense of it! The sudden reference to Walter, after a lively description of Father Christmas holiday, follows a brief discontinuity. He was prompted by the researchers question: What happened to poor Walter in the end? He answered that question without any elaboration of the details, apart from these clarifications. In chapter 2, page 50, we referred to Grices (1975) Maxim of Quantity which we summarized as: tell your hearers all they need to know. Aqeel would probably feel that he had done just that. Two further examples of clarifications, involving the repetition of the whole clause, will suffice to complete this short section. The first comes from Shvinders Story A: 70/1 SO he SENDed it OFF to FAther CHRISTmas. He POSTed it to FAther CHRISTmas. Mr. Wong had just written a letter to Father Christmas asking him to send him some rice. Not content with the generic he sended it off..., she follows it with the specific he posted it off to Father Christmas to make quite sure Nina has full knowledge of all the facts. Our

- 342 -

Chapter 7 last example involves a direct intervention by the hearer, and it comes from the end of Sheibas Story B(2): 20/3 ... the FOOTball PLAYersPLAYED BETter. FAther Christmas went OFF and SAID, GOODBYE. --It was the ROUND-FACED LAdys BOY. Sheiba was asked to clarify which team had won the match because, earlier, she had not kept the teams apart too successfully in her narrative. Grimes (1975) calls Sheibas line 23 performative information because it is used by the narrator to relate herself directly to her hearer; we would include it as one further dimension of evaluation. It is a coda of sorts because it is outside the story proper; perhaps a more complete way of sealing off her narrative would be to say: So the round-faced ladys boy and his team had won their first match and they are now top of the League. 7.5 External Evaluation All the devices we have been discussing above occur within the structure of the narrative. However, as Labov points out, the narrator can stop the narrative, turn to the listener, and tell him what the point is (1972a:371) or he may use a number of intermediate steps in providing external evaluation for a clause which do not overtly break the flow of the narrative clauses (p. 372). All of our examples of external evaluation are of this second type; the first type, referred to by Toolan (1988) as wholly external evaluations - as external as you can get (p. 156), do not occur at all in our data. Tannen (1982b) states that evaluation which explicitly articulates the point in this way is a feature of literate-based strategies, and we noted in chapter 2, page 40, that our subjects were using oral-based strategies which build on interpersonal involvement. As we stated at the beginning of this chapter, we have set up just three categories of external evaluation for our data: (1) embedded orientation; (2) evaluative action; and (3) suspension of the action. We have 81 clauses which contain embedded orientation, 27 which contain evaluative action of some sort, but only 8 which actually suspend the action because the narrator exits briefly from the story-frame. These come nearest to Labovs definition of external evaluation. Labov describes evaluative action as a means of dramatizing the evaluation of a narrative, telling what people did rather what they said (p. 373). Embedded orientation, the category we will discuss first, is not one mentioned by - 343 -

Chapter 7 Labov, but is the predominant type of external device found, being three times as numerous as evaluative action and ten times as numerous as suspension of the action. 7.5.1 Embedded Orientation In chapter 4, page 125, we described embedded orientation as setting-type information within a conversational passage, consisting of two main kinds: (1) facts about the world which would be known to both speaker and hearer; and (2) facts about the setting of the particular story being told. Schiffrin (1987) has the following to say about embedded orientation: Although each piece of embedded orientation is subordinate to the story events, each is important for the interpretation of those events and for the point of the story. (1987:192) We hope to show from specific data examples how this works out in practice. Our first examples come from Sheibas and Shvinders Story A: 10/13 And THEN in the MORning he [Mr. Wong] WOKE up EARly and he FOUND a BOX OF RICE DOWN NEXT to his door. AND - when he
OPened it IT was a SNOWman

(Sheiba)

16/21

SO ONE DAY, WHEN HE was aSLEEP, a SNOWMAN KNOCKED at the DOOR. But WHEN MR. WONG SAW IT, he THOUGHT it was RICE but it WASnt. ---

33/6

And he said, I am NOT RICE. I AM a SNOWman. MY NAME IS MR. WALTer

KRIStel.

(Shvinder)

Here we have two different ways of conveying background information. Sheibas and when he opened it, it was a snowman occurs in an orientation section of its own, sandwiched between the event of Mr. Wong finding the box of rice and the next event which is a conversation between the two of them about where the rice-cum-snowman had come from. Shvinders is a much longer story; she introduces the snowman by telling us that he knocked at Mr. Wongs door and what Mr. Wong thought he was, and only the when Mr. Wong saw it is actually marked off as orientation. However, in order to make quite sure Nina has got the point, she repeats it by having the snowman explain to Mr.

- 344 -

Chapter 7 Wong that he is not rice but a snowman, and that his name is Mr. Walter Kristel. The disclosure of his name is new information, and so constitutes embedded orientation. She uses the same device to tell us where he came from: 44/7 And he SAID, I LIVE NEAR THE POLar bears and thats WHERE FAther
CHRISTmas LIVES.

(Shvinder)

and this again is orientation embedded in direct speech. Sheibas version is very similar at this point: 16/18 He said, I CAME from a VERy COLD COUNtry where FAther CHRISTmas and the
POLar bears LIVE.

(Sheiba)

We can find two more parallel passages in Aqeels and Shvinders Story C: 8/11 A LAdy give BILly FOOD and said, ... Go HOME! beCAUSE it was GOing to
be RAINy.

(Aqeel)

39/41

... and toMORrow you gotta LE-EAVE otherWISE the DAYS will GET VERy COLD and it will START SNOWing.

(Shvinder)

Apart from the difference between rain and snow and Shvinders use of otherwise for because, both narrators are saying the same thing; but Aqeels because-clause is attached to the main clause and said whereas Shvinders is embedded in direct speech along with the directive to leave. Shvinders version is the more vivid because it brings these past events into the moment of speaking (Schiffrin 1981:58) and Shvinder temporally assumes the role of the kindly stranger who is sending Billy on his way (Wierzbicka (1974:272). One final comparison between contrasting ways of introducing important background information, subordinate to the story events, comes from the beginning of Faribas and Shvinders Story D: 1/5 One DAY FAther Christmas was REALly ANGry. He was ANGry
beCAUSE he DIDnt LIKE his PICtures on the CARDS.

SO he WANTed on the

CARDS SNOWmen PICtures. And he WANTed a HOLiday. (Fariba) 1/4 ONE day Father CHRISTmas SAID, I NEVer have a HOLiday, NOT EVen at
SUMmertime. I HAVE to HAVE a HOLiday.

- 345 -

Chapter 7 (Shvinder) In spite of minor differences in story details, these two opening sections illustrate two very different ways of effectively evaluating a narrative: Faribas is an orientation section with wellchosen lexical items and explication; whereas Shvinders is a narrative section in which the orientation is embedded and we are left to gauge Father Christmas mood from the things he actually says. Fariba spells it all out for us: Shvinder dramatizes it and leaves us to experience the emotions ourselves. All the examples we have looked at so far in this section have concerned background information related to the particular story being told; our final examples relate to information about the larger fantasy world of children and what would be common knowledge in the infant school. They come from Sakanders and Shvinders Story A: 13/17 THE SNOWMAN SAID TO MR. WONG THAT FAther CHRISTmas GIVES
CHILDREN TOYS THAT THEY WANT. WHEN THEY BE GOOD

HE GIVES (Sakander)

THEM. 48/52
FAther CHRISTmas! WHOS FAther CHRISTmas?

he said.
He makes CHILDren LAUGH. He MAKES them HAPpy beCAUSE he GIVES them PRESents.

(Shvinder)

Sakander embeds his information in indirect speech, accurately reporting the content of the speech: Shvinder dramatizes it for us so that we hear it for ourselves, both the content and the actual first-hand delivery of that content. (See chapter 6, pp. 245248, for a discussion of direct and indirect speech.) At a deeper level, the two children are each involving their interlocutors in their stories by appealing to knowledge which they both share. 7.5.2 Evaluative Action Labovs examples of evaluative action are particularly striking as his subjects are describing very frightening experiences, such as hanging from the top of a mast because the rope has given way, or being in mortal danger in an aeroplane. So the descriptions of their actions at the time are particularly graphic. In contrast, our examples are the portrayal of more everyday emotions, such as being amused, excited, amazed, hurt, or frustrated and upset by someone elses behaviour. Our first example comes from Sakanders Story E:

- 346 -

Chapter 7 20/31 ... and BILly start LAUghing. BEN LAUGHED. BEN LAUGHED SO MUCH THAT he ROLLED aROUND IN the GRASS. And BILly the COWboy SAID, ITS NOT FUNny, MY DEArie! ITS NOT FUNny, BEN. BEN LAUGHED and ROLLED aWAY HIGH AND HE LAUGHED and LAUGHED and LAUGHED. Here Ben is obviously very amused at Billys antics both on and off his horse, and in this particular version it is Billy, himself, who starts laughing first. The verb laugh occurs seven times in rapid succession, and this effective use of repetition conveys the idea of prolonged laughter; the action of rolling in the grass also vividly suggests uncontrolled laughter, but we are not sure what he means by rolled away high! Our second example is from Faribas Story E, and here the emotion being portrayed is excitement: 49/53 And the HORSE got TI-Ired and went to the WATerside and drank some WATer. And evryone CHEERED and CLAPPED SEVen TIMES. Billy finally manages to stay on his horse as well as make everyone laugh, although, here, it looks as if it is the horse who is the centre of attraction. The excitement is captured by the two verbs cheered and clapped, and the quantifier seven. Sheiba portrays a characters reaction to pain in her Story E: 32/5 And THEY BOTH HAD a FIGHT. BILly WENT INside and STARted to CRY - - - CAUSE HE BIT HIS FINger. Billy started to cry because he was in pain; Sheibas use of the quasimodal started is effective here, even though the reason was not given until she was prompted to supply one. In her Story C, Sheiba has a character cry because he received unwelcome news: 4/10 And BILly-the-TWIT SAID, ASKED the CAREtaker, WHERE is
GREENLAND?

And the CAREtaker SAID, In GREENLAND it is SNOWy

and ICy, (said the CAREtaker.) And BILly CRIED.

This example is not so effective because it contains just the bare verb with no accompanying internal evaluative devices. Our final example is from Shvinders Story A, and it is one we quoted in chapter 2, page 38: 28/32 But when he SAW it aGAIN he DROPPED his BOWL and his SPOON and HE said, I didnt KNOW RICE could SPEAK!

- 347 -

Chapter 7 Mr. Wong dropped his bowl and his spoon in amazement because the rice he was about to scoop into his bowl suddenly started to talk to him. This is our most effective example because Shvinder uses both internal and external evaluation to indicate her protagonists amazement. 7.5.3 Suspension of the Action As we have said elsewhere, Labov does not make a very clear distinction between his external evaluation and evaluation by suspension of the action. He states that: Stopping the action calls attention to that part of a narrative and indicates to the listener that this has some connection with the evaluative point. When this is done artfully, the listeners attention is also suspended, and the resolution comes with much greater force. (1972a:374) We have only 8 clauses in our data which suspend the action and these are divided between two subjects, and both involve the same section of Story A. We have already discussed the better of the two examples in chapter 2, pages 3839, so we will not do so again here. The following comes from Sakanders Story A: 8/12 Then MR. WONG SAW a SNOWMAN BUT he THOUGHT it WAS HIS
RICE. BUT it WAS NOT. IT WAS a SNOWMAN.

The story began with Mr. Wong running out of rice and his worrying about it. Then the snowman arrived on the scene; he is important to the narrative point because he told him about Father Christmas, who finally solved his problem for him. So the action is suspended at the high point between the complication and the resolution. The effect is certainly to make us want to hear more. Sakander makes good use of expressive phonology in clauses 10-12. 7.6 Summary We began the chapter with a short discussion on the notion of syntactic complexity and our reasons for describing Comparators, Correlatives, Explicatives, and External Evaluation together in the same chapter, and treating the Intensifier category separately in the previous chapter. We, then, went through each syntactic category in turn seeking to pick out for discussion those issues and examples which seemed most relevant and interesting. We noted, for instance, that Labov groups his comparators in order of syntactic complexity, and we explored the correlation between his ranking and our ranking

- 348 -

Chapter 7 of the same devices, on the basis of the frequency of their occurrence in our data. Our fullest discussion was of the Modals, Futures and Quasimodals. We also sought to tentatively group the Correlatives according to a complexity scale, using information from the child language acquisition literature and our own data. Within the Explicatives we gave most space to the Causal Constructions, noting that some were not so simple as we had first thought; we also had to justify our inclusion of Clarifications which are not a Labovian category. Finally, we dealt with External Evaluation rather briefly, with most of the discussion centring on the Embedded Orientation category; here we found some good comparisons between the use of separate Orientation Sections and embedding the orientation in direct speech in the Narrative Section. Our concluding chapter is an attempt to bring some of our main themes together under three headings: the narrative task, evaluation as an indicator of L2 development, and an appraisal of Labovs model and his notion of evaluation.

- 349 -

Chapter 8

CHAPTER 8: CONCLUDING ISSUES The purpose of this final chapter is to address some of the key questions raised in the preceding chapters in the light of the specific findings reported in this thesis and to draw out some general themes from them. The questions centre on three main topics: (1) the narrative task, (2) evaluation as an indicator of L2 development, and (3) an appraisal of Labovs model and his notion of evaluation. 8.1 The Narrative Task Labov (1972a) makes the general claim that narrative shows a less complex linguistic structure than ordinary conversation (p. 377). Other researchers looking at literary texts (e.g. Benveniste 1959; Weinrich 1973) have noted that relationships between time and tense in narrative are not the same as those obtaining in ordinary language, and have explained these discrepancies as evidences of a special tense system for narrative operating alongside that of non-narrative language. Dahl (1985) has observed that the possibilities for expressing temporal distance may not be the same in narrative and non-narrative contexts, and that where the two differ, it is the non-narrative contexts that exhibit the greater number of tense-aspect distinctions. Considerations such as these have led a number of investigators to view narrative as a marked category of linguistic performance whose grammar differs in certain respects from that of everyday communicative language (Fleischman 1990:4). Fleischman applies the label narrative to both written and spoken texts, and to both fiction and non-fiction. The early Romance texts which make up the bulk of her data were virtually all composed for oral recitation before a listening audience - for performance, and so some of her comments are relevant to the narrative data we have collected. Fleischmans special interest is tense-aspect relations in narrative, but in order to talk about it, she has to have a particular model of narrative in mind which she describes as follows: The model of language that provides a foundation for the markedness theory as well as for my categorization of tense-aspect functions is a multilevel functional model according to which elements of the linguistic system (lexical items, constructions, categories of grammar) can realize meanings in four interdependent components, here referred to as the REFERENTIAL, the TEXTUAL, the EXPRESSIVE, and the

- 350 -

Chapter 8 METALINGUISTIC component.The REFERENTIAL component is concerned with the propositional content of utterances (referential meanings), with the function language has of being about something.Located in the TEXTUAL component are a languages resources for creating and organizing discourse that is internally coherent (text) and coheres with its situation context, and for signaling other information relevant to the structure of the discourse itself.Situated in the EXPRESSIVE component are meanings relating to the social, affective, and conative functions of languagethe most important for our purpose are those serving to communicate evaluations and point of view.The METALINGUISTIC component houses a languages resources for talking about itself. (Fleischman 1990:56) Current research into oral versus written strategies in narrative suggests that in literate traditions the meaning is in the text, while in oral situations the meaning is in the context, and in the implications of communicative acts (Olson 1977; Bauman 1986). Fleischman states that: listeners attend more to what is meant and readers to what is written (the actual words in the text) (1990:9). We will be looking at some of these issues in more detail in the following subsections. In the first one we will look at the dichotomy between monologues and interactive collaborative discourse. 8.1.1 Interactive Collaborative/Prompted Discourse versus Monologue The narrative genre differs from other discourse genres in several specific and identifiable ways, as we noted above and also in chapter 2, sections 2.1 and 2.2. Here we will take up one characteristic of formal narratives mentioned by Toolan (1988) and quoted in chapter 1, page 7, and by Dundes (1968) quoted in chapter 2, section 2.3, page 27, which is that the narrative texts may be viewed in isolation as decontextualized entities that can be interpreted without reference to the background assumptions and values of the community out of which they arise (Toolan 1988:226). Although in context we were arguing against the adequacy of this decontextualized view of narratives because it took no account at all of the context of situation in which they were created, children do, nevertheless, have to learn that it is a mainstream cultural preference for story texts to stand on their own in this way, especially written narratives. As we saw in chapter 3, page 81, in a quotation from Michaels and Collins (1984) nearly all linguistic performance (whether oral or written is evaluated in school with reference to an implicit literate standard (p. 243) and for narratives, this means that teachers are expecting a decontextualized account - 351 -

Chapter 8 centering on a single topic (p. 223); therefore, throughout the early years at school children are gradually beginning to grasp how to introduce characters and signal reference and use a range of explicit conjunctive relations in the standard ways, and to become a good judge of whether information increments should be overtly conveyed or can be left to be inferred (Toolan 1988:226). In order to make this transition to context-independence successfully, children not only have to learn how to manipulate language but also how to observe the conventions associated with the narrative genre; these are not immediately obvious to the novice and so have to be learned (Toolan 1988:226). These, then, are the particular constraints imposed on a narrator and help to explain why the narrative task is so daunting for young speakers. It is small wonder that they are so reluctant to hold the floor as a storyteller and yet are only too eager to do so when asked to issue directives to their partners or to engage in a free conversation as they manipulate puppet characters. Even if they have the language ability and knowledge of narrative structures and conventions to produce an acceptable narrative, it takes courage to overcome the sense of scary isolation in being the sole speaker and feeling the eyes of their hearers fastened exclusively on them. In our data, therefore, there is a tendency for the narratives of the more able and experienced storytellers to approximate more closely to a decontextualized monologue and for those of the less able to be collaborations, involving both the interlocutor and the researcher. For example, Aqeels Story B(2) is, in part, a collaboration between Aqeel, Kenneth, and the researcher. We will reproduce the sections where the interventions occur: 5/6 he said, What shall I do now? - - [And what did he do? (R)] 7/8 And he went to London. And he [There was a lady, wasnt there? (R)] 8 9 10 11 12/13 and the ladythe lady - - The Father Christmas said, What do with these balls? Go to football. When they went to football, it was on. And ...

- 352 -

Chapter 8 [All the team was making plans. (K)] 14 they, all the team was making plans. - - [He interrupted them. (K)] 15 He interrupt them [What did he give them? (R)] 16 17/18 and gave them football - a magic one. And he said, If you want to kick [something will happen. (K)] 19 20 21 22 23 24/6 something will happen. So it was um a ... something happened. Someone kicked and the man - - and they said, One moment, one more. I won. They played and they won. [He said, Thankyou. (K)] 27 Thankyou.

Interestingly, in lines 20 and 22, Kenneth does not step in to help Aqeel out (or if he does the microphone fails to pick it up), yet the he said, Thankyou, between lines 26 and 27, is inserted before Aqeel has a chance to put in his own coda. The first six clauses are a fluent monologue, but in the last twenty-one clauses there are seven contributions by the hearers, and so this can rightly be regarded as a collaboration. In contrast, Shvinders Story B is forty-four clauses long and is a fluent monologue throughout, until she comes to line 43, where she forgets the football teams new name and Nina has to prompt her: 43 and they were called - what were they called? [The Flyers (N)] 43 44 The Flyers. and they are top of the League. (both girls)

So, from Shvinder, we have a monologue which has a style more akin to a literary, written narrative, in spite of all the expressive phonology and direct speech; whereas Aqeels is a collaborative effort with a definite oral style. - 353 -

Chapter 8 Banfield (1982), taking narrative to be synonymous with written fiction, makes the distinction between language-as-discourse and language-as-narration. She claims that most language use is discourse, which she defines as text (spoken or written) that is both communicative (in that it involves an addressee, at least implicitly marked in the text by second-person pronouns) and expressive (in that there is a speaker, whose subjective orientation is encoded in the text by means of tense and/or pronouns). While discourse is both communicative and expressive, narration is neither: it is text without a genuine addressee (or any textual traces of one) and text without a genuine expressivity-disclosing speaker (Toolan 1988:130). For, according to Banfield, in narration nobody speaks, so narration is viewed as unspeakable and narratorless. Therefore, in Banfields scheme, sentences that are communicative AND expressive are speakable discourse; both direct and indirect speech would be included in her speakable discourses, together with most of our everyday uses of language. At the opposite extreme, the sentence of narration is said to be devoid of either communicative or expressive functions: it is just there, and even in a first-person narration, there is still no real you. Clearly, this is an extreme view, just one position among others, in an ongoing controversy among literary narratologists as to whether written narrative fiction conforms to the socalled communication model of language, or not. However, the notions of language-as-discourse and language-as-narration are useful to us here in our discussion of discourse styles. If we equate Banfields language-as-discourse with oral-style, interactional narratives such as Aqeels above, where there is a reliance on feedback and asistance from the immediately-present hearer and also considerable reliance on the shared knowledge of speaker and hearer, we can then link language-as-narration with the decontextualized narrative style which children are ultimately intended to produce. Nevertheless, it needs to be said that our target narrative can only ever be decontextualized as far as the immediate situation is concerned, but never as it relates to the broader cultural framework. (Even Aesops Fables can really only be meaningful if the moral is in some way applicable to the situation of the hearer/reader.) Similarly, narration can only be unspeakable and narratorless in so far as the narrator is perceived by the addressee to be removed or withdrawn from him/her (see chapter 2, pp. 1516):

- 354 -

Chapter 8 We stare at the narrator rather than interacting with him as we would if we were in conversation with him; and, in literary narratives especially, that narrator is often dehumanized, attended to merely as a disembodied voice. (Toolan 1988:3) The narratives we have been describing in this thesis are seen as intermediate points on a continuum between two extreme points: everday discourse on the one hand and the literary, decontextualized, unspeakable narrative on the other. Those that are nearest to pure monologue are closer to the decontextualized, preferred ideal. 8.1.2 Retelling versus Performance At the beginning of chapter 4, pages 106108, we were looking at Wolfsons (1982) performance features and, at the beginning of chapter 6, pages 204205, we referred to Leiths (1992) observations on what makes a good performance, mentioning features such as confidence and rapport with the audience. We now want to take up the whole issue of what turns a retelling into a performance. Fleischman (1990) in referring to Wolfsons performance features states: My own probings into this matter suggest that with regard to performed stories the crucial opposition is not the one she invokes between spoken and literary language where does oral literature fit in? - but between narrative designed as absent-author communication (most varieties of written narrative) and narrative designed for interactive oral performance. (Fleischman 1990:90) But what does she mean by interactive? In the last section we were describing the prompting of an incompetent narrator by his hearers, which is one kind of interaction. Here we are talking about something different, a particular telling for a particular audience, where the narrator dramatizes the story by using some of the following devices: direct speech, asides, repetition, expressive phonology, motions and gestures, or tense alternations for special effect. If we relate Wolfsons performance features to Labovs evaluative devices, we get the following parallels:

- 355 -

Chapter 8

direct speech

intensifiers external evaluation explicatives

asides

repetition intensifiers expressive sounds expressive phonology sound effects motions/gestures CHP intensifiers

comparator

Figure 8.1 And so we can see that a successful performance will involve the use of a whole battery of evaluative devices. This raises another question, posed in chapter 1, concerning whether the good narrator makes a conscious decision to use a particular set of evaluative devices or whether the selection is largely subconscious. Clearly, as we have said above, the good adult narrator is sensitive to the audiences needs and reactions and is, therefore, perhaps more aware of all the possible audience reactions than young children are. ((S)he has more to fear from the dreaded, So what?) If this is so, his/her creative decisions are certainly reasoned, and could even be described as calculating and manipulative. (For example, in writing the model stories, our two main objectives were to create characters that would appeal to young children and to weave around them stories which would not only hold their attention but also amuse and entertain them. For, the whole purpose of the exercise would be defeated if the subjects did not enjoy the stories in the first place!) As far as young children are concerned, we would expect their decisions to be, initially at least, more of an instinctive feel for what might be appropriate, based on their current knowledge and experience; this is why we introduced the storytelling task by the phrase You are to pretend to be the teacher. Peterson and McCabe (1983), in talking about some of their best narratives, mention the following characteristics, which are relevant to - 356 -

Chapter 8 the discussion: the child has a good sense of his listeners knowledge (p. 203); the first narrator colors the facts (p. 165); she sprinkles it [her account] with striking imagery such as the smell of the pine trees (p. 202); it epitomizes an important aspect of narration that appeals to people - how well the participants in an experience are portrayed (p. 204). Kernan (1977) mentions a significant difference between the assumptions behind the narratives of his younger and older subjects, which also has a direct bearing on this issue: The younger children seem to assume that the communication of the events themselves will result in the same understanding and appreciation on the part of the audience that they themselves have. The older children, on the other hand, realize that the interpretation and appreciation of the narrative events will depend, at least in part, upon knowledge that is external to the narrative events themselves. (Kernan 1977:102) Thus, as children mature they become increasingly aware of the implications of their roles as narrators. Shvinder, whose Story B has already been referred to in the previous section, accepts the invitation to assume the role of teacher and, using her present knowledge of the way teachers tell stories, performs her own story accordingly, that is until the very end, when she forgets the new name of the football team and promptly relinquishes her assumed role. Aqeel, on the other hand, does not have the confidence to assume the role of teacher at all, except perhaps briefly for the first six clauses. He seems to be to some extent intimidated by the more confident and articulate Kenneth and even lets him take over at points in the story where he is not actually at a loss for words (see p. 353). The other side of our dichotomy, therefore, is not a written absent-author narrative but a prompted retelling where the teller is reluctant to perform the assigned task and muddles through it somehow, often assisted by his addressees. We will look at our two examples again from this point of view, starting with Shvinders performed narrative, where the situation between teller and addressee(s) is that depicted in figure 2.2, page 15.

- 357 -

Chapter 8

TELLER

TALE

ADDRESSEE

Figure 8.2 Here both teller and addressee(s) have immediate access to the tale. Aqeels prompted retelling, however, has some features in common with the decontextualized written narrative in that there is no narrative contract between teller and addressee(s): the teller does not actively involve the addressee(s) in the tale, instead the addressee intervenes unilaterally without the consent of the teller. Figure 2.3, page 15 represents the situation of the teller, but not that of the addressee whose role is clearly NOT one of passive listener. The addressee also has a tale, although it is not the same tale, and his/her intervention consists of excerpts from this tale. The situation can be depicted as follows:

TELLER ADDRESSEE

TALE2 TALE

Figure 8.3 Shvinders performed narrative is delivered in an authoritative storybook style which commands the addressees attention (see p. 217); it has been coded with 90 internal evaluation devices (2.25 per clause). 73 percent of all the clauses are evaluated, 52 percent being coded for expressive phonology, and 9 percent of all the clauses are additionally coded for external evaluation. There are no discontinuities and she makes good use of conjunctions, temporal expressions and other cohesive devices. Other performance features noted are 16 instances of direct speech (36 percent of all clauses) and several strategically placed repetitions.

- 358 -

Chapter 8 In Aqeels retelling, 40 percent of the clauses are coded for expressive phonology, but this is more indicative of an appropriate use of phonological features than a performance style as such. He has a total of thirty-one internal evaluation devices coded (1.15 per clause), twentysix of which are intensifiers. 59 percent of all clauses are evaluated and there are six instances of direct speech (22 percent of all clauses). There are four clear breaks in continuity, some of the details are muddled, and there are a few cases of unclear pronominal reference. So in looking at the dichotomy retelling versus performance we have, in effect, answered a question, posed in chapter 3, as to what makes a good story, and given one reason why a particular story may be judged to be better, or more pleasurable and meaningful to the hearers, than others in the set. However, we will be looking for other factors which make a good story when we specifically focus on Labovs model in our final section. 8.1.3 The Relationship between Story Structure and Story Content In chapter 2, pages 2529, we were looking briefly at Story Grammars and noting that they represented a picture of story content, rather than story structure, and so were not particularly useful to us as a tool for the analysis of production data. However, we did suggest that at some stage it was relevant to question how well these surface discourse manifestations actually convey the story content. The content of Aqeels Story B(2) is displayed on page 28. It has three episodes, with Episodes 1 and 2 causally connected by ending-embedding, and also Episodes 2 and 3. We can see from figure 2.7 that missing elements include a goal for Episode 2 and a complex reaction for Episode 3, and there are some misplaced segments in the outcome of the final episode. A similar display for Shvinders Story B would reveal that Shvinders version yields almost the same tree-structure as the original, but lacks a complex reaction for Episode 3 and an ending for Episode 2. So, contentwise, Shvinders version is, as we would expect, more complex than Aqeels, but both versions have two unfilled nodes which indicate missing elements, and thus result in violations of ideal story structure and a story not considered to be well-formed. But, as Peterson and McCabe (1983) point out: A good narrative in terms of episodic analysis is not necessarily a good narrative in terms of high point analysis, and vice versa. (p. 172) They focus on different aspects of a narrative, the former [high point analysis] on personal significance and the latter [episodic analysis] on cognitive problem-solving. Thus, they represent the structure of narratives quite differently. (p. 174) - 359 -

Chapter 8 Therefore, we can see that both types of analysis are inadequate to represent what children are doing when they tell narratives, i.e. how they are structuring their tales (p. 186), and so a direct comparison of models does not get us very far in answering the question we raised above. Nevertheless, as a broad generalization, we can say that those narratives which are more complete as far as story content is concerned also seem to have a better surface structure in terms of length, evaluation, the amount of subordination they contain, and their overall plot structure, and are, therefore, better able to convey the story content clearly. 8.2 Evaluation as an Indicator of L2 Development The whole purpose of comparing evaluation with other possible indicators of good or bad storytelling is to build up a composite picture of why we think some stories are better than others, and to be able to trace some kind of developmental pattern, even though we are using a cross-sectional, rather than longitudinal research design. Looking again at the headings chosen for the subsections of section 8.1 the narrative task, we see that there appears to be a progression from the production of a collaborative narrative towards a monologue, and from a prompted retelling towards a performance, but we could conclude from the two data examples discussed above that these are matters of personal preference and style, rather than indicators of language development as such. Peterson and McCabe (1983), in discussing factors which influence first-person experiential narration and narrative structure, list the following factors as being the most salient: These five factors - evaluation, causality, syntactic complexity, description, and temporal sequencing - all directly or indirectly play a role in structuring childrens narratives, as depicted by our three analyses. There are other factors that remain offstage, but that also have a part in structuring narration. These off-stage factors include aspects of the child, of the experience described, and of the listener. (p. 190) So are we right in assuming that Aqeel was less successful than Shvinder because she was ahead of him in L2 development? Could it not be argued that, as she had an outgoing personality she, therefore, felt more confident and happy to perform her stories, and that is all? However, Peterson and McCabe (1983) were able to prove from their large sample of 288 stories, from ninety-six children aged from 4 to 9, and a detailed three-dimensional analysis of their data, that the development of discourse structures appears to be a quantitative or qualitative one depending upon the nature of the analysis through which - 360 -

Chapter 8 we view childrens narratives (p. 191). Using Labovs high-point analysis they discovered that both the elements of childrens narratives and the nature of their structures change with age (p. 192). Our narrow age-range of a mere two years does not allow us to make such a strong claim, but we can at least claim that there is both a quantitative AND a qualitative shift with increasing general proficiency in English as an L2, i.e. that more devices are actually produced and also that they are used more effectively. The poor storytellers produce narratives in which we find islands of local evaluation unconnected, or poorly connected, to other islands of local evaluation; whereas in those of the best story-tellers we find that these same devices often contribute to a globally coherent and entertaining narrative. So, in answer to the first question raised in chapter 1, namely: is there any EVIDENCE in the data for the development of evaluative syntax with age and increasing language experience and proficiency? we can claim that there is. In chapter 4, page 110, we did establish some correlation of L2 language ability with age for six of the eight subjects, which is at least sufficient to add qualified support to Peterson and McCabes findings. With more data, more subjects and a wider age range, and using the same methods and analysis, but with more representative statistical tests, we would have been able to make much stronger claims. 8.2.1 Evaluation, Subordination and Syntactic Complexity This is an area we looked at in some detail in chapter 4, pages 140146, because we believe it to be an important one. The wording of the question posed in chapter 1 is: how does the development of evaluative syntax correlate with OTHER indicators of syntactic complexity, such as the amount of subordination used for purposes other than evaluation? The short answer is that it correlates quite well. Peterson and McCabe (1983) claim similar findings from their much larger sample: In a more direct consideration of structure, we found a decrease in the number of simple co-ordinate sequences that is complemented by an increase in the number of ideal hierarchies - the two extremes of sophistication in dependency structure. (p. 193) However, their model of syntactic dependency needs some elucidating:

- 361 -

Chapter 8 In a number of ways, dependency analysis asks how coherent is any given discoursedependency analysis depicts the syntactic relations amongpropositions rather than the nature of their contentWhether a given proposition is co-ordinate or subordinate to any other given proposition is the principle question addressed by dependency analysis. Having undergone dependency analysis, propositions are displayed as a hierarchy, revealing the (hierarchical) syntactic complexity of a given discourse. (p. 4) Clearly, this does not compare directly with what we have been doing: Peterson and McCabe were looking at global, rather than at local syntactic complexity, and it is local syntactic complexity that is represented in our tables of structures and devices in chapters 4 and 5. However, if we look at our two example stories we will find that they do give some evidence of the general tendencies we have been noting in previous chapters. Of the ninety internal evaluative devices coded for Shvinders Story B, twenty-three (36 percent) are syntactic devices (i.e. Comparators, Correlatives, and Explicatives); whereas in Aqeels Story B(2) there are only five Comparators (16 percent), and no Correlatives or Explicatives. Shvinder has fourteen subordinate clauses (32 percent of all clauses) and Aqeel has 6 (22 percent of all clauses). Then, if we follow Kernan (1977) and look at the clausal connectives and and so, we do get some indications of global subordination and co-ordination. Kernan found that among his subjects, with age, there was a change in the relative frequency of use of two simple sets of clausal connectives: and, then, and and then, on the one hand (where the clauses so linked are said to be either independent of each other, or have only a temporal-sequential interrelationship); and so, so then, and and so then, on the other hand (where the following clause is said to depend on the preceding one in order to be properly understood). In our two stories, Shvinder provides fifteen examples of and (i.e. 34 percent of all clauses are co-ordinate structures of some kind), and Aqeel provides nine (i.e. 33 percent of all clauses are co-ordinate structures); however, Shvinder also has eight instances of so (i.e. 18 percent of all her clauses involve some sort of global subordinate relationship with the preceding clause), whereas Aqeel has none. All Kernans subjects were over seven so there is no direct comparison between his data and ours; however, this general tendency for co-ordination to decrease as subordination increases is widely reported in the literature (see chapter 5, p. 169).

- 362 -

Chapter 8 8.2.2 Evaluation and Overall Coherence In chapter 5, page 158, we noted the negative correlation which could be drawn between the amount of evaluation found in the set of narratives and the number of inter-clausal pauses which we have been calling discontinuities. Then, in section 8.1.1 we noted the discontinuities in Aqeels Story B(2) and in section 8.1.2 how these related to evaluation. We now want to look at coherence in more general terms; coherence is not just an absence of breaks in continuity but a global concept related to global level discourse functions within a narrative. In chapter 2, section 2.4.6, where we first introduced our view of the interrelationship of evaluation and plot construction as two sides of the same coin - effective communication within narrative, we quoted the opening of Shvinders Story B as an example of this interrelationship (see pp. 4748), making a few general remarks about it which are all related in some way to the question of coherence. We noted the presence of a distinct orientation section, the clear presentation of temporal sequence and nominal-pronominal reference, the effective use of direct speech (with the correct first-person pronouns), and the use of expressive phonology and other evaluative devices (which also serve as cohesive devices), tying events together and presenting the listener with a coherent product for his/her attention. Then, on page 50, we listed some of the features we would put under the heading of poor plot construction. As well as the more obvious discontinuities, lack of orientation, disordered temporal sequencing, and ambiguous pronominal reference, we noted other features which prevent coherence and frustrate listeners, i.e. meaningless repetition, over- or under-elaboration of details, and lack of the appropriate vocabulary required for the telling. Finally, we ended chapter 2 (see pp. 5455) with a quotation from Bamberg (1987), contrasting the young childs notion of a globally coherent narrative schema with his/her inability to filter this schema down to the level of forming the appropriate sequential segments so that a locally cohesive interpretation comes into existence (p. 17). Coherence and cohesion have to do with all the devices, phonological, syntactic, and lexical, which speakers use in discourse to tie the text together so that it is recognized by their hearers as a unified whole. In narrative there are specific devices, such as devices for indicating temporal orientation, which mark that particular discourse as a narrative. Bamberg (1987) suggests that the only way to plug the explanatory gap between what children know (globally) about narrative schemata and what they know (locally) about how to link the various segments of their narratives together is to undertake a detailed study of

- 363 -

Chapter 8 the growth of these cohesive devices, and the functions these devices serve as children of different ages employ them in their own productions of cohesive/coherent discourse (p. 17). In a small way this is what we have been seeking to do. We have noted that our better storytellers not only, quantitatively, employ more devices than the others, but they also, qualitatively, employ them in more effective ways. We claim that, in the main, these differences are developmental; however, it is also clear that factors inherent in the interactive situation may be at work, such as the personality of the speaker, the difficulty of the task, the interference of the hearer or the lack of rapport between speaker and hearer, or the speaker feeling physically unwell at the time. Nevertheless, in our data we do find that the more able subjects produce more globally coherent narratives than those who have less ability in English as an L2. 8.2.3 The Problem of L2 Syntax In chapter 2, page 45, we briefly mentioned the work of Schumann (1978), Andersen (1981), and Baynham (1988) on adult second-language. All these researchers have discussed the restricted nature of some L2 syntax, which Andersen describes as pidginized, saying that it is probably characteristic of all early second-language acquisition. We posed the question as to whether the appearance of evaluation would be an indication of depidginization; we will now take up the matter in slightly more detail. Wode (1981) states that from the point of view of language acquisition pidgins are L2s mirroring early stages of development (p. 74). Researchers, such as Schumann (1975) and Meisel (1976), noted that the early speech of naturalistic L2 learners tends to be similar to pidgins and this led to speculations about whether pidginization, creolization, and decreolization could function as a model for naturalistic L2 acquisition. Such speculations were based on three major questions: (1) to what extent does the linguistic structure of L2 learner utterances parallel those found in pidgins and creoles? (2) Can the fact that not all L2 learners make the same amount of progress be explained by comparable variables that keep a pidgin/creole from developing further into a full-blown language or towards some standard? (3) Can pidginization and L2 acquisition be regarded as due to the same simplification regularities as evidenced in other simplified varieties, such as babytalk or foreigner talk. It is the first question which is of interest to us here, but, surprisingly, it does not seem to have received very much attention to date. Researchers have pointed out the preverbal - 364 -

Chapter 8 placement of the negative in some negative constructions, the lack of inflections, the deletion of the copula, and the word order patterns of interrogative structures but the actual investigations have not been very detailed. However, in looking through our data from the two least able speakers, we find no evidence for suggesting that their speech is pidginized, e.g. the following from Shazia: A17 A1 C4 E10 C8 and Fehdah: B4 it ^ for nother Christmas F18 ice-cream was nice he ^ not want it he look^ he go to school he fall off ^ long time in the journey E4 F2 D9 A10 Im not playing hes buying the drink he walked around he went outside

The data items on the left are simplifications with inflections, the copula, and an auxiliary omitted, which can be paired with non-simplified examples. What we have here are examples of learner variations; Baynham (1988) describes learner varieties as approximations ranging in some kind of space (generally a continuum) towards a target, native-speaker variety (p. 148). Bickerton (1981) emphasizes the notion of linguistic change in relation to learner varieties: While there is no pre-existing model for historical change, there is a model for acquisitional change, whether we are talking about first or second language acquisition, dipidginization or decreolization, i.e. the native adult version of the target language. (Bickerton 1981:204) However, it would be interesting to get similar data from nursery school Panjabi L1 speakers to see whether, in fact, their English can be described as pidginized. We would then have some basis for contrasting their speech with that of our infant school Panjabi L1 speakers, and for proposing that the pidginized speech of the nursery school is becoming depidginized in the infant school, and that the appearance of evaluative syntax is one indication of this depidginization process. Wode (1981), states that ultimate learner success tends to be lower with adults due to some age-dependent lack of ability to adapt socio-culturally (p. 7), and again, that age

- 365 -

Chapter 8 may well influence learner success in terms of final achievement, rate of progress, and, possibly, other aspects (p. 197). Therefore, we would expect that young L2 subjects would progress rapidly from the production of pidginized forms to more variable learners varieties during a period of depidginization, and then ultimately reach the target, nativespeaker variety. 8.2.4 L2 Narrative Development and L2 Aquisition In chapter 1 we gave the briefest of reviews of the field of L2 research and then claimed that this study was intended as a contribution towards our understanding of the regularities of L2 narrative development and we also claimed that it offered some explanation for the inherent variability found in any corpus of L2 performance data. Thus, as we have looked at the narratives from different points of view we have, under different guises, been concerned with regularities on the one hand, and evidences of variability on the other. When we talk about regularities in L2 narrative development, we are describing some kind of developmental sequence, or series of stages, through which all learners pass as they mature, such as those tentatively suggested in the previous section. Ellis (1992) describes the notion as follows: The notion of sequence refers to the idea that grammatical properties are acquired in a relatively fixed order such that feature z cannot be acquired before feature y has been acquired, which in turn is only learnable when x has been mastered etc. It is an extremely powerful notion, giving substance to the term interlanguage and lending support to the claims that L2 acquisition is the product of innate factors that govern how and when different grammatical operations are mastered. (p. 10) Strong evidence for the existence of developmental sequences has been provided by researchers such as Wong Fillmore (1976), Wode (1981), Meisel, Clahsen and Pienemann (1981), and Jordens (1988). It should be noted, however, that, although there is a substantial body of research that testifies to the presence of developmental sequences in L2 acquisition, there is also counter-evidence to suggest that considerable variation in the order of acquisition can occur as a product of factors such as a learners L1 and the context of learning. Ellis (1992) notes that for some researchers the notion of developmental sequences remains a speculative one (p. 10). Some have suggested that developmental sequences are only evident in spontaneous production and that the order in which L2 items enter a learners abstract knowledge system is not so predetermined (p. 10). There - 366 -

Chapter 8 is also considerable disagreement over how developmental sequences are to be explained: cognitive explanations vie with explanations based on models of Universal Grammar. Key issues for researchers such as Ellis are: (1) is the developmental sequence found in naturalistic learners also found in instructed learners? and (2) is it possible to alter the natural developmental sequence through formal instruction? All the studies referred to above, except Wong Fillmores, were concerned with syntax and/or morphology; Wong Fillmores study was set within the larger context of social integration and interaction, and ours within the context of the structure and L2 acquisition of a particular discourse genre. We have looked at two stages on a continuum from a collaborative, interactive discourse to a monologue, and from a retelling to a performance, and also at the quantitative and qualitative growth in the use of evaluative devices with increasing language proficiency in an L2. The inherent variability of language-learner language has, according to Ellis (1992) attracted considerable attention from researchers. (See Tarone (1988) for a survey of variability studies.) As we have seen from the data, learners seem to go through stages when they alternate between two or more ways of expressing a given structure, e.g. the following variations with the verb run from Aqeel: standard: immature L1: mature dialect form: He ran to the horse. He runned to Billy. He run to London. (E3) (E10) (B(1)7)

These data clearly demonstrate the interplay of developmental and dialect features which give rise to the alternations observed in the speech of young L2 speakers. Variability can be of two kinds. In some cases, as in Aqeels above, the variation may seem to be arbitrary with the learner selecting more or less haphazardly from his/her repertoire of forms for performing a given structure (Ellis 1992:11). In others, the use of alternative variants is systematic in the sense that it is possible to explain and perhaps even to predict when each variant will be used. However, if we are to explain systematic variability, a number of factors need to be considered (Ellis 1989); these may be sociolinguistic, linguistic, or psycholinguistic in origin. Variability can also be explained with reference to functional models of language and formfunction relationships: the process of

- 367 -

Chapter 8 acquiring an L2 involves learning which forms in the target language can be mapped on to which functions. Once again, there is disagreement among researchers over the significance of variability phenomena in the study of L2 acquisition and also over how best it can be explained. Is it an aspect of competence, as Tarone and Ellis argue, or merely a reflection of performance factors, as Gregg (1990) argues? The evidence from our data seems to suggest that both might be involved: Aqeel does not seem to know which form of the verb run is the target form; it could be that he has not yet mastered the inherent irregularity, or that he is influenced by his hearers in the interactive situation. Then again, Ellis (1992) chapter Interlanguage variability in narrative discourse examines how planning time affects the use of past tense forms; this may also be a factor in Aqeels apparently random selection of past tense forms for run in the process of telling oral narratives, when there is very little time in which to plan what to say next. 8.2.5 L1 and L2 Narratives We have found no similar L1 - L2 studies of narrative discourse in the literature with which to compare our own data, so this section will be a brief summary of our findings from Chapter 5. On page 167 we commented on the fact that the L1 narratives are longer than their L2 counterparts but that the percentages of subordination and external evaluation in the two sets of stories are roughly the same. However, we did find that the L1 subjects have acquired and are able to use a greater variety of subordinate constructions than their L2 peers. When we looked specifically at relative clauses (see p. 169) we noted that they occur more frequently in the L1 narratives and, also, that they are expressed in standard English, rather than the informal style which seems to be the style preferred by the L2 speakers. The L1 subjects produce more internal evaluation than their L2 peers in all four evaluative categories, with one individual exception. In quantity, the L2 subjects produce only two thirds of that used by their L1 peers and, with the exception of the Correlatives, this proportion varies very little from category to category. However, the distribution within the four categories is remarkably similar for both groups of learners. When it comes to errors, we find that the L2 subjects make more than twice as many errors as their L1 peers, and also that they make a greater variety of errors; however, of the L2 grammatical errors, all but one in the small sample chosen are similar to the - 368 -

Chapter 8 developmental errors made by younger L1 speakers (see p. 173). Discourse errors are the only errors which are directly relevant to issues relating to narrative structure; they affect overall sentence organization and significantly hinder communication, whereas, in most cases, grammatical, lexical, and phonological errors do not (see pp. 172174). We divided discourse errors into errors which stem from the childs incomplete understanding of the macro-structures of a narrative (i.e. Title, Orientation, Narrative Section, and Coda) and those that involve the micro-syntax (i.e. clausal connectives, participant reference, and tense-aspect relations, as well as other kinds of discourse error, such as omissions, errors in speech reporting, and the use of subordination). As expected some discourse errors, such as the use of double speech margins, occur in both L1 and L2 narratives; others, such as introducing direct speech by the complementizer that, and the novel repetition of a participle clause (e.g. I am fed up because for cooking and cooking) are typical L2 errors. We discussed a wide range of individual errors, some of which may be purely idiosyncratic while others may be generalized to apply to all L2 learners. However, in a small cross-sectional study of this nature, using a natural communication task, it is often not possible to say with any degree of certainty if a particular error is developmental or interlingual. We also noticed that some discourse omissions were, in fact, legitimate examples of ellipsis. As expected, the L2 speakers made more errors in this area than those with English as an L1, and we commented that this was a matter of communicative competence: some L2 subjects have yet to grasp the importance of prior mention in discourse. 8.3 An Appraisal of Labovs Model and His Notion of Evaluation In our discussions of Labovs model in chapter 2, we have mentioned slight reservations concerning its adequacy, both descriptively and theoretically, in two specific areas: the first has to do with his view of the narrative clause and the second with the whole notion of evaluation. Fleischmann (1990) states that: Linguistic definitions of narrative are generally founded on the assumption that iconic sequence is the default clause order, or narrative norm. Thus Labov (1972:359f.) defines narrative as a method of recapitulating past experience by matching a verbal sequence of clauses to the sequence of events (it is inferred) actually took place. (p. 132)

- 369 -

Chapter 8 On page 31 we mentioned Toolans (1988) reservation concerning the restrictiveness of the Labovian view of the narrative clause. According to Labov, only certain kinds of independent clauses may function as narrative clauses, thus excluding any kind of temporal reordering. Toolan shows that any version of events where there is presentational reordering through subordination, is simply not a narrative in Labov and Waletzkys terms, even though it is an acceptable recapitulation of experience (1967:148). So we have a non-iconic mismatch here. Is Labov being too simplistic in limiting his focus of enquiry to the independent clause? The analysis may, indeed, work well for the particular narratives Labov collected, but we might well ask how it would work for more complex full-length novels where narrators do not always choose to describe events in iconic order but employ various techniques of temporal reordering to achieve particular aesthetic or psychological effects. For instance, Fleischmann (1990) notes that in oral literature and in traditional story-telling, where the tales are generally familiar, an accurate or logical chronology is not essential (p. 133). However, Fleischmann does also express positive support for the application of Labovs model to more complex narratives: Although Labovs model was designed to represent the structure of simple natural narratives with, usually, but a single point to make, the framework can be adapted to structurally more complex texts. For one thing, narrative structure involves considerable recursivity, whether or not this is formalized as episodes. After an apparent resolution, new complications arise, reach their respective peaks, and lead to new (positive or negative) resolutions. Markedly episodic movement often represents an adaptation of text structure to the pragmatic conditions of seriated oral narration, whether performed by professional storytellers or on weekly television. (p. 155) In our discussion of evaluation in chapter 2, section 2.4.2, we expressed a potential difficulty with Labovs notion of evaluation (see pp. 3435). This is the fact that it is a somewhat nebulous concept which is difficult to pin down and, hence open to question. How can we be sure that we are not reading into a narrative form a particular evaluation which was never intended by the narrator? There is no real answer to this, apart from the fact that many researchers from Kernan (1977) to Bamberg and Damrad-Frye (1991) have used the concept and added to it very successfully to characterize their own data. We, also, are reasonably happy with our results, feeling confident that there is something worth investigating in this notion of evaluation and that the research is justified.

- 370 -

Chapter 8 However, we do need to spell out more clearly, perhaps, the rationale for broadening our concept of evaluation to include extra devices which, in some cases, differ from those used by other researchers. In section 4.2.5, and in the detailed discussion in chapters 6 and 7, we outlined the subjective reasons for each addition: namely, that, in our judgment, these nonLabovian categories go way beyond the referential function of narrative and, according to Labov, any such departures from the basic narrative syntax have a marked evaluative force (1972a:378). The crux of the matter is our judgments, and whether or not we are guilty of doing exactly what some critics have accused Labov of doing, i.e. reading an evaluation into the use of a particular structure not intended by the narrator. We have corroborative evidence for some of our additions: Tannen (1982b) refers to direct quotation as a common form of internal evaluation (see chapter 2, p. 41) and Wolfson (1982) lists direct speech as one of her performance features; Grimes (1975) mentions derogatory remarks as being evaluations (see p. 35); and Schiffrin (1987) refers to embedded orientation as being importantfor the point of the story (see chapter 7: p. 344). Schiffrins work on discourse markers was referred to in section 6.5; she defines interjections as sequentially dependent elements which bracket units of talk (1987:31) and so interjections, direct address, and exclamations can clearly be said to serve as dramatic features, making the story talk more vivid, life-like, and authentic. Our emphasizers are no more than a subset of lexical intensifiers which Peterson and McCabe (1983) collectively call gratuitous terms, and the use of the present tense or, more accurately, tense-switching from past to historic present is, again, one of Wolfsons (1982) performance features. The devices which do not figure in other studies are single appositives, the use of L1 Panjabi, compound phrases and optional prepositional phrases not regarded as part of the basic syntax, and clarifications. There is no real problem with compound phrases and optional prepositional phrases as they very obviously significantly complicate the syntax in order to contribute to the narrative point. Departures into Panjabi are clearly special cases, peculiar to our data, and the content itself is more or less pure evaluation. The least convincing, controversial ones, are single appositives and clarifications and we voice our own doubts about these.

- 371 -

Chapter 8 8.3.1 Evaluation as a Measure of Narrative Ability Kernan (1977) states that: Narrativesare concerned with more than making sense. They are also concerned with being appreciated, being amused, being considered well done, and so on. That is to say, some elements of most narratives are devoted to fulfilling the expressive function. (p. 100) Kernans expressive function is similar to, but not identical with, Labovs evaluation function. However, he found that there was a steady growth, with age, in the occurrence of clauses which serve this expressive function. In our study, as we have said elsewhere, we were not relating the amount of evaluation found directly to age, but to language ability in English as an L2. However, we did find that evaluation proved to be a suitable measure for the assessment of narrative ability, especially when we established a correlation with other possible measures of narrative ability (see chapter 4). As a model it has some explanatory power and is a suitable tool for sorting out the data. Nevertheless, like Kernan (1977), we also modified Labovs evaluative categories to serve our own purposes and characterize the data. The main weakness of the study was not the measure we were using, but the fact that we were more or less obliged to use a cross-sectional research design with only a small group of subjects. However, Roger Brown (1973) argued that the collection of rich speech samples from a small number of subjects would reveal as much, if not more, about universal trends in language acquisition as the use of relatively sparse speech corpora from large numbers of subjects (Dulay, Burt and Krashen 1982:245). Clearly, one has to weigh up the advantages of obtaining an in-depth understanding of the developmental processes of a select few with the disadvantage that the results may turn out to be atypical. However, within a school context, especially a school with a constantly changing population, a study requiring a long-term commitment on the part of researcher and subjects is not feasible: children leave without notice and the researcher, although assisted by the school staff, is tolerated rather than welcomed with open arms as his/her presence inadvertently disrupts the familiar routines of school life. Being sensitive to the true nature of affairs, one wished to collect the data as quickly as possible, within reason, although the contact was actually maintained for a year or so afterwards.

- 372 -

Chapter 8 8.3.2 Good and Bad Stories To say that a particular story is either good or bad involves making a value judgment and a direct comparison with all the other stories in the set. Peterson and McCabe (1983) asked seven independent adult judges to rate each of their 288 narratives on a six-point scale. They report that: people are favorably impressed by narratives chock-full of emotional commentary [evaluation? RM] about sophisticated problem-solving [good content? RM] that includes detailed description of what objects and events were involved [good plot? RM]. No one of these components is sufficient unto itself for a good narrative. (p. 201) Peterson and McCabe used three different kinds of analysis to characterize their data; also, they collected first-person experiental narratives and did not look at evaluation in quite the same way as we did. Surprisingly , they report that there was no significant age changes in the proportion of evaluative narrative comments (p. 57). In characterizing our good stories, we looked at narrative structure in terms of the number of macro-structure components which were present: a good story contains an orientation, a narrative section and a coda; only Humira supplies titles for three of her stories. We have thirty-one well-formed narratives with all three components present, and seven without separate codas, which are also well-formed because the concluding events effectively terminate the action (e.g. So he gave the prizes to the horse; O.K. then, bye, said the White Christmas). A good story contains plenty of evaluative devices, particularly expressive phonology, direct speech, lexical items, repetitions, negatives, modals, progressives, and simple causal constructions. Good stories are also longer than bad or indifferent stories, containing more subordination, fewer breaks in continuity and less errors, especially discourse errors. In chapter 4 we stated that one of our objectives was to see how well Labovs model characterizes what we consider to be good or bad about the narrative texts in the corpus. Clearly, it is useful as a means of making a simple two-way division of this sort, but it has its limitations if we wanted to make finer distinctions between say all the good ones, and try to rank them in order of merit. We might also question whether our additional evaluation devices improve the fit between model and data: we claim that without them we would not be adequately accounting for the data and that there is a

- 373 -

Chapter 8 significant difference between experiental narratives and fantasy tales. Peterson and McCabe (1983) compared their corpus with that of Stein and Glenn (1979) who elicited fictional stories; they concluded that, although they may share similarities of structure, there were basic differences between the two genres and that the factual stories were actually more complex. Ours are different again, in that they are reinterpretations of model stories. However, whatever the genre, good story structure and plenty of evaluation do not entirely account for the quality of a narrative. We have said nothing about story content or aesthetic worth, or even about more elusive qualities such as charm, flair, and creativity. Examples of these could possibly be found in stories which contain surprising lexical items (e.g. He couldnt find the mind in his head), creative lexical errors (e.g. But then he went to the school-look-after-man), or non-standard intonation patterns, each of which have their own unique kind of charm and fascination. The answer to the question raised in chapter 4, is the notion of evaluation subtle enough to capture the instinctive reaction of the hearer to the impact of a good story? must be in the negative. We doubt whether any model would be delicate enough to capture such inspirational qualities as originality and audience appeal.

- 374 -

Appendix 1

APPENDIX 1 The displayed Narrative Texts which comprise the bulk of the data: the 45 stories produced by the eight L2 speakers. The nine stories produced by L1 interlocutors have not been displayed here, although samples from them have been used in the discussion of L1 and L2 differences in chapter 5. Errors are indicated by words enclosed in brackets and the corrected version above the line in cursive script. Also included in this appendix, at the end of each set of stories, are the six Model Stories.

- 375 -

Appendix 1

SHVINDER and NINA: SHVINDERS STORY A ORIENTATION Conj 1 2 AND Temp ONE DAY he Subj MR. WO-ONG Verb WENT was ... Loc INto a HOUSE ?? ^ EVALUATION Verb said,
Is THERE left? ANY UM RI-ICE ---

EVALUATION INT/Phon

NARRATIVE Conj 3 4 And Subj his WIFE Comp

INT/Phon INT/D.Sp INT/Qua COM/Que EVALUATION

ORIENTATION Conj 5 6 NARRATIVE Conj 7 8 And Subj he Aux Verb TOLD Comp his WIFE, Loc Temp But Temp
WHEN

Subj
HE

Verb
LOOKED

Loc
IN the CUPboard

INT/For INT/Phon COM/Neg EVALUATION

it

WAS NO-OT

THERE.

[DARling dear,]
THERE ISNT ANy rice in the CUPboard.

INT/Phon INT/D.Sp INT/D.Ad INT/Lex INT/Qua INT/Rep COM/Neg INT/D.Sp COM/Q.Mod

9 10 BUT 11 And 12

SHE
we

SAID,
HAVE (HAD) to OPen the SHOP toDAY.

he
THERE

said, NO
s LEF T. (NONE) RICE

INT/D.Sp INT/Qua COM/Neg INT/Phon INT/D.Sp COM/Mod COM/Que INT/Phon INT/D.Sp INT/Int COM/Neg

13 SO
can we DO-O? DONT KNO-OW,

WHAT

14 WELL

- 376 -

Appendix 1
NARRATIVE Subj 15 Mr. WONG. ORIENTATION Conj 16 SO Temp ONE DAY, WHEN Subj
HE

EVALUATION Verb SAID EVALUATION Verb

was aSLEEP,

INT/Phon INT/For INT/S.Ap EVALUATION

NARRATIVE Subj 17 a SNOWMAN Verb KNOCKED Loc at the DOOR.

INT/Phon EVALUATION

ORIENTATION Conj 18 But Temp

WHEN

Subj
MR. WONG

Verb
SAW

Comp
IT,

INT/Phon INT/For

NARRATIVE Subj 19 20 ORIENTATION Conj 21 22 23 NARRATIVE Conj 24 Temp suddenly Subj the RICE Aux STARTed Verb to TALK Comp INT/Phon INT/Lex COM/Q.Mod
that

Verb THOUGHT
was

Comp

he
it

RICE

EVALUATION Subj it Verb WASnt.

WENT to get the BOWL and the SPOON,

Temp

Comp COM/Neg INT/Phon INT/For INT/Phon COR/C.NP EVALUATION

but SO
when

he

25

BUT (AND)

MR. WONG

THOUGHT

SUSPENSION OF THE ACTION COM/Neg EVALUATION

26 ORIENTATION Conj 27 28 and But

when

(the) RICE

didnt

TALK

Temp

Subj HE
he

Aux was

Verb talking.
SAW

Comp

Temp COR/B-ing INT/For

it

aGAIN

- 377 -

Appendix 1
NARRATIVE Conj Subj Aux Verb Comp Loc EVALUATIVE ACTION 29 30 31 32 and he HE
I RICE didnt could

EVALUATION

DROPPED said,
KNOW SPEAK!

his BOWL and his SPOON

INT/Rep COR/C.NP INT/D.Sp COM/Neg INT/Phon INT/D.Sp COM/Mod INT/Phon INT/D.Sp COM/Neg INT/D.Sp EMBEDDED ORIENTATION

33 34

And

he
I

said,
am NOT RICE.

35

AM

a SNOWman.

36 37
But

MY NAME you dont

IS LOOK

MR. WALter KRIStel. like a SNOWman!

INT/Phon INT/D.Sp INT/Phon INT/D.Sp COM/Neg INT/D.Sp INT/Int INT/D.Sp

38 39 40 41 42 43

But
STILL,

the SNOWman
I

said,
AM a SNOWman.

And

he
I you

said,
thought were AM not. RICE.

INT/D.Sp INT/Phon INT/D.Sp COM/Neg EMBEDDED ORIENTATION

But

44

And

he

SAID,

45 46 47 48 and

I that Father CHRISTmas Father CHRISTmas! WHO

LIVE s LIVES. s Father CHRISTmas? WHERE

NEAR THE POLar bears

INT/D.Sp INT/D.Sp EXP/S.Qual INT/D.Sp INT/Phon INT/D.Sp INT/Exc INT/Rep COM/Que EMBEDDED ORIENTATION

49

he

said.

- 378 -

Appendix 1
NARRATIVE Conj 50 51 52 53
beCAUSE

EVALUATION Subj
He He he PRESents! he

Aux

Verb
makes MAKES GIVES Will give

Comp/Man

Loc/Temp INT/D.Sp INT/D.Sp INT/Lex INT/D.Sp EXP/S.Caus INT/D.Sp INT/Exc COM/Que COM/Mod INT/D.Sp INT/Int INT/D.Sp COM/Mod

CHILDren LAUGH. them HAPpy them PRESents. me some RICE?

54 55 56 57

WELL! if

YOU he MIGHT.

send

him a LETter

SO

the SNOWman
I am

SAID,
getting . TOO HOT HERE.

EMBEDDED ORIENTATION INT/D.Sp INT/L.Int COR/B-ing INT/D.Sp COM/Q.Mod COR/B-ing

QUICKly O.K.BYE, SNOWman. BACK to my HOUSE.

58

m STARTing to MUST

MELT go

59 60 And

INT/D.Sp COM/Mod INT/D.Sp INT/D.Ad INT/Int INT/Phon INT/Phon INT/D.Quo INT/D.Ad

he

said,

61 62 63

And and

he it
I

WROTE said,
WISH would GIVE

A LETter

[DEAR FAther CHRISTmas,]

64

you

me some RICE to the SHOP YESterday

INT/D.Quo COM/Mod INT/D.Quo EXP/S.Caus INT/D.Quo INT/Phon INT/D.Quo INT/D.Sp INT/Qua COM/Neg EMBEDDED ORIENTATION

65 66 67

CAME
beCAUSE and There MY CUStomers I said, ISnt ANy RICE. (WENT)

68

And

THEY

WERE

VERy SAD.

INT/Phon INT/D.Quo INT/L.Int INT/Lex

- 379 -

Appendix 1
NARRATIVE Conj 69 Subj he SO he Aux Verb wrote. SENT (SENDed) OFF POSTed it to FAther CHRISTmas. it to FAther CHRISTmas. Comp
THANK you,

EVALUATION INT/D.Quo

70 71

INT/Phon

He ORIENTATION Conj 72 And Temp

EXP/Cl.Sen EVALUATION

Subj
the FIRE

Verb
was out

THEN, in the NIGHT when

INT/Phon INT/For COR/D.Ap EVALUATION

NARRATIVE Subj 73 ORIENTATION Conj 74 And

when

Verb CAME

Loc DOWN the CHIMney. INT/Phon EVALUATION

bag of a ^ ^ RICE

Temp

Subj Mr. WONG

he

Verb WOKE

Temp INT/For INT/S.Ap

in the MORning

(WAKED) UP

NARRATIVE Conj Temp 75 Subj he Aux COULDnt Verb beLIEVE Comp his EYES. Loc

EVALUATION INT/Phon INT/Lex COM/Neg COM/Mod INT/Phon INT/For HE WENT into the SHOP INT/Phon CAME SAID,
Is there any RICE

76

SO,

the NEXT DAY

77 78 79

and and

the CUStomers they

toDAY?

INT/D.Sp INT/Qua COM/Que INT/D.Sp INT/Int

80

And

MR. WONG

SAID,

YES.

- 380 -

Appendix 1
ORIENTATION Conj 81 So Subj the CUStomers Verb WERE Comp VERy HAPpy inDEED. INT/Phon INT/Lex INT/L.Int INT/Emp EVALUATION Subj MR. WONG Verb LIVED Manner HAPpily (HAPpier) EVer A-AFter. INT/Phon INT/Lex EVALUATION

CODA Conj 82 And

FARIBA and NADIA: FARIBAS STORY A ORIENTATION Conj/Temp 1 2 3 4 AND ONCE upon a TIME Subj THERE HIS NAME HE Aux Verb WAS was used to SELL MA-ADE Subj/Comp INT/Phon A MAN. MR. WONG. RICE HIS CUStoMERS VERy happy. INT/Phon INT/Phon COM/Q.Mod INT/Phon INT/L.Int INT/Lex EVALUATION Temp one DAY Subj the RICE He Aux Verb Comp/Loc INT/Phon INT/For the SHIPman
some

EVALUATION

NARRATIVE Conj 5 BUT,

was ALL (had BEEN) GONE. (had) ASKED

to BRING

6 7 8 BUT um

THE SHIPMAN Mr. WONG AT (ON) CHRISTmas

DID NOT

INT/Phon COM/Neg LISTen. WENT HOME. GREAT a ^ BIG, (LARGE) SNOWman. INT/Phon INT/Phon INT/Lex INT/For COR/D.At INT/Phon INT/D.Sp COM/Que COR/B-ing

9 10

SO

he

saw

11 12

HE

said,
WHY ARE TAKing

YOU

ME aWAY?

- 381 -

Appendix 1
NARRATIVE Conj 13 Temp Subj the SNOWman.
BeCAUSE YOU

EVALUATION Aux Verb said Comp/Loc

14 15 16

ARE

RICE.

INT/D.Sp EXP/S.Caus

But

the snowman
I

said,
am NOT RICE.

INT/Phon INT/D.Sp COM/Neg INT/Phon INT/D.Sp INT/Phon INT/D.Sp INT/Lex INT/D.Sp INT/Int COM/Mod COM/Que INT/Phon INT/D.Sp INT/D.Sp INT/Int

17 18 19 THEN

am

a SNOWMAN.

Mr. WONG
I

SAID,
M SORry.

20

And PLEASE you

would TELL FAther CHRISTmas some RI-ICE

21
(at) CHRISTmas NIGHT?

to deLIVer

on

22 said Mr. WONG. 23 the snowMAN. 24 So the snowMAN went BACK TOLD (TELL) ON (IN) CHRISTmas NI-IGHT FAther Christmas and he YES ^ said

(YES) PLEASE,

WILL
I (WOULD),

INT/Phon INT/D.Sp COM/Mod

to FAther CHRISTmas him ALL aBOUT it. INT/Phon INT/Qua

25

AND

26

INT/Phon INT/For CA-AME PUT GREAT a ^ BIG, (LARGE) PACKet of RICE in the CHIMney. INT/Phon INT/Lex INT/P. Qua COR/M.At

27

- 382 -

Appendix 1
ORIENTATION Temp 28 NARRATIVE Subj 29 30 31
THAT must WHEN

EVALUATION Subj
MR. WONG

Verb
WOKE UP

INT/Phon INT/For EVALUATION

Aux

Verb SAW
COMing be

Comp a BAG

Loc INT/Phon
DOWN THE CHIMney.

he

INT/Phon COR/P. Rt INT/Phon INT/D.Sp COM/Mod

the RI-ICE!

32

he

SAID. EVALUATION Subj

he

ORIENTATION Temp 33 34
WHEN

Verb
OPened

Subj/Comp
it

INT/For INT/Phon INT/P. Qua INT/Rep EVALUATION

there

was

LOTS and LOTS of RICE.

NARRATIVE Conj/Temp 35 36 Then

NOW

Subj he
MY CUStomers

Aux

Verb said,

Comp EMBEDDED ORIENTATION

VERy PLEASED

will

be

with (at) ME. CODA 37 THE END

INT/Phon INT/D.Sp INT/Lex INT/L.Int COM/Mod/Fut EVALUATION INT/Phon

SAKANDER and KENNETH: SAKANDERS STORY A ORIENTATION Subj 1 MR. WONG Verb WAS Comp a CHINaMAN. EVALUATION Subj he Verb gives out 3 BUT SOMEthing DREADful Comp RICE to ALL (ALL to) HIS CUStomers. INT/Qua COM/CHP

NARRATIVE Conj 2 AND

HAPpened.

INT/Phon INT/Lex

- 383 -

Appendix 1
NARRATIVE Conj 4 5 AND (SO) Subj His RICE HE Aux (WAS) COULDnt Verb RAN OUT do ANything aBO-OUT it. INT/Phon COM/Mod COM/Neg EVALUATION Subj MR. WONG
his RICE

EVALUATION Comp

ORIENTATION Conj 6 7 NARRATIVE Conj 8 Then Subj MR. WONG Verb SAW Comp a SNOWMAN SO Aux WAS Verb WORried RUNning
(RAN) OUT

Comp aBOUT --INT/Lex INT/Rep EVALUATION SUSPENSION OF THE ACTION INT/Phon EVALUATION

9 10

BUT

he
it

THOUGHT
WAS HIS RICE.

ORIENTATION Conj 11 12 NARRATIVE Subj 13 14 15

THEY WANT.

Subj it IT

Verb WAS NOT. WAS

Comp INT/Phon COM/Neg a SNOWMAN. - - INT/Phon EVALUATION

BUT

Verb SAID
GIVES

Comp TO MR. WONG THAT the

CHILDren ^ TOYS THAT

The SNOWMAN
FAther CHRISTmas

EMBEDDED ORIENTATION

ORIENTATION Temp 16 17 NARRATIVE Conj 18 SO Subj MR. WONG Verb WROTE Comp a LETter to FAther CHRISTmas
WHEN

EVALUATION Subj
THEY

Verb ARE
(BE)

Comp
GOOD

INT/Lex

HE

GIVES

THEM. EVALUATION

19

AND

he

WROTE,

- 384 -

Appendix 1
NARRATIVE Conj 20 Subj Aux
CAN

EVALUATION Verb Comp Loc INT/D.Ad INT/D.Quo COM/Que COM/Mod INT/Phon INT/D.Quo COM/Que COM/Mod EXP/Cl.Sen INT/D.Quo CHUCKED (CHUCK) DID NOT SLEEP. - - CHUCKED (CHUCK) some RICE DOWN the CHIMney (CHIMley) EVALUATION Subj MR. WONG FAther CHRISTmas had

[DEAR FAther CHRISTmas,] I

deLIVer SOME RICE?

21
YOU

Can
deLIVer the RICE to Mr. WONG?

22 23 24 25

[THANK you.] - - SO and FAther CHRISTmas MR. WONG FAther CHRISTmas some RICE

INT/Phon INT/Lex COM/Neg INT/Rep

CODA Conj 26 27 AND

beCAUSE

Aux

Verb was
(GIVE)

Comp HAPpy
him the RICE.

INT/Lex EXP/S.Caus

GIVEN

HUMIRA and JULIA: HUMIRAS STORY A ORIENTATION Temp 1 2 NARRATIVE Conj 3 4 5 6

A-ARE you then?

EVALUATION Subj MR. THOMas Verb went OUT

TO GET some RICE.

Comp EXP/S.Caus EVALUATION

One DAY

Subj THE RICE

I

Verb SAID,
AM NOT

Comp

Infer EMBEDDED ORIENTATION

AND

(A) SNO-OW (A) RICE.

WHAT

INT/Phon INT/D.Sp INT/D.Sp COM/Neg INT/Phon INT/D.Sp COM/Que

MR. THOMas.

SAID

- 385 -

Appendix 1
NARRATIVE Conj 8 9 SAID Mr. THOMas. 10 11 ORIENTATION Conj 12 AND Subj it Verb WAS Subj a SNOWMAN. EVALUATION Subj The SNOWMAN and
CAN I come IN? I you THOUGHT

EVALUATION Subj
I

Verb
AM

Comp (A) RICE.

(A) RICE?

Infer INT/D.Sp INT/D.Sp COM/Que INT/D.Sp

were
(was)

(A) - um - RICE.

INT/D.Sp

NARRATIVE Conj 13 Aux Verb got SAID, Comp Loc OUT of the TIN

14 15

INT/Phon INT/D.Sp COM/Que COM/Mod INT/D.Sp INT/Int

16 17 18 SO and - um -

He he

said, went TOLD

YES.

INside the HOUSE him ALL about the NORTH POLE

A LETter TO (ME).

INT/Qua

19

and ASKED HIM ^ ^ ^

TO SEND

HIM

20 21 22

AND and AND

the SNOWman

WROTE GAVE

a LETter to MR. THOMas it to HIM. GAVE a LETter to the SNOWman

MR. THOMas

23 ORIENTATION Conj 24 AND Subj the SNOWman

to READ

(it)

at HOME.

EXP/S.Caus

Verb was

Comp MELTing (MELT).

- 386 -

Appendix 1
CODA Conj 25 And Subj this Verb is Comp the END. INT/Phon EVALUATION

SHEIBA and CLARE: SHEIBAS STORY A ORIENTATION Conj/Temp 1 2 ONE day (And) Subj Mr. WONG he Verb WOKE UP had Comp/Temp SO EARly. a SHO-OP. INT/Phon INT/L.Int INT/Phon EVALUATION Aux Verb SAID,
CAN PUT

EVALUATION

NARRATIVE Conj 3 4 And ^ Subj He

I

Comp

Loc

?? - no antecedent (THIS) IN MY SHOP.

INT/Phon INT/D.Sp COM/Mod

5 6

AND

the SHOP people The PEOPle

BOUGHT (BUYed) BOUGHT (BUYED)

it. it INT/Phon INT/Rep EVALUATION

ORIENTATION Conj 7 AND Subj THERE Verb WAS LEFT. Subj NO MORE RICE

INT/Phon INT/P. Qua COM/Neg EVALUATION

NARRATIVE Conj 8 9 10 And THEN in the MORning AND Temp THEN Subj he Verb ASKED
to GET

Comp the MAN

him some MORE.

Loc/Temp INT/Phon INT/P. Qua INT/Phon INT/For INT/S.Ap INT/Phon INT/P. Qua INT/S.Ap EVALUATION

he he

WOKE up FOUND a BOX OF RICE

EARly DOWN NEXT to his door.

11 and

ORIENTATION Conj 12 AND Temp

when

Subj
he

Verb
OPened

Comp
it

INT/For

- 387 -

Appendix 1
ORIENTATION Conj 13 NARRATIVE Conj 14 15
have you

EVALUATION Temp Subj IT Verb was Comp a SNOWman EVALUATION

Subj HE

Aux

Verb said,

Comp/Man

Loc INT/D.Sp COM/Que EMBEDDED ORIENTATION

from a VERy COLD COUNtry where

and

WHERE

COME (CAME) said, COME (CAME)

from?

16

He

17

INT/D.Sp INT/L.Int INT/D.Sp COR/C.NP

18
FAther CHRISTmas and the POLar bears

LIVE. IS FAther CHRISTmas?

19

And

who

INT/Phon INT/D.Sp COM/Que EMBEDDED ORIENTATION

20 21 22

he
He who

said.
s gives the ONE LITtle CHILDren some TOYS VERy GOOD.

INT/D.Sp INT/D.Sp

23

when (and)

they

are (be)

INT/Phon INT/D.Sp INT/L.Int INT/Lex EMBEDDED ORIENTATION

24

AND but the SNOWman

It I I m going to ve got to

SAID,
s MELT. RUN as FAST as I CAN VERy HOT over HERE

25 26 27

INT/D.Sp INT/L.Int INT/D.Sp COM/Fut

back to the COUNtry

INT/D.Sp COM/Q.Mod COM/Com INT/D.Sp

28
I live.

where (that) And AND TILL he the SNOWman RAN RAN CAME back to the COUNtry

29 30 31

INT/Rep INT/Rep

- 388 -

Appendix 1
NARRATIVE Subj 32
Father Christmas

EVALUATION Verb Loc

where LIVED.

INT/Rep

ORIENTATION Subj 33 CODA 34 The END He Verb LIKED Comp FAther CHRISTmas.

EVALUATION INT/Phon INT/Lex

AQEEL and DAVID: AQEELS STORY A ORIENTATION Temp 1 ONCE upon a TIME Subj there Verb was a ^ NARRATIVE Conj 2 3 4 A-AND AND Subj He Verb SOLD Comp RICE Man ----in the MORning. INT/Rep --INT/S.Ap him. a LETter some RICE KRISpies (RICE) RICE ^ down (from) the CHIMney ALL up with (on) the FOOD. EXP/Cl.Lex INT/Int to FAther CHRISTmas Loc/Temp Subj a MAN ChiNESE MAN - - EVALUATION INT/Phon INT/S.Ap EVALUATION

the ^ RICE - um - disapPEARED. he SAW SOMEone ELSE RICE. IT.

5 6 7 Then

He He

SAW OPened

the SNOWman he HELPED He - um He TOOK (TAKED) wanted

8 9 10 yes,

?? (he)

bunged

11 But

he

ATE

it

INT/Qua

- 389 -

Appendix 1
CODA Conj 12 After ALL Subj he Aux DID Verb have Comp FOOD for CHRISTmas. INT/Phon INT/Lex EVALUATION

SHAZIA and TAMMY: SHAZIAS STORY A ORIENTATION Temp 1 One DAY Subj Mr. WONG he NARRATIVE Conj 2 3 4 5
beCAUSE

EVALUATION Verb LOOKED (LOOK) ?? ^

INT/S.Ap EVALUATION

Subj He He He
he

Aux

Verb RAN SLEPT (SLEEP)

Comp

Loc OUTSIDE.

cant
CANT

SLEEP
GO

in the BED
in the BED.

COM/Mod COM/Neg COM/Mod COM/Neg EXP/S.Caus INT/Phon COM/Neg EXP/Cl.Lex

6 7 So

He he

DIDnt

HAVE RANG

ANY (NO) RICE. the MEN SAILors

IN the MORning ^ ^ ^ He (IN the MORning)

SAW a BAG ---

INT/Phon INT/For

ORIENTATION Subj 9 NARRATIVE Conj 10 11 12 13 14 Subj He He He

I I m not

Verb had (have)

Comp RICE

Loc the in ^ BAG EVALUATION

He

Aux went

Verb SPOKE (SPE-EAK) SAID,

m HAVing

Comp

Loc outSIDE. INT/Phon EMBEDDED ORIENTATION

a SNOWMAN. the RICE.

INT/D.Sp INT/D.Sp COM/Neg COR/B-ing

- 390 -

Appendix 1
NARRATIVE Conj 15 And 16 and 17 beCAUSE
he

EVALUATION Subj HE had (have) to did

^ not WANT it.

Aux

Verb got GO

Comp OFF COM/Q.Mod COM/Neg EXP/S.Caus EXP/S.Caus his RICE INT/Phon INT/D.Sp

18 BeCAUSE 19 20 and 21

the ^ SAILors he he
I

CAME (COME), HAD (HAVE) SAID,

am LA-ATE.

FEHDAH and TOM: FEHDAHS STORY A ORIENTATION Temp 1 ONE DAY Subj MR. WONG Verb RAN out of Comp RICE. EVALUATION Subj HE Verb SA-AID Comp TO THE FACTory MAN --now...NOW.

NARRATIVE Conj 2 THEN Loc/Temp

3 4
NO,

(TO SAY)
NOT

INT/D.Sp INT/Int COM/Neg

5 6

SO

HE He

FOUND SAW

a GARage. RICE there. EVALUATION

ORIENTATION Subj 7 THERE Verb was Subj SNOWman a (SNO-OW).

INT/Phon EVALUATION

NARRATIVE Conj 8 9 10 Then 11 THEN THEN Subj HE he He HE HE the SNOWman Verb SAW MELTed. MADE SAID, it. ?? . ^ . Comp him. ---

INT/S.Ap ---

- 391 -

Appendix 1
NARRATIVE Conj 12 13 THEN Subj A BAG of RICE Verb CAME --Comp Loc DOWN the CHIMney. INT/P. Qua EVALUATION

HE - HE - HE - HE UM

MODEL STORY A: MR. WONG AND THE SACK OF RICE Mr. Wong was a Chinaman and he had a smart little Take-away in the middle of the High Street where he sold fried rice, sweet-and-sour pork, beansprouts and oodles of noodles. People liked coming into his shop to buy take-away meals. But one day something dreadful happened. Mr. Wong ran out of rice! This wouldnt have been quite so bad if it hadnt been the week before Christmas. Poor Mr. Wong was very worried - very worried indeed! He tried ringing the wholesaler; the first time he dialled the wrong number and got the garage instead, and then the number was engaged. When, at last, he did get through, the wholesaler said he could not deliver the rice because the weather was too bad. What will my customers do? he wailed down the telephone. Thats your problem, answered the wholesaler. You should have ordered it before. That night Mr. Wong could not sleep. He kept seeing the disappointed faces of all his customers - no fried rice, no savoury rice, no Take-away Specials for Christmas! What could he do? There must be something he could do! But no ideas came. The next morning he got up very early and looked out of the window. To his surprise and delight he saw what looked like a big sack of rice right outside his front door. So the wholesaler had delivered the rice after all! But why had he done it at night? And the weather was still bad; there was thick snow everywhere. Mr. Wong went down to investigate. Funny! The sack seemed to be split and some of it was missing altogether; all that was left was some odd bits of black, red and yellow sacking. Yet the rice looked O.K.. So he fetched a big bowl and a very large spoon and was just about to scoop up a spoonful when the rice spoke to him. I beg your pardon? exclaimed Mr. Wong, dropping his bowl and his spoon in amazement. He must be dreaming - rice cant speak! Youve got it wrong, Mr. Wong. What do you mean? I need rice and Im scooping it up to put in my bowl, announced Mr. Wong crossly. But Im not rice - Im snow - a snowman, in fact. You mean this - you - are not my rice after all? Who are you then? asked the bewildered Mr. Wong. My name is Mr. Walter Kristel. I have come from the Frozen North - from the land of polar bears, seals and Father Christmas, the snowman announced grandly.

- 392 -

Appendix 1
Whos Father Christmas? queried Mr. Wong. Hes the one who makes children happy at Christmas. Children write letters to him and ask him for their favourite toys; if theyve been good he gives them what they want. Oh! said Mr. Wong thoughtfully. Does he give grown-ups what they want too? I dont know. But you could always try, encouraged the snowman. So Mr. Wong wrote a note to Father Christmas. Dear Father Christmas, Could you deliver a sack of rice for Christmas Day? This would make my customers very happy. Thank you very much. Mr. Wong. Then he looked at it in dismay. How would Father Christmas get it in time? He didnt even know his address. Mr. Walter Kristel looked at him kindly, as if reading his thoughts. Look, Ill deliver it for you. Im going that way. Its too warm here - Im beginning to melt already. I must get back to the Frozen North as quickly as I can. So Mr. Wong found an envelope and tucked the letter into it. He gave it to the snowman. Then Mr. Walter Kristel slowly stood up and lumbered off down the High Street. Mr. Wong never saw him again. But, on Christmas Eve, a large sack of rice came tumbling down his chimney and put out the fire. But Mr. Wong didnt complain. His customers could have their Take-away Specials after all! And they did. They enjoyed them very much indeed.

- 393 -

Appendix 1

SHVINDER and MAHJABEEN: SHVINDERS STORY B ORIENTATION Temp 1 Once upon a TIME Subj FAther CHRISTmas Aux Verb Loc INT/Phon COR/B-ing was looking in his CUPboard EVALUATION Subj he Aux Verb saw Comp this STRANGE, GREEN, SHINy BOX. Loc INT/Phon INT/Lex INT/Lex COR/M.At EVALUATION

NARRATIVE Conj 2 and

3 4

He
I DIDnt

said,
put this in the cupBOARD.

INT/Phon INT/D.Sp COM/Neg INT/Phon INT/D.Sp

5 6 7 So and

put

someTHING ELSE.

he

went LOOKED in the BOX EVALUATION Verb were (was) Subj SIX, MAGic footBALLS. INT/Phon INT/Lex INT/Qua COR/D.At EVALUATION

ORIENTATION Conj 8 and Subj there

NARRATIVE Conj 9 SO Subj he Verb said, Comp

O-OH! FOOTballs.

INT/Phon INT/D.Sp INT/Int INT/Rep EVALUATION

ORIENTATION Subj 10 They Verb were Comp SHINy, BLACK and WHITE FOOTballs.

INT/Phon INT/Lex COR/M.At EVALUATION

NARRATIVE Conj 11 AND Subj Father Christmas Verb SAID,

- 394 -

Appendix 1
NARRATIVE Conj 12 Subj
I

EVALUATION Aux
cant

Verb
KEEP

Comp
THEM

Loc

Temp
TILL NEXT Christmas.

INT/Phon INT/D.Sp COM/Mod COM/Neg INT/D.Sp COM/Mod COM/Sup

13

must

SELL

them to

the WORST (a WORSest)

TEAM

14

that

NEVer

WON

beFORE.

INT/Phon INT/D.Sp COM/Neg

15 SO 16 and 17 but

he

went LOOKED for teams

out

he

couldnt

FIND

(not) EVen O-ONE team -

let alone ^ ^ the WORST

INT/Phon INT/Emp INT/S.Ap COM/Mod COM/Neg COM/Sup

18 So 19 AND 20

he Father Christmas
WILL you

found SAID,
HELP

this LAdy

me

INT/D.Sp COM/Mod COM/Que

21

to FIND

the (WORSest) TEAM (of) EVer?

WORST

INT/Phon INT/D.Sp INT/Emp INT/Rep COM/Sup EVALUATIVE ACTION

22

The lady

just

LA-AUGHED,
HA, ha, ha.

INT/Phon INT/D.Sp INT/Emp INT/Lex INT/Phon INT/D.Sp INT/Int INT/D.Sp INT/Int EMBEDDED ORIENTATION

23 AND

FAther Christmas she

SAID, said,

OH, PLE-EASE! O.K.

24 So

25

The

(worsest) team of ALL

worst

is

MY team.

INT/Phon INT/D.Sp INT/Qua COM/Sup

- 395 -

Appendix 1
NARRATIVE Conj Subj
I

EVALUATION Aux Verb

see NEVer WIN.

Comp
THEM

Temp INT/D.Sp INT/For INT/Phon INT/D.Sp COM/Neg

26 WHENever 27
THEY

28 SO 29 30 And

they

went
to have a DRINK.

at TWELVE Oclock in the AFterNOON they watched the FOOTball players

INT/Phon INT/Qua INT/For INT/S.Ap

ORIENTATION Subj 31 THEY Verb WERE Comp than ever WO-ORSE ^ ^ .

EVALUATION

INT/Phon COM/Com EVALUATION

NARRATIVE Conj 32 SO Subj Aux Verb Comp Temp FAther Christmas gave

them the SIX BLACK and WHITE MAGic BALLS said,

THANK you.

INT/Phon INT/Lex INT/Qua COR/M.At INT/D.Sp COM/Q.Mod EVALUATION

33 and 34 So

they they started to

PLAY

aGAIN.

ORIENTATION Conj 35 And NARRATIVE Conj 36 37

IT LIKED.

Temp
WHEN

Subj
they

Verb
kicked

Comp
IT,

INT/For EVALUATION

Temp

Subj it

Aux

Verb WENT

Comp/Loc INT/Phon
ANywhere

INT/Phon

38 And 39 Because
in the END

they

WON (WINNED). INT/Phon INT/Emp INT/For COR/B-ing EXP/S.Caus

the BOY

was JUST going to

KICK

it

- 396 -

Appendix 1
NARRATIVE Conj 40 and Temp Subj WORST the (WORSest) TEAM (of) EVer 41 And THEN Father CHRISTmas WON (WO-ONNED). Verb Comp INT/Phon INT/Emp INT/Rep COM/Sup INT/Lex conGRATulated them. CODA Conj 42 AND and 43 (and 44 and they they they are were called called the FLYers. are TOP of the LEAGUE. INT/Phon INT/Lex Subj he Aux Verb SAID Comp NOW NOW) INT/D.Quo Temp EVALUATION EVALUATION

FARIBA and OSMA: FARIBAS STORY B ORIENTATION Temp 1 Once upon a TIME 2 NARRATIVE Conj 3 Then Subj he Verb found Comp a BIG BOX. INT/Phon INT/Lex EVALUATION Subj he Verb OPened Comp it INT/For EVALUATION Subj he Verb SAW Comp TEN SHIny BALLS. Loc INT/Phon INT/Lex INT/Qua COR/D.At to some TEAMS. there He a man called WAS ^ ^ ^ looked (look) for FAther CHRISTmas. in his CUPboard some TOYS. EVALUATION Subj Verb Comp/Loc

ORIENTATION Temp 4 When

NARRATIVE Conj 5

Then

he

WENT

- 397 -

Appendix 1
NARRATIVE Conj 7 8
you

EVALUATION Aux Verb SAID,

ARE WINning?

Subj he

Comp

Temp INT/Phon INT/D.Sp COM/Que

And

And

they they
The Other ones

said, SAID,
ARE,

YES.

INT/D.Sp INT/Int INT/D.Sp EXP/Cl.Sen INT/D.Sp COM/Neg

10 And 11 12

not US (WE).

13 So

he

SAW

a GIRL

INT/Phon EVALUATIVE ACTION

14

LAUGHing

INT/Phon COR/P. Rt EMBEDDED ORIENTATION

15 and 16

she
MY team my SON is NOT

SAID,
WINning

INT/Phon INT/D.Sp COM/Neg COR/B-ing EXP/Cl.Lex NO GOALS

(NONE GOAL).

17 and

he

has

INT/D.Sp INT/Qua COM/Neg INT/Phon INT/D.Sp INT/Int COM/Fut/Mod COM/Que

18 Now,
PLEASE you will GO to the MATCH this AFternoon?

19 And

they

DID. EVALUATION Subj

Father Christmas

ORIENTATION Conj 20 And Temp

WHEN

Verb
went

Loc
DOWN

INT/For EVALUATION

NARRATIVE Conj 21 22
you

Subj he

Aux

Verb ASKED (TOLD),

Comp

Do DID

WIN (WON)

INT/D.Sp COM/Que
the GAME?

- 398 -

Appendix 1
NARRATIVE Conj 23 24 And
NO,

EVALUATION Subj he
I

Aux

Verb SAID,
DIDnt.

Comp

INT/Phon INT/D.Sp INT/Int COM/Neg

25 26 27

AND

Father Christmas
I will

SAID,
MAKE HAVE you WIN. MY MAGic BALL.

INT/D.Sp COM/Fut/Mod INT/D.Sp INT/Int INT/Lex COR/D.At INT/Phon INT/Qua EVALUATION

HERE,

28

And

they

SCORED (WON)

GOALS eLEVen (SCORES).

ORIENTATION Conj 29 And Temp THEN Subj he Aux Verb was Comp SO HAPpy
that

INT/Phon INT/L.Int INT/Lex

30 31 because (that)

Father Christmas

WENT

to apPLAUD

HIM

INT/Lex EXP/S.Caus INT/Lex INT/L.Int EXP/S.Caus EVALUATION

32

he

was

BEing

VERy GOOD.

CODA Conj 33 34 35 36 SO and And Subj they ALL THAT HE THE END Verb lived was won Comp Man HAPpily Ever AFter the END of the TEAM. a BIG MEDal.

INT/Phon INT/Qua INT/Phon INT/Phon INT/Phon

SAKANDER and VICTOR: SAKANDERS STORY B NARRATIVE Subj 1 FAther CHRISTmas Verb LOOKED at Comp CUPboard his (CUPboards).

- 399 -

Appendix 1
ORIENTATION Conj 2 AND Subj it Verb was Comp MESsy. INT/Lex INT/Phon EVALUATION Temp Subj he THEN suddenly Aux HAD to UP. Verb TIdy Comp it INT/Phon COM/Q.Mod INT/Phon INT/Lex INT/Lex INT/For COR/D.At EVALUATION

NARRATIVE Conj 3 4 So And (and)

he

SAW

a BIG GREEN BOX

And

he

OPened

it EVALUATION

ORIENTATION Conj 6 and Subj there Verb were (was) Subj BIG FOOTballs.

INT/Lex EVALUATION

NARRATIVE Conj 7 8 And Subj he

I -

Aux

Verb WONdered,

Comp/Loc INT/Lex
WHAT

shall I (I 9 10 and 11 if
ONE of the FOOTball PLAYers I will will DO!) go ASK

INT/D.Sp COM/Mod

DO?
to LONdon

INT/D.Sp COM/Fut/Mod INT/D.Sp INT/Phon INT/D.Sp INT/P. Qua INT/Qua COM/Mod COR/M.At EVALUATION

would

LIKE

eLEVen BALLS.

ORIENTATION Conj 12 And Subj ONE of the FOOTball PLAYers was (wern)
MESsy.

Verb

Comp INT/Phon INT/Lex INT/P. Qua INT/Rep COR/M.At EVALUATION

NARRATIVE Conj 13 AND Subj Father Christmas Verb SAID Comp to them,

- 400 -

Appendix 1
NARRATIVE Conj 14
you

EVALUATION Subj Aux

WOULD LIKE eLEVen BALLS?

Verb

Comp INT/Phon INT/D.Sp INT/Qua COM/Mod COM/Que INT/Phon INT/D.Sp INT/Int INT/Qua INT/Lex COR/M.At

15

And

ALL the MESsy FOOTball PLAYers

said,

YES.

16

SO

they

PLAYED

FOOTball. EVALUATION

ORIENTATION Conj 17 but SUDdenly NARRATIVE Subj 18 they Aux KEEP on Verb LOSing Comp them. Temp
when

Subj
THEY

Verb
kicked

Comp
BALLS

INT/Lex INT/For EVALUATION INT/Phon COM/Q.Mod COM/CHP EVALUATION

ORIENTATION Conj 19 And if Subj

they

Verb
TACKle

COM/CHP EVALUATION

NARRATIVE Subj 20 they Aux KEEP on Verb LOSing Comp them.

INT/Rep COM/Q.Mod COM/CHP EVALUATION

ORIENTATION Conj 21
If

Subj
they

Verb
SCORE

Comp
GOALS

COM/CHP EVALUATION

NARRATIVE Conj 22 Subj they Verb LOSE Comp/Loc the BALL.

INT/Phon INT/Rep COM/CHP INT/Phon COR/D.At

23

THEN

FAther CHRISTmas

WENT

to the Other FOOTball PLAYers to them,

24

and

HE

SAID

- 401 -

Appendix 1
NARRATIVE Conj 25
you

EVALUATION Subj Aux

WOULD LIKE a BALL?

Verb

Comp/Loc INT/Phon INT/D.Sp COM/Mod COM/Que INT/D.Sp INT/Int INT/Phon COM/Neg COM/Mod GOALS GOAL) INT/Phon INT/Rep COM/Neg EMBEDDED ORIENTATION
MAGic!

26 27 28

And AND but

they they the BALL WOULD NOT

said TACKled disapPEAR.

YES.

29 30 but

They it DID not

SCORED (SCORE disapPEAR.

31 32

And

FAther Christmas
It

SAID,
s

INT/D.Sp INT/Lex EVALUATION

CODA Conj 33 And Temp THEN at the END of the DAY Subj Verb Comp/Loc

FAther CHRISTmas HE he

WENT SAID,
GOODBYE.

INT/Phon INT/For INT/Lex INT/S.Ap INT/Phon INT/D.Sp COR/P. Rt EXP/Cl.Lex his DRAWER CUPboard.

34 35 36 37

AND um And and THEN

WENT OFF - er
WALKing HOME

he

TIDied UP

HUMIRA and ZABEAR: HUMIRAS STORY B TITLE 1 FAther CHRISTmas AND the FOOTballs EVALUATION INT/Phon

ORIENTATION Temp 2 One DAY Subj Father CHRISTmas Verb ?? LOOKED OUT to ^ ^ - - -

- 402 -

Appendix 1
NARRATIVE Subj 3 He Verb saw Comp LOADS of BOXes INT/Phon INT/P. Qua EVALUATION Subj it it NARRATIVE Conj 5 6 So and Subj he he Verb TIdied UP saw in the CUPboard INT/Phon EVALUATION Subj there
When he

EVALUATION

ORIENTATION Conj 4 and (and Verb was WAS). Comp a MESS MESS

INT/Lex INT/Phon EVALUATION

Loc

ORIENTATION Temp 7 8 9 NARRATIVE Conj 10 11

can I DO with THAT FOOTball?

Verb WAS
OPened

Subj/Comp A BOX.
it

INT/Phon INT/For INT/Phon EVALUATION

there

was

a FOOTball.

Subj SAYS,

Aux

Verb

Comp/Loc COM/CHP
How WHAT

He

INT/Phon INT/D.Sp INT/Rep COM/Que COM/Mod EMBEDDED ORIENTATION

12

dont

PLAY

FOOTball!

INT/Phon INT/D.Sp COM/Neg INT/D.Sp COM/Mod INT/D.Sp INT/Emp INT/Phon INT/D.Sp INT/Phon INT/D.Sp COM/Or.Cl INT/Phon INT/D.Sp COM/Or.Cl

13

It

MIGHT have

BEEN -

[thinking]
someone in the BUS in the CAR

14 15 16
and or

Ill (I

just
just

TELL TELL)
GO

17

or

in my SLEIGH.

18

SO

he

TRIED

a BUS

- 403 -

Appendix 1
NARRATIVE Conj 19 20 21 and He Subj Aux Verb
to GO

EVALUATION Comp/Acc Loc

to the FOOTball MATCH.

INT/Phon

got LOOKED at saw

the THINGS SOMEone ?? with ^ - - the BALL INT/Phon COM/Neg COR/B-ing INT/Phon INT/P. Qua COR/D.Ap SOMEone (THAT) about ALL of it a LAdy (that) INT/D.Sp COM/Que COM/Mod INT/D.Sp INT/Phon INT/D.Sp INT/Rep COM/Que INT/Phon INT/D.Sp INT/Lex COM/Mod COM/Neg INT/Phon INT/Qua
WHERE from.

22

NObody

was

PLAYing with

23

and and

(the) Father Christmas ASKED (TOLD)

24
you

CAN COME with ME me me the BALL?

25 26

and WHO

TELL GAVE

27

CANT

underSTAND

about (with)

THAT BALL.

28 29

So

the LAdy

told

him ^

all aBOUT it -

INT/S.Ap

it

CAME

30 31

She
it

TOLD
CAME

HIM THAT
from the

the FOOTball. EMBEDDED ORIENTATION 32

They were PLAYing

INT/D.Sp COR/B-ing
it UP in the AIR

33

and

ONE boy

ALways

THROWS

INT/D.Sp COM/Q.Mod COM/CHP

- 404 -

Appendix 1
NARRATIVE Conj 34
and

EVALUATION Subj
it

Aux

Verb
COMES

Comp

Loc
IN your CHIMney from the CHIMney

INT/D.Sp COM/CHP EXP/Cl.Lex

and 35 (and

COMES to be SHUT
COMES to SHUT.)

HERE in the BOX.

HERE in the BOX

INT/D.Sp INT/S.Ap COM/CHP INT/D.Sp EXP/S.Qual INT/D.Sp INT/Phon INT/D.Sp INT/Int INT/D.Sp INT/Emp EVALUATION

36 37 38

AND

that
it

s
DID

HOW (WHY)
it. it!

ve
OH, I ^ GOT

39 CODA Conj 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 and and So

must (?)
I ^ just GIVE BACK it to them.

Subj he

Verb was
to GO

Comp HAPpy

Loc INT/Lex
HOME

EXP/S.Caus EXP/Cl.Lex EXP/S.Caus INT/Qua INT/S.Ap INT/Phon

put - set go
for GIVing giving

EVerything
for CHRISTmas ALL the TOYS.

OUT outside

The END

SHEIBA and TAMMY: SHEIBAS STORY B(1) ORIENTATION Temp 1 ONE day Subj FAther Christmas Verb WOKE UP Temp EARly in the MORning. INT/Phon COR/O.PP EVALUATION Verb LOOKED saw He SAID, BALLS. Comp Loc in the BOX - - EVALUATION

NARRATIVE Conj 2 3 4 and Subj HE

- 405 -

Appendix 1
NARRATIVE Conj 5
HAVE THESE COME FROM?

EVALUATION Aux Verb Comp Loc

WHERE

Subj

INT/Phon INT/D.Sp COM/Que INT/D.Sp COM/Imp INT/Lex COR/M.At

6 7 8 9

AND SO

HE HE

SAID,
GIVE them aWAY.

WENT
to FIND

(to) FAR away - - a BAD team.

10 THEN the LAdy with a round FACE

SAID

to FAther Christmas, EMBEDDED ORIENTATION

11 12

My SON and um ... - - -

PLAYS

FOOTball

INT/D.Sp

FAther CHRISTmas

WATCHED

the (PLAY) FOOTball a GOAL. - - GOODBYE BACK (to) HOME. INT/Phon

13 AND um the TEAM 14 15 and FAther CHRISTmas

SCORED WAVED WENT

SHEIBA and SHAZIA: SHEIBAS STORY B(2) NARRATIVE Subj 1 FAther CHRISTmas Verb WOKE UP. INT/Phon EVALUATION Aux Verb was HAD to CLEAR UP. Comp in a MESS. IT INT/Phon INT/Lex INT/Phon COM/Q.Mod EVALUATION Verb LOOKED FOUND some (STOCKing) RED BALLS. Comp Loc in the CUPboard COR/D.At EVALUATION

ORIENTATION Subj 2 3 His CUPboard He

NARRATIVE Conj 4 5 and Subj He he

- 406 -

Appendix 1
ORIENTATION Subj 6 THE BALLS Verb WERE Comp SPECial. INT/Phon INT/Lex EVALUATION Verb GOT set OFF
to FIND a BAD FOOTball club

EVALUATION

NARRATIVE Conj 7 8 9 AND Subj HE HE Comp Loc HIS CLOTHES ON

INT/Phon INT/Lex COR/D.At ?? to - ^-^ -

10 11 12 AND 13 14

?? The ...^ He SHE

MY SON um He

WENT ... MET SAID,

PLAYS plays FOOTball - - BAD FOOTball.

a ROUNDFACED LAdy

INT/Phon COR/D.At EMBEDDED ORIENTATION INT/D.Sp INT/Phon INT/D.Sp INT/Lex INto the MATCH INT/Phon INT/Qua

15 AND 16

HE HE - - THE FOOTball PLAYers

WENT

SCORED

GOALS TEN (GOAL). EVALUATION

ORIENTATION Temp 17
WHEN

Subj
the Others

Verb
GOT

Comp
IT

INT/For EVALUATION

NARRATIVE Conj 18 19 AND 20 and Subj the BALL he Verb WENT WATCHED THE FOOTball PLAYers BETter Comp Loc/Man OFF

the FOOTball PLAYers ... PLAYED FAther Christmas

INT/Phon INT/Rep COM/Com

21 22 and

went SAID
GOODBYE.

OFF INT/Phon INT/D.Sp

- 407 -

Appendix 1
CODA (RESPONSE TO QUESTION) Subj 23 It Verb was Subj the ROUND-FACED LAdys BOY. INT/Phon COR/M.At EXP/Cl.Sen EVALUATION

AQEEL and SHAID: AQEELS STORY B(1) ORIENTATION Subj 1 THERE THERE (THERE Verb was was. was Subj a man called ^ ^ ^ FAther CHRISTmas. WHAT a MESS 2 WHAT a MESS). INT/Phon INT/Lex INT/Exc EVALUATION Subj he Verb TIDied Comp IT and the (THEM and) CUPboard. some FOOTballs (FOOTballs).
WHAT

EVALUATION

INT/Phon

NARRATIVE Conj 3 And Loc

4 5 6

And And shall ^

he he

SAW said,

INT/Phon INT/Phon INT/D.Sp COM/Que to LONdon

DO

with THEM?

7 8 9 10

And THE-EN

he he - eh ... He shall I ^ ^

RAN (RUN) TOLD said,

WHAT DO

(to) THE LAdy. INT/D.Sp COM/Que EXP/Cl.Lex

with THOSE BALLS WITH THESE BALLS?

PANJABI NARRATIVE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Fer oiya Fer Musa maaria Fer Musa maaria si thair Fer khub se maaria Fira dand bar kde na Fer ball kedn lrge na Fer goal kri chone na Win ho jae na

THE FOOTBALL MATCH He cried again. Then Musa hit somebody. Then Musa hit him then. Then hit him again. Again and the teeth came out. Then they started playing ball again. Then they scored a goal. They will win the game.

- 408 -

Appendix 1
19 20 21 Lost hoi ga Ek ball rukigia Ek mur suka mu maaria si Somethings lost. One ball stopped. He hit him in the face.

CODA Subj 22 We Aux have Verb finished (finish).

AQEEL and KENNETH: AQEELS STORY B(2) ORIENTATION Conj/Temp 1 ONCE upon a TIME 2 and there there a man called WAS ^ FAther CHRISTmas was a ^ MESS. INT/Phon INT/Lex Subj Verb Subj INT/Phon EVALUATION

NARRATIVE Conj 3 And Subj he Verb SAW Comp BOXes. EVALUATION Verb were (was) Subj FOOTballs Loc inSIDE. INT/Phon EVALUATION Subj He shall ^ 7 8 AND AND and Verb said,
WHAT I DO-O NOW? - - -

ORIENTATION Subj 4 There

NARRATIVE Conj 5 6 Comp Loc/Temp

INT/Phon INT/D.Sp COM/Que INT/Phon

he he the LAdy the LAdy (The) FAther CHRISTmas shall I ^ ^ Lets ^

WENT ?? -^-said,
What DO with THESE BALLS?

to LO-ONdon.

9 10

INT/Phon INT/D.Sp COM/Que

11

GO

TO FOOTBALL.

INT/Phon INT/D.Sp COM/Hor

- 409 -

Appendix 1
ORIENTATION Conj/Temp 12 13 14 And ...
When

EVALUATION Subj
they

Aux

Verb
WENT

Comp/Loc
to FOOTBALL

INT/For INT/Qua INT/S.Ap

it they, ALL the TEAM

was were (was) making

ON

PLANS. - - EVALUATION

NARRATIVE Conj 15 16 and Subj He Aux Verb interRUPTed (interRUPT) gave a ^ 17 18 19 And
If

Comp them them FOOTball a MAGic ONE INT/Lex INT/Phon INT/S.Ap INT/Lex

he
you SOMEthing want will

SAID,
to KICK

it ^

INT/D.Sp COM/Q.Mod INT/Phon INT/D.Sp COM/Fut/Mod

HAPpen.

ORIENTATION Conj 20 21 NARRATIVE Conj 22 and 23 and Subj SOMEone the MAN THEY Verb KICKED ?? --- ^ said,
One MOMent, one MORE.

Subj IT SOMEthing

Verb WAS HAPpened.

Comp ?? um a^

SO

EVALUATION Comp

INT/D.Sp INT/Qua INT/P. Qua

24 25 26 and

I THEY THEY

WON. PLAYED WON. INT/Phon EVALUATION INT/Phon

CODA 27 THANK you.

- 410 -

Appendix 1

SHAZIA and SHEIBA: SHAZIAS STORY B NARRATIVE Conj 1 Subj FAther CHRISTmas 2 3 He He DIDnt LOOKed (LOOK FIND GOT LOOKed (LOOK) WANTed (WANT) to
TIdy

EVALUATION Aux Verb Comp/Loc AT the BOX AT BOX) it ONE BLUE one ONE RED one. INT/Phon COM/Neg INT/S.Ap

4 5
as if

He
he

ALL the things (ALL things).

INT/Phon INT/Qua COM/Q.Mod

6 7 8 9

And

he HE

SAID, LOOKed (LOOK) s

DIDnt

at the WIND at the WINDow (at WINDow)

THERE - - -

and
beCAUSE

he
HE

LOOKing (LOOK)
GO

COM/Neg EXP/S.Caus

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 and AND
beCAUSE

He He He he
he

WENT (GO) WANTed (WANT) to FIND DIDnt DIDnt LOOK FIND LOOKED
(LOOK)

outSIDE. a FOOTball. (FOOTball). INT/Phon COM/Q.Mod COM/Neg it

in the CUPboard

COM/Neg EXP/S.Caus

and AND HE
I

TIDied (TIdy) SAID,

SEE.

the THINGS. INT/D.Sp in the WINDow. it COM/Neg INT/Rep COM/Neg them - - INT/Rep COM/Neg

He He he he ^ DIDnt DIDnt

LOOKED (LOOK) SEE (SAW) GO -

21

DIDnt

SEE

- 411 -

Appendix 1
NARRATIVE Conj 22 Then and AFter THAT and Then AND 25 (AND FIRST
beCAUSE

EVALUATION Subj he he with PLAYED ^ KICKED he HE HE

he DIDnt

Aux

Verb

Comp/Loc

Temp INT/For INT/S.Ap

the FOOTball it (them). - - the FOOTball. his TURN FIRST INT/For FIRST his TURN)
it.

23 24

SAW (SEE) TOOK DONE

FIND

26

COM/Neg EXP/S.Caus

FEHDAH and SUKHBIR: FEHDAHS STORY B NARRATIVE Conj 1 2 AND Subj FAther Christmas HE Aux Verb FOUND SAID Comp a BOX TO - TO - TO TO - um - TO ... himSELF (hisSELF)
IT for a ^

EVALUATION Temp

??

CANT

KEEP

INT/D.Sp COM/Neg COM/Mod INT/D.Sp

s
SO IT ^

ready
^ FOR NOTHer CHRISTmas

GIVE
I MUST (GAVE)

it to
- no - no - um SOMEbody - - -

INT/D.Sp COM/Mod EVALUATION

ORIENTATION Conj 6 7 AND AND ... PANJABI NARRATIVE 8 9 Ek dyn chalo chaliye - chalo chaliye. E jera football e? One day lets go - lets go. Is this a football? Subj HE - he Aux Verb Comp it TO the FOOTBALL TEAM. was goin to GIVE

COR/B-ing INT/Qua INT/S.Ap COM/Com

THE FOOTball TEAM - um - um ... they

were

ALL BETter

- 412 -

Appendix 1
10 E jeri football team e - e kuta ne! This football team - all of them are dogs.

MODEL STORY B: FATHER CHRISTMAS AND THE MAGIC FOOTBALLS Father Christmas looked at his cupboards. They were in a mess. He would have to clean them all out before the new stock of toys arrived. He started to remove all the old boxes and bags when he spied a large green box which he hadnt seen before. Whats this? he exclaimed. I didnt put any big boxes in here! He opened it and inside were six shiny black and white footballs. What can I do with these? he said to himself. Who can I give them to? They cant stay here till next Christmas. He sat down, wondering what to do. Then he had a brilliant idea; he would go out and find a football club who could use them, but not a good team like Liverpool - he would find the very worst team in the land. So he left his cupboards as they were and started to prepare for his journey. It would be fun to travel in the spring when no-one was expecting him. He could even try public transport for a change! When he was ready he picked up his bags, locked his door and set off. After a long, exciting journey by boat and train he arrived in London. The Londoners were all out shopping. They stared at him and said, No, not already! Weve only just got over last Christmas! We dont want you here again yet. Wait till the autumn. Poor Father Christmas didnt feel he was welcome. No, please help me. Im trying to find a football club. I want to give away some footballs. I want to find a team that has never won a match - so that I can encourage them, Father Christmas added brightly. A round-faced lady with ginger hair laughed out loud, saying, Then you want my sons team. Theyre called the Fairfield Failures - theyre so bad. You could give them a hundred footballs but theyd still lose all their matches. Come and see them for yourself. They are playing this afternoon. So Father Christmas went home with the round-faced lady and after lunch they both went to see the football. She was right; they were awful! The Goalkeeper let in ten goals and the Strikers lost the ball at every tackle. The ladys son, Peter, was the Captain but they took no notice of him. At half-time the score was ten nil. Father Christmas decided to do something right away. He went over to Peter who was trying to rally his team. Father Christmas interrupted him and said, Let me give you these special footballs. If you play with one of these, something will happen to the way you play. Peter thanked him politely, but he didnt think that a change of football would make his team score goals. However, they were very good balls, so he asked the Referee if they could use one. The Referee agreed and the Fairfield team kicked off. To their surprise they kept the ball in the first tackle and in the next. All the players in the team found that they could kick the ball just where they wanted it to go. It was magic! All eleven players were playing superb football.

- 413 -

Appendix 1
The other team - the Sulham Supers - couldnt believe their eyes. They just stood there and let them score. Each time they did try to tackle or intercept they lost the ball. Soon the score was ten all. It was the last minute of the game. Could the Failures score just one more goal? Father Christmas cheered and then Peter dropped one into the back of the net just as the whistle was sounding. Theyd won! The Fairfield Failures had won their first match! Father Christmas went over to congratulate them and say goodbye. Now you know what it feels like to win a match, you must work hard at your game, Father Christmas counselled. Yes, we will, they promised. Well train twice a week. And they did. They are now called the Fairfield Flyers and they are top of the League.

- 414 -

Appendix 1

SHVINDER and NAMRATA: SHVINDERS STORY C ORIENTATION Conj 1 2 AND SOMETIMES Temp Subj BILly-the-TWIT the COWS SOME of the COWS Verb HAD Comp some COWS INT/Phon INT/P. Qua EXP/Cl.Lex WENT OFF. EVALUATION Verb SAID, - - TAKE your COWS SOMEwhere E-ELSE.

EVALUATION

NARRATIVE Conj 3 4 SO Subj ONE of the COWBOYS Comp Loc

INT/P. Qua INT/Phon INT/D.Sp COM/Imp INT/Phon WENT FOUND a MAP. to SCHOOL

5 6

SO-O and

BILly-theTWIT he

ORIENTATION Subj 7 The MAP Verb ?? had- ^ - EVALUATION Subj BILly-theTWIT, he but he
the BLUE parts and the RED

NARRATIVE Conj 8 9 10 11 12 13 Aux Verb FOUND DIDnt know Comp/Loc a MAP

INT/Rep INT/S.Ap INT/Phon COM/Neg

were were

the WATer the COUNTries.

INT/Phon INT/Phon INT/D.Sp COM/Fut/Mod COM/Neg INT/Phon

So

he
I ll

SAID,
go to GREENland,

14 15

but

he
GREENland

DIDnt
WAS.

know
what

16

He

THOUGHT

- 415 -

Appendix 1
NARRATIVE Conj 17 Subj
there

EVALUATION Aux
was going

Verb
to be

Comp/Man
LOTS and LOTS of GRASS GREEN GRASS.

INT/Phon INT/P. Qua INT/Rep INT/S.Ap COR/B-ing INT/Phon INT/Phon EVALUATION

18 19

SO-O
without

he

set off
saying GOODBYE.

ORIENTATION Conj 20 First Subj he the days Verb got Comp COLDer and COLDer

INT/Phon INT/Rep INT/For COM/Com INT/Rep INT/L.Int EVALUATION

21

AND

the days

got

VERy COLD.

NARRATIVE Conj 22 Then Subj they Verb saw Comp these STRANGE ANimals.

INT/Lex COR/D.At EVALUATION

ORIENTATION Subj 23 NARRATIVE Conj 24 25

you

Verb had

Comp HORNS. INT/Phon EVALUATION

They

Subj HE

Aux

Verb said

Comp to them,

Loc INT/D.Sp COM/Que

Do know where GREENland is?

26

INT/Phon INT/D.Sp COM/Que EVALUATIVE ACTION EMBEDDED ORIENTATION

27 28 29 and

They they
It

LAUGHED said,
s VERy, VERy COLD

THERE.

INT/Phon INT/D.Sp INT/L.Int INT/Rep INT/Phon INT/D.Sp INT/Int

30 31

SO

he

said,
THOUGHT

OH NO! I

- 416 -

Appendix 1
NARRATIVE Conj/Temp Subj 32
it

EVALUATION Aux Verb Comp

VERy HOT

Loc INT/Phon INT/D.Sp INT/L.Int COR/B-ing INT/D.Sp COR/B-ing INT/Phon INT/D.Sp COM/Neg INT/Phon
INSIDE.

was going to be

33 34

and but

there there

was going to be ISnt.

GREEN GRASS

35 36 37

So SO-O

he he

SA-AID - - said,
COME

INT/Phon INT/D.Sp COM/Imp EMBEDDED ORIENTATION

38

It

s going

to be

VERy hot

in THERE

INT/D.Sp INT/L.Int COR/B-ing INT/Phon INT/D.Sp INT/For COM/Q.Mod EMBEDDED ORIENTATION

39

and toMORrow

have
you ^ gotta LE-EAVE

40

because (otherWISE)

the DAYS

will

GET

VERy COLD

INT/D.Sp INT/L.Int COM/Fut/Mod EXP/S.Caus INT/Phon INT/D.Sp COM/Fut COM/Q.Mod INT/For

41

and

it

will START

SNOWing.

42

So the NEXT DAY HE WENT SAID LEFT (WENT) went BACK home.
GOODBYE.

43

and

INT/Phon INT/D.Sp

44 45

and then and

he

INT/Phon

- 417 -

Appendix 1
FARIBA and JOHN: FARIBAS STORY C ORIENTATION Temp 1 ONE DAY Subj BILly-theTWIT Aux was Verb GOing Loc somewhere Acc with his COWS. INT/Phon COR/B-ing COR/O.PP EVALUATION Subj the PEOple of his land (the PEOple Aux Verb said said
GO

EVALUATION

NARRATIVE Conj Comp Loc

2 3

THEN

of his land)
to anOTHer COUNtry

INT/Phon INT/D.Sp COM/Imp INT/Phon INT/D.Sp

4 5

beFORE

you

get

BEATen up. (BEAT.)

Then

BILly-theTWIT he he

went saw SAID

IS

to the SCHOOL a MAP (that)

WHY

6 7 8

and and

it called ^ ^ 9 when
(but)

INT/Phon INT/D.Sp COM/Que

GREENland

coloured
it s (got) YELlow?

INT/Phon INT/D.Sp to the SCHOOLCAREtaker (look-after MAN). COR/M.At

10 But THEN

he

WENT

11 12

He
I DONT

said,
KNOW.

INT/Phon INT/D.Sp COM/Neg INT/D.Sp COM/Imp to a MAN. EVALUATION

13 And THEN he 14 15 Then 16 and ORIENTATION Subj 17 He Verb had a ^ Comp he

SAID,
FOLlow the RAIlings!

DID CAME

YELlow COAT, RED BOOTS, BLACK GLOVES and a PINK FACE.

INT/Phon COR/C.NP

- 418 -

Appendix 1
NARRATIVE Conj 18 19 20 but Subj He he He Verb asked said said, GREENland In ^ (THERE)
is SNOW.

EVALUATION Comp HIM NOthing. COM/Neg EMBEDDED ORIENTATION INT/Phon INT/D.Sp Loc

21 22 23 CODA Conj 24 25 And THE END Then and

THERE ^ he

went told the STORY.

BACK

EVALUATION Subj THAT Verb was Comp the END of BILly-the-TWIT INT/Lex INT/Phon SAKANDER and SHAID: SAKANDERS STORY C

ORIENTATION Conj 1 2 Subj BILly-theTWIT HE Aux Verb WAS was Comp a COWboy - - a STUpid COWboy.
a NAME BILly-theTWIT

EVALUATION Loc INT/Phon INT/Phon INT/Lex INT/Rep EXP/S.Caus INT/Rep INT/Rep

3 4 5 6

BeCAUSE

he

has

LIKE (CALLED) they BILly-theTWIT CALL

him THE TWIT. LOTS of SHEEP (SHEEPS)

had

INT/P. Qua

7 8

AND

he
he should

WONdered
WHERE GO.

INT/Lex COM/Mod EVALUATION

NARRATIVE Conj 9 10 11 Subj HE

I I ll

Aux

Verb said,
think GO

Comp

Loc/Ben INT/D.Sp
to the GREEN LAND

INT/D.Sp COM/Fut/Mod

- 419 -

Appendix 1
NARRATIVE Conj 12
and

EVALUATION Subj Aux Verb

GET

Comp
some GRASS

Loc/Ben
for MY SHEEP.

INT/D.Sp COR/O.PP

13

And SO

he

WENT

GREENland to (GREEN LAND) - - EVALUATION

ORIENTATION Subj 14 A BURGlar a STRANger Aux was Verb STANDing Loc BY - - -

INT/Phon EXP/Cl.Lex EVALUATION

NARRATIVE Subj 15 16 ESkimo The (EKsimo)

YOUR (SHEEPS)

Aux

Verb said,

Comp

Loc

SHEEP

canNOT-er

EAT

GRASS

in MY LAND.

INT/D.Sp COM/Neg COM/Mod INT/Phon INT/D.Sp COM/Que COM/Neg

17 18

BILly-the-TWIT
dont you

said,
WHY LET eat GRASS in

19

my SHEEP

INT/D.Sp

GREENland (GreenLAND)? ORIENTATION Conj 20 And Subj the ESkimo Verb was NOT Comp a STRANger. INT/Phon COM/Neg EVALUATION Aux Verb TOOK SAID GAVE Comp BILly-the-TWIT ?? .^. him SOMEthing to EAT - - HIM (to) - - to the GREEN LAND

EVALUATION

NARRATIVE Conj 21 22 AND 23 and Subj He he he Loc IN his HOUSE

24 25

He
YOU can

TOLD
GO

INT/D.Sp COM/Mod

- 420 -

Appendix 1
NARRATIVE Conj 26 Subj Aux Verb
to FETCH

EVALUATION Comp
your SHEEP some GREEN GRASS -

Loc

Man INT/D.Sp INT/Lex INT/S.Ap INT/Rep COR/D.At

LOVely GREEN (GREEN LOVely)

GRASS.

27 AND 28 and

BILly-the TWIT HE BILly-theTWIT BILlys SHEEP

YOU MUST

TOOK

his SHEEP INT/Rep INT/S.Ap

TOOK

his SHEEP

to GREENLAND INT/Rep

29 and

ATE said,
go

the GRASS. - - HOME

30 THEN the ESkimo 31

as ^ 32 as 33
you The SNOW they CAN. could MIGHT FALL be COLD. on your SHEEP

QUICKly

INT/Phon INT/D.Sp COM/Mod COM/Imp INT/D.Sp INT/D.SP COM/Mod INT/D.Sp COM/Mod EVALUATION

34 and CODA Conj 35 And

Temp after a WHILE

Subj BILly-theTWIT BILly-the TWIT

the ESkimo his SHEEP

Aux

Verb

Comp/Loc/Man INT/Lex INT/For COR/O.PP INT/Phon INT/Lex INT/L.Int EXP/S.Caus INT/Phon INT/Lex COM/Mod COR/D.At

went

HOME from the GREEN LAND. VERy HAPpy

that the SWEET, GREEN GRASS.

36

FELT
said

37 beCAUSE 38

could (can)

EAT

HUMIRA and MAHJABEEN: HUMIRAS STORY C ORIENTATION Conj 1 Subj BILlythe-TWIT Aux WAS Verb STUpid Comp Loc INT/Phon INT/Lex EVALUATION

- 421 -

Appendix 1
ORIENTATION Conj 2 and Subj he Aux COULDNT Verb find Comp the MIND Loc in his HEAD. INT/Lex COM/Neg COM/Mod EVALUATION Aux Verb ASKED (TOLD)
CAN we see a GREEN LAND (COUNtry)?

EVALUATION

NARRATIVE Conj 3 4 And Subj HE Comp the FARmer - (that) the STRANger (that) Loc

EXP/Cl.Lex INT/D.Sp COM/Que COM/Mod to some GREEN LAND

and

THE STRANger

TOOK

him

which he LOVED.

ORIENTATION Conj 7 And Subj he Verb was Comp HAPpy.

EVALUATION INT/Lex EVALUATION Aux Verb SAID,

S a good iDEa

NARRATIVE Conj 8 9 AND Subj he

THAT

Comp

Loc

Temp INT/Phon INT/D.Sp INT/Lex

10
we can GO!

for (to) WHERE

INT/Phon INT/D.Sp COM/Mod

11 SO 12

they
Do you

ASKED (TOLD)

the FARmer (THAT) INT/Phon INT/D.Sp COM/Que

WHERE

know

13
the GREEN LAND

(is) is ^ ? said,
DONT know YES.

INT/Phon INT/D.Sp COM/Que

14 15 but

He
I

INT/D.Sp INT/Int INT/Phon INT/D.Sp COM/Neg

- 422 -

Appendix 1

NARRATIVE Conj 16 Subj Aux Verb Comp Loc WHAT (WHERE) is ^

might BE

EVALUATION Temp INT/D.Sp

the GREEN LAND -

LIKE ^ (a) ICE ice.

17 18

It

INT/D.Sp COM/Mod INT/Phon

He

SHOUTed at the OTHER (the NOTHer) STRANger a HOT MEAL to him it HOME (FRIENDily) HOME aGAIN.

19 and 20 and 21 and

the STRANger he he

GAVE ATE went

INT/Rep

INT/Phon INT/S.Ap EVALUATION

CODA Conj 22 And Subj they Verb LIVED Man HAPPily Ever AFter (HAPpy Everly AFter).

INT/Phon INT/Lex

SHEIBA and OSMA: SHEIBAS STORY C ORIENTATION Conj 1 2 3 and and Subj BILly-the-TWIT HE the COWS Verb had was WERE (WAS) Comp some COWS cold COLD. INT/Rep EVALUATION Subj Aux Verb SAID, ASKED the CAREtaker,
WHERE is GREENLAND?

EVALUATION INT/Phon

NARRATIVE Conj 4 5 6 And Comp Loc BILly-the-TWIT

EXP/Cl.Sen INT/D.Sp COM/Que EMBEDDED ORIENTATION

In GREENLAND

7 8

And

the CAREtaker

SAID,

it

is

SNOWy and ICy,

INT/Phon INT/D.Sp COR/C.AP

- 423 -

Appendix 1
NARRATIVE Conj 9 10 And Temp Subj Aux Verb (said) CRIED. ESkimo the (EXsimo) EMBEDDED ORIENTATION
VERy, VERy VERy FROSTy there,

EVALUATION Comp Loc

(the CAREtaker). BILly

EVALUATIVE ACTION

11 12 13

So and

BILly ESkimo the (EXsimo)

It

ASKED SAID,
is

INT/Phon INT/D.Sp INT/Rep INT/L.Int INT/Phon INT/D.Sp COM/Q.Mod EXP/S.Qual INT/D.Sp INT/Rep COM/Fut/Mod EVALUATIVE ACTION

14

UnLESS you want to SEE

SNOWmen the (SNOWmans),

15

and

your HAND will get

COLDer and COLDer (COLD and COLD),

16 ESkimo (the (EXsimo).) 17 18 And ESkimo the (EXsimo) started He

(SAID)

COM/Q.Mod LAUGHing. said,

HA, HA.

INT/Phon INT/D.Sp INT/Lex HOME

19 20

And and

the ESkimo (EXsimo)

TOOK GAVE to EAT

him

him SOME FOOD MUCH (MORE) BETter.

21 22 23 24

and

he
I

FELT
THINK SHOULD

INT/Phon COM/Com INT/D.Sp

you (he)

go SAID

HOME,

INT/D.Sp COM/Mod

ESkimo the (EXsimo). 25 26 And And THAT NIGHT THEN, AT NIGHT, they went an OWL (a OWL) to BED. INT/Phon INT/For INT/For INT/S.Ap

they

saw

- 424 -

Appendix 1
NARRATIVE Conj 27 Temp Subj The OWL Aux Verb WOKE (WAKED) UP. Comp Loc EVALUATION

them EVALUATION

ORIENTATION Conj 28 And Temp THEN Subj it Aux was Verb GETting Comp MORning

COR/B-ing EVALUATION

NARRATIVE Conj 29 and Subj the OWL Verb went Loc to aWAY (in) his HOUSE.

INT/S.Ap EVALUATION

ORIENTATION Conj 30 31 and Subj The owl he Aux could Verb have LIVED Comp/Loc a HOUSE in a TREE - - -

INT/Phon COM/Mod

NARRATIVE Conj 32 33
shall I PUT can PUT my COWS? them in MY BED,

EVALUATION Subj BILly Aux Verb SAID,

WHERE

Comp

Loc INT/Phon INT/D.Sp COM/Que COM/Mod INT/Phon INT/D.Sp COM/Mod

And

34

YOU

35 36 And

he the KIND ESkimo (the EXsimo)

SAID. GAVE him a (KIND) PRESent

AQEEL and CHRISTOPHER: AQEELS STORY C ORIENTATION Conj /Temp 1 ONce upon a TIME (a DAY) Subj Aux Verb Subj/Comp/Loc INT/Phon there He AND um he kept (keep) was lived LOSing a COWboy. in the COUNTry his COWS. INT/Phon COM/Q.Mod EVALUATION

2 3

- 425 -

Appendix 1
NARRATIVE Conj 4 5 6 Then Subj He He the COWS A LAdy Aux WENT (GO) WENT (GO) Verb to FIND to find Comp Loc Temp EVALUATION

the COWS - - GRASS in the PARK. INT/Rep

would

EAT gave (give)

the GRASS - - BILly FOOD - - ?? . ^ . - - SOMEwhere

COM/Mod

8 9

and

said,
Go

INT/D.Sp COM/Imp toMORrow

the NEXT DAY - - -

10

Go

HOME!

INT/Phon INT/D.Sp COM/Imp COR/B-ing EXP/S.Caus INT/Phon EVALUATION

11

beCAUSE

it 12 AND HE

GOing

was

to be

RAINy.

WENT

HOME.

ORIENTATION Conj 13 14 CODA 15

GoodBYE!

Subj it

Aux was

Verb RAINing RAINing

Loc INT/Phon COR/B-ing in the SKY. INT/Rep EVALUATION INT/Phon INT/D.Sp

And

SHAZIA and CLARE: SHAZIAS STORY C ORIENTATION Temp 1 2 ONCE uPON a TIME Subj there There Verb was was Subj/Comp GRASS. ALL GRASS THERE --Loc INT/Phon INT/Phon INT/Qua INT/Rep INT/Rep EVALUATION

a LAND

to GO to (GO to)

with GRASS.

- 426 -

Appendix 1
NARRATIVE Conj 4 5 6 7 ORIENTATION Conj 8 Subj He ^ Verb was ^ Comp a ^ Temp Loc INT/Rep And THEN THEN Subj he HE he he ^ Verb WENT (GO) WENT (GO) WENT (GO) went (go) Loc to SCHOOL - - to the GRASSland (to GRASSland). TO SCHOOL - - on a JOURney to JOURney - - EVALUATION INT/Rep EVALUATION

LONG TIME on (in) the JOURney - - -

THEN

it

GOT GET

COLDer.

COM/Com EVALUATION

NARRATIVE Conj 10 11 Subj Aux Verb SAW (SEED) DIDNT (DONT) see WENT (GO) Comp GREEN GRASS. ANY (NO) PEOple BACK HOME (HOME BACK). over THERE - - Loc

THEN he He

INT/Phon COM/Neg

12

AND

he

MODEL STORY C: BILLY-THE-TWIT AND HIS JOURNEY TO GREENLAND Billy-the-Twit was a cowboy but he was rather stupid. He was always losing his cows or getting them muddled up with other peoples, so that all the other cowboys in the Wild West got fed up with him. Why dont you take your cows off somewhere else? they asked pointedly. There are plenty of other places if you know where to look. Billy-the-Twit thought about this for a while. It would be exciting to go off to a new country, all by himself; but how would he know where to go? I know, he said to himself. There is a large map in the School House; Ill go and look at that. So he borrowed the key and studied the map. Unfortunately, he had no idea how to read maps. He didnt know that the blue bits were seas and that all the other colours showed the shapes of the different countries. However, a yellow shape labelled Greenland caught his eye. Thats funny, he mused, Why is it called Greenland when its a yellow land? Someone must be colour-blind. Then an exciting thought came into his muddled head. Could it be called Greenland because of the green grass? A land covered with lots of lovely green grass - that would be just right for my cows, he exclaimed excitedly. He saw the school caretaker and asked him about Greenland. Do you know how to get to Greenland?

- 427 -

Appendix 1
Not really, answered the caretaker. Its way up north, but I dont know how to get there. Which way is north? queried Billy. Thats easy, came the reply. Just follow that trail there, over the hills and keep going. Will I come to Greenland? asked the excited Billy. Eventually, if youre lucky, nodded the caretaker solemnly, muttering something under his breath which Billy couldnt quite hear. This was sufficient for Billy. He packed some food and clothes for his journey, rounded up his cows and set off without saying goodbye to anyone. He travelled for weeks and weeks, meeting very few people on the way. But he didnt care because he liked being by himself. After a few months he noticed the grass getting thinner and the air colder. He wrapped his big coat round him tightly. His cows didnt like the cold either, but if they were going to get to Greenland they must keep going, cold or no cold. At last, one day he saw a stranger in a fur hood, surrounded by a large herd of animals. These animals had horns like the branches of a tree. Who are you and what do you want? the stranger called out. This land belongs to the Eskimos and their caribou. You cant bring your cows here. Billy thought this was very unfriendly, but he pretended not to notice. Look Mr. Eskimo, Im on my way to Greenland to find green grass for my cows. Am I going the right way? The Eskimo laughed. You wont find any grass in Greenland. All youll find there is ice and snow. Oh no! wailed poor Billy. Ive come all this way for nothing! Why isnt it called Iceland or Snowland then? he added angrily. I dont know. But youd better come to my summer cabin for a rest, suggested the Eskimo kindly. He gave Billy a meal of grilled caribou steaks and Billy began to feel better. The Eskimo then said, You must return home straight away, tomorrow, before the winter snows come. There will be no grass then. Your cows look miserable enough now. Billy wondered if theyd make the long journey back. The Eskimo gave them some hay and some shelter for the night and in the morning they looked decidedly better. Billy felt quite cheerful as they said goodbye. The Eskimo had given him food for the journey and he would have an exciting tale to tell when he got back. He wouldnt mention Greenland to the other cowboys though. Billy-the-Twit wasnt that stupid!

- 428 -

Appendix 1

SHVINDER and SADIA: SHVINDERS STORY D NARRATIVE Conj/Temp 1 ONE day Subj Aux Verb SAID, EMBEDDED ORIENTATION 2
I NEVer have a HOLiday

EVALUATION Comp/Temp INT/Phon Father CHRISTmas

INT/Phon INT/D.Sp COM/Neg INT/Phon INT/D.Sp INT/Emp COM/Neg INT/Phon INT/D.Sp COM/Q.Mod INT/Phon EVALUATION

NOT

Even

(at) SUMmertime.

in the

HAVE

to HAVE

a HOLiday.

So

he

had

THINK a LONG (THOUGHT) aBOUT IT.

ORIENTATION Conj 6
And

Temp
when

Subj
he

Aux
had

Verb
THOUGHT about

Comp
it

INT/Phon INT/Rep INT/For EVALUATION

NARRATIVE Conj 7 8 9 and And KRIStel

YOU YOU must

Subj he

Aux

Verb went told said,

want have

Comp HIM.

Loc to KRIStel

10 If 11

a HOLiday, a DIFFrent disGUISE

INT/Phon INT/D.Sp INT/Phon INT/D.Sp COM/Mod INT/Phon INT/D.Sp INT/Lex INT/Qua COM/Fut/Mod

12 Otherwise
EVerybody will KNO-OW

13
you are.

WHO

INT/D.Sp

14 So

he

SAID,

- 429 -

Appendix 1
NARRATIVE Conj 15 Subj
I

EVALUATION Aux
will

Verb
SHAVE off

Comp/Loc
my BEARD

INT/Phon INT/D.Sp COM/Fut/Mod INT/D.Sp COM/Fut/Mod

16 and THEN
I will PUT ON my Other clothes.

17 So 18 19 FIRST 20 then 21 22 Then 23 24 Then 25 and

he He he he
he

DID. put on shaved off put on

FOUND.

a BROWN hat his BEARD his GREEN JACKet INT/Phon INT/For INT/Phon COR/D.At INT/Phon INT/Qua INT/Lex INT/Phon INT/Rep COR/C.NP INT/Phon INT/Phon COR/C.NP INT/Phon INT/Rep COR/C.NP EVALUATION

the Orange JUMper. He he put ON. found them BOTH a GOOD STICK the BROWN HAT and BROWN TROUsers and BLACK SHO-OES. he He He STARted WENT WENT his JOURney. and to INdia, ^ PakiSTAN. to EUrope and the WEST Indies.

26 SO 27 28

ORIENTATION Conj 29 Then Temp

when

Subj had
he ^

Verb
HAD

Comp
his JOURney

INT/For EVALUATION

NARRATIVE Conj 30 31 and Subj he he Verb CAME THOUGHT about KRIStel. Comp Loc BACK

INT/Phon

ORIENTATION Conj 32 Temp Subj He Aux was Verb doing Comp ALL Father CHRISTmas [iz] WORK. for his JOURney.
KRIStel

EVALUATION INT/Phon INT/Qua COR/B-ing COR/B-ing INT/For

33 34 But
WHEN

HE
he

was

getting REAdy
SAW

- 430 -

Appendix 1
NARRATIVE Conj 35 36 Subj Father Christmas
I might

EVALUATION Aux Verb SAID,

give YOU a HOLiday in AUSTRALia.

Comp

Loc/Temp

INT/Phon INT/D.Sp COM/Mod INT/D.Sp INT/Phon INT/D.Sp COM/Q.Mod INT/Phon

37 So 38 39

KRIStel
THAT I ve ALways

said,
S wanted to GO ^ ! the PLACE

to

40 So 41 CODA Conj 42 And

Father Christmas SAID,

YOU can GO toMORrow.

INT/D.Sp COM/Mod EVALUATION

Temp THEN

Subj Kristel

Verb DI-ID. INT/Phon

FARIBA and ADRIAN: FARIBAS STORY D ORIENTATION Conj/Temp 1 One DAY Subj Aux Verb was was
DIDnt LIKE

EVALUATION Comp REALly ANGry. ANGry

his PICtures

Loc INT/Phon INT/L.Int INT/Lex INT/Lex INT/Rep

on the CARDS.

FAther Christmas He

2 3
beCAUSE

he

INT/Phon COM/Neg EXP/S.Caus

SO

he

WANTed

SNOWmen PICtures ^ (SNOWmen) (PICtures)

on the CARDS

And

he

WANTed

a HOLiday.

INT/Phon INT/Rep EVALUATION

NARRATIVE Conj 6 7 8 and

unTIL he

Subj He

Aux

Verb WALKED WALKED

CAME

Loc INT/Rep
to a MAN

INT/Phon

- 431 -

Appendix 1
NARRATIVE Conj Subj Aux Verb Comp Loc FAther CHRISTmas (the ^ SNOWman) then 10
HELlo! I want

EVALUATION

SAID, on
to GO (to) a HOLiday.

INT/Phon INT/D.Sp INT/Int COM/Q.Mod INT/Phon INT/D.Sp COM/Que COM/Mod

11
you

Will TELL me

12
I can go?

WHERE

INT/D.Sp COM/Mod COM/Que INT/Phon INT/D.Sp COR/C.NP

13

The SNOWman

SAID,

INdia, PakiSTAN, AustRALia and AMERica.

14 15 16 17

So But

Father CHRISTmas he he

WENT. the FIRST thing DID SHAVED - HIS - BEARD off put on. some DIFFrent CLOTHES EVALUATION INT/Phon INT/For

AND

ORIENTATION Subj 18 The CLOTHES Verb were Comp a an ^ brown HAT, (a) Orange JUMPer, a GREEN COAT, some Orange TROUSers, and BLACK SHOES, and a STICK.

INT/Phon COR/C.NP

NARRATIVE Conj/Temp 19 20 21 So AFter TWO DAYS Subj He he the SNOW beGAN Aux preTENDed Verb to be WENT. to FALL. Comp an (a) OLD MAN.

EVALUATION

INT/Phon INT/Lex INT/For COM/Q.Mod

- 432 -

Appendix 1
ORIENTATION Subj 22 23 It It Verb was NOT was Comp ORdinary SNOW MAGic SNOW. INT/Lex COM/Neg INT/Phon INT/Lex EVALUATION Subj he
MAGic SNOW

EVALUATION

NARRATIVE Conj 24 25 And Aux Verb said,

is the GOOD

Comp

Loc INT/D.Sp INT/Lex INT/Lex INT/Rep

in the WORLD.

26 27 28

Then AND Then then

he he he the SNOWman WANTed

WENT went

BACK HOME on (to) HOLiday COM/Q.Mod EXP/Cl.Lex EVALUATION

to GO

ORIENTATION Conj 29 but Subj IT Aux was Verb turning out (going) Comp SUNny

COR/B-ing EVALUATION

NARRATIVE Conj 30 31 ORIENTATION Conj 32 33 And when Temp Subj THAT the SNOWman WANTed Aux Verb was Comp time the RIGHT (thing) and Subj he
He MUST

Aux

Verb SAID
LIKE

Comp
AMERica.

COM/Mod EVALUATION

INT/Lex COM/Q.Mod

to go. EVALUATION INT/Phon

CODA 34 THE END.

SAKANDER and SOPHIE: SAKANDERS STORY D ORIENTATION Subj 1 FAther CHRISTmas Verb was Comp ALL CROSS and GRUMpy. INT/Lex INT/Qua COR/C.AP EVALUATION

- 433 -

Appendix 1
NARRATIVE Conj 2 3
WHY -

EVALUATION Subj HE
DONT

Aux

Verb THOUGHT let -

Comp to himSELF ?? ^

Loc/Source INT/Lex INT/D.Sp COM/Neg COM/Que INT/D.Sp COM/Neg COM/Que COM/Mod EXP/Cl.Sen

they 4
WHY I CANT

HAVE

A HOLiday in AustRALia?

5 6 7

And

Father CHRISTmas
CHILDren ALways

SAID,
WANT HAVE PRESents presents from ME.

INT/D.Sp COM/Q.Mod INT/Phon INT/D.Sp INT/Rep COR/O.PP INT/S.Ap

but

they

alREADy

8 9

So

HE

went
to SEE his FRIEND the snowMAN

10 and 11

HE
DO YOU

SAID,
KNOW the WAY to AustRALia?

INT/Phon INT/D.Sp COM/Que INT/Phon INT/D.Sp INT/Int

12 And

the SNOWman

said,

YES. WHICH WAY

13
I DO HAVE TO GO? - - -

INT/D.Sp COM/Que COM/Q.Mod

14 15 16 17 AND and

FAther CHRISTmas they BOTH they

CALLED WENT HAD

the snowMAN to AustRALia LOTS of FUN. INT/Phon INT/Qua INT/Phon INT/P. Qua INT/For COM/Q.Mod

and AFter THAT the SNOW

beGAN

to MELT. EVALUATION

ORIENTATION Subj 18 It Verb WASnt Comp SLIMy. WET (WETty).

INT/Lex COM/Neg INT/Rep COM/Neg

19

It

WASnt -

- 434 -

Appendix 1
ORIENTATION Subj 20 It Verb was Comp JUST MAGic. INT/Phon INT/Lex INT/Emp EVALUATION Subj FAther Christmas
IT

EVALUATION

NARRATIVE Conj 21 22 And Verb SAID,

S MAGic!

Comp INT/Phon INT/D.Sp INT/Lex INT/Rep EVALUATION

CODA Conj 23 24 And Temp THEN Subj he Verb went

FEELing HAPpy.

Comp

Loc BACK into his HOME INT/Phon INT/S.Ap INT/Phon INT/Lex COR/P. Rt

HUMIRA and MATTHEW: HUMIRAS STORY D TITLE 1 The STORY aBOUT (the) FAther CHRISTmas EVALUATION INT/Phon EVALUATION Subj Aux Verb SAID Comp (that) EMBEDDED ORIENTATION 3
I dont want to GO

NARRATIVE Conj/Temp 2 One DAY Loc FAther CHRISTmas

INT/Phon

at (to)
CHRISTmas EVrybody the PRESents TIred.

INT/Phon INT/D.Sp COM/Neg COM/Q.Mod INT/Phon INT/D.Sp INT/Qua INT/Phon INT/D.Sp EXP/S.Caus INT/D.Sp

and

give

beCAUSE

AM

6 7 8
and

WANT

a CUPpa TEA on the CHAIRS.

to
^ I dont WANT SIT down

INT/D.Sp INT/D.Sp INT/Rep COM/Neg

to.

- 435 -

Appendix 1
NARRATIVE Conj/Temp 9 10 So 11 and 12 SO ORIENTATION Conj 13
And

EVALUATION Subj
I

Aux
want

Verb
to CHANGE

Comp
mySELF.

INT/D.Sp COM/Q.Mod

he he he

CHANGED SHAVED OFF LOOKED

his MIND his BEARD DIFFrent. INT/Phon EXP/S.Caus EVALUATION

Temp
WHEN

Subj
he

Verb
WENT

Loc on (to) his HOLiday INT/For EVALUATION

NARRATIVE Conj 14 15 16 Subj HE he who ^

YOU DONT WANT to come DONT WANT

Aux

Verb SAW SAID,

Comp/Loc a BOY

at (to) CHRISTmas
PRESents to CHILDren(s)

INT/D.Sp COM/Neg COM/Q.Mod INT/Phon INT/D.Sp INT/Rep COM/Neg COM/Q.Mod INT/D.Sp EXP/S.Caus INT/D.Sp INT/D.Sp COM/Neg INT/D.Sp EXP/S.Caus INT/D.Sp INT/Qua INT/D.Sp INT/D.Quo COM/Que COM/Neg INT/D.Sp COR/O.PP

17

YOU

to give

18 19 20 21 22 23

and

that you not

s CHANGED to BE S

WHY yourself a FAther CHRISTmas why

So

THAT EVrybody DONT you

SAYS

(that)
WHY

COME give PRESents?

24 25

and

AND -

um FAther CHRISTmas he

went WENT
WALKing

HOME from the BUS

HOME.

26 27

and

COR/P. Rt

- 436 -

Appendix 1
ORIENTATION Conj 28
SO-O

EVALUATION Temp
when

Subj
he

Aux
was

Verb
going

Loc
PAST

INT/Phon INT/For EVALUATION

NARRATIVE Conj/Temp 29 30 31 32 and when ^ Subj he he

I EVrything BeFORE they

Aux

Verb went SAID,

dress CHANGes.

Comp

Loc/Man HOME

INT/D.Sp INT/D.Sp INT/Qua

me DIFFrent.

33

COULDnt (CANT) SEE

INT/D.Sp COM/Mod COM/Neg INT/For

34

SO next TIME (and)

he EVrybody didnt

WENT

on (to) a HOLiday

35

RECognize him WAS (S)

INT/Lex INT/Qua COM/Neg

36

that

HE

a FATHer CHRISTmas. EVALUATION

ORIENTATION Conj 37 SO-O Subj FATHer CHRISTmas Verb was Comp VERy PLEASED and HAPpy (that)

INT/Phon INT/Lex INT/L.Int COR/C.AP EVALUATION

NARRATIVE Conj 38 39 40 SO-O and said ^ Subj

NObody I

Aux
CAN

Verb
SAY am

Comp
that a FATHer CHRISTmas.

Loc INT/D.Sp COM/Neg INT/D.Sp

the FATHer CHRISTmas

went

HOME

INT/Phon

NARRATIVE Conj 41 AND Subj he Verb SAW

- 437 -

Appendix 1
ORIENTATION Subj 42
it

EVALUATION Aux
was

Verb
SNOWing.

COR/B-ing

NARRATIVE Conj 43 44 And and Subj he GOT Verb WENT some ^ SNOW EVALUATION Subj it Verb was Comp (VERy) MAGic. INT/Lex INT/L.Int EVALUATION Subj he Verb MAGicked up LOOKED CHANGED about CHANging (to CHANGE)
ALL the TOYS

Comp

Loc OUT

ORIENTATION Conj 45 and

NARRATIVE Conj 46 And Comp EVerything Inst/Acc

INT/Lex INT/Qua INT/Rep

47 48 49

so and

it he

DIFFrent his MIND

with the MAGic SNOW with some

cups of TEA (CUPpa TEA)

AND things like THAT.

INT/Lex INT/Qua COR/O.PP COR/C.NP

50

SO-O

FAther CHRISTmas

is (was) said

HAPpy,

INT/Phon INT/D.Sp INT/Lex

51 the snowMAN. 52 The snowMAN

INT/L.Int WAS VERy TIred. EVALUATION

ORIENTATION Conj 53 54 SO Temp then (when) Subj he

I he would

Aux

Verb THOUGHT (THINKed)

GO

Comp/Loc that on (to a) COM/Mod

HOLiday

- 438 -

Appendix 1
NARRATIVE Conj 55 56 but and and Subj he (the) FAther CHRISTmas
I

EVALUATION Aux DID (DID

will

Verb SAY said say) GO

^

Comp/Acc

EXP/Cl.Lex (that)
as WELL with the SNOWman.

57

INT/D.Sp COM/Fut/Mod COR/O.PP

58

So

he

DID. EVALUATION

CODA 59 The END

INT/Phon

SHEIBA and NADIA: SHEIBAS STORY D ORIENTATION Temp 1 One DAY Subj FATHer CHRISTmas Verb GOT Comp TIreder amd TIreder (TIred and TIred.) INT/Rep EVALUATION Subj HE and and and
WHEN I

EVALUATION

NARRATIVE Conj 2 3 4 5 6 7 Aux Verb went THOUGHT (THINKED) THOUGHT (THINKED) THOUGHT (THINKED
give

Comp

Loc to BED

he -

INT/Rep that)
LITtle CHILDren PRESents THANK you.

INT/Rep INT/D.Sp INT/D.Sp INT/D.Quo COM/Neg COR/C.NP

they

dont

say

8 9 10 11 12

So and and and

O.K.

he

GOT up PUT on his CLOAK and his SHOES WHITE CHRISTmas INT/D.Sp INT/D.Ad INT/Int COM/Imp

he HE
Father CHRISTmas

TOLD SAID,
GIVE

me your PRESents

- 439 -

Appendix 1
NARRATIVE Conj 13
and

EVALUATION Subj
I

Aux
LL

Verb
give

Comp
them to the CHILDren

Temp
EVry DAY.

INT/D.Sp INT/Qua COM/Fut/Mod INT/D.Sp COM/Que COM/Mod

14

So I

can have a HOLiday?

15 FATHer CHRISTmas. 16

said

YES,

SAID (the) WHITE CHRISTmas - - 17 He gave ALL the CHILDren the PRESents REALly tired.

INT/D.Sp INT/Int

INT/Qua

18 19 20

and So

he FATHer CHRISTmas
DONT

got SAID,
WORry,

INT/L.Int

INT/D.Sp COM/Neg COM/Imp

a HOLiday one NOW toMORrow.

21 22 and

YOU I

can can

have have

INT/D.Sp COM/Mod INT/D.Sp INT/Rep COM/Mod INT/D.Sp INT/Int

23 SAID (the) WHITE CHRISTmas.

O.K. then. BYE,

AQEEL and NASIR: AQEELS STORY D ORIENTATION Conj/Temp 1 (One DAY) Subj there Verb WAS Subj a FATHer CHRISTmas INT/Phon EVALUATION Subj Aux Verb WANTS WANTs (WANT to GO to) SAID, Comp a HOLiday THIS YEAR Temp COM/CHP EVALUATION

NARRATIVE Conj 2 3 4 One DAY and ^ he and and he he

- 440 -

Appendix 1
NARRATIVE Conj 5 6 7 and Subj
I

EVALUATION Aux Verb my

WANT ^ HOLidays.

Comp

Loc INT/Phon INT/D.Sp

A MAN the CHILDren were (was) They AND AND and were (was)

gave

HIM a HOLiday COR/B-ing

PLAYing PLAYing RUSHing aBOUT SKIPping SKIDding SNOWballs

outSIDE. INT/Rep COR/B-ing COR/P. Rt INT/Phon COR/P. Rt INT/Phon COR/P. Rt EVALUATION

8 9 10 11

ORIENTATION Subj 12 It Verb was Comp a GOOD HOLiday - - -

INT/Lex EVALUATION

NARRATIVE Conj 13 14 and Subj POOR WALter the - WHITE CHRISTmas Verb MELTed SMELT MELT MELTed MELT

EXP/Cl.Lex INT/Rep EXP/Cl.Sen EVALUATION

CODA Conj 15 and Subj THAT Verb was Comp the END.

INT/Phon

SHAZIA and REFAT: SHAZIAS STORY D ORIENTATION Temp 1 One DAY Subj he Verb SLEPT (SLEEPED) Loc in the BED. INT/Phon EVALUATION Subj He and Verb SLEPT (SLEEP) Loc in the FIRST bed INT/Phon INT/Rep EVALUATION

NARRATIVE Conj 2 3

his PRESent - - -

- 441 -

Appendix 1
NARRATIVE Conj 4 5 and and Subj HE him HE Verb GAVE (GIVE) SAID, Comp the PRESents all ALL (PRESent) TO HIM INT/Phon INT/Qua EXP/Cl.Lex EMBEDDED ORIENTATION 6 ORIENTATION Subj 7 The SNOWman Aux was Verb WALKing Loc outSIDE. COR/B-ing EVALUATION Subj he he it He Aux (DO) Verb DRESSED (DRESS) up WALKED HAPpened. WENT (GO)
to BUY some THINGS a CHRISTmas TREE. I AM FED up.

EVALUATION

INT/D.Sp INT/Lex EVALUATION

NARRATIVE Conj 8 9 10 11 Then and Then Man/Comp Loc

aROUND

in his HOUSE - - INT/Phon to the SHOPS INT/Rep

13

to BUY

MODEL STORY D: FATHER CHRISTMASS HOLIDAY Father Christmas was tired and he was feeling very cross and grumpy. Why do I have to work so hard all the year when other people can take time off to go on holiday? I can never have a holiday and it isnt fair! he muttered to himself. He sat down in his chair and thought about it for a very long time. What if I do take a break and abolish Christmas for one year? I am fed up with seeing my face on Christmas cards. Why cant they call it a winter holiday and put a snowman on their cards instead? After a while he began to cheer up and started to talk to himself again. Who says I have to give out all these presents each year? No-one! I can please myself what I do! Children have too many presents anyway and they forget to say thank you! He decided to go and see his friend Walter Kristel the Snowman. So he put on his hood and boots and set off. Walter was sitting outside his snowhouse, smoking a pipe. Hello, Father Christmas. How nice to see you! he greeted him cheerfully. Hello, Walter. I need to talk to you. Come and sit down. Father Christmas sat down on the snow and continued, You see, I want a holiday. I want to skip Christmas altogether this year.

- 442 -

Appendix 1
Oh! gasped Walter in surprise. Youll have to go in disguise or everyone will recognize you and complain about losing their Christmas. Youll get no peace at all! am! What a good idea! Ill shave off my beard; then I can travel the world and no-one will know who I

Father Christmas was getting really excited. Then his face clouded. I do feel a bit bad about spoiling everyones Christmas - they deserve some fun too. Walter thought for a minute, puffing hard on his pipe. Then he said, You go off and enjoy your holiday and you leave Christmas to me. Ill see that everyone else has a holiday too. Father Christmas didnt stop to ask any questions. He went home and shaved off his beard and then searched for something to wear. He found an old green jacket, an orange sweater, a brown hat and some brown trousers, and some black shoes. When he had put them all on, he no longer recognized himself in the mirror he looked a different person. He was delighted! He had an exciting holiday, visiting India and Pakistan, Europe and the West Indies, and not one person guessed who he really was. Walter Kristel got to work straight away. First he made lots of big posters, explaining about the new Winter Holiday arrangements. He put a picture of himself on the top and promised everyone a real white Christmas. He explained that he would be organizing the holiday this year. There would be skating parties, skiing, sledging, and snowball games for all the children. There would also be a build the biggest snowman competition. None of the mothers would have to worry about food - the elves and fairies would see to that and there would be special things for the old people to do. Soon posters went up in every village and town. Father Christmas saw the first one while he was in Germany. He would be able to join in the fun too! Everyone was excited about it. Two days before Christmas the snow started falling. It snowed everywhere yet the snow wasnt cold, icy, wet or slushy. It was magic! The Winter Holiday was a huge success. Everyone (including Father Christmas) had a marvellous time but at the end of it all Walter Kristel was very tired indeed. he felt he needed a holiday now! Father Christmas had been thinking about Walter as he was travelling home. Walter had given him a lovely holiday; how could he return the compliment? Would Walter like a summer holiday? Could he send him to Australia without him melting in the heat? Perhaps the fairies would help with a magic spell? Father Christmas called on Walter and sure enough he did need a holiday. Father Christmas suggested a summer holiday in Australia and Walter was overjoyed. Australia was where he had always wanted to go!

- 443 -

Appendix 1

SHVINDER and MICHAEL: SHVINDERS STORY E ORIENTATION Conj/Temp 1 2 but EVry TIME Subj BILly he HE Verb was GOT FELL OFF (FALLED). Comp a HORSE rider on his HORSE INT/Phon INT/Phon INT/For INT/Phon EVALUATION Subj BEN, BILlys FRIEND BEN Aux Verb Comp/Man Inst/Loc INT/Phon COR/D.Ap SHOWED him EVALUATION

3 NARRATIVE Conj 4 SO-O Temp

that (and)

HE-E

could (even)

do
was

A-ANything
a FOOTballer.

with a BALL

INT/Phon COM/Mod COR/O.PP EXP/S.Qual INT/Phon INT/For INT/Phon

6 7

as

he

So

ONE DAY

he HE-E

went got FELL off (FALLED down

LYing

on his HORSE on his HORSE STRAIGHT STRAIGHT)

on his BACK.

and

9 10

and

THEN

COR/P. Rt EVALUATIVE ACTION

11 SO-O 12 and 13

BEN BILly
It

LAUGHED said,
s NOT FUNny

INT/Phon INT/Phon INT/D.Sp INT/Lex COM/Neg INT/Phon INT/D.Sp INT/Lex INT/Rep COM/Neg INT/Phon

14 and

it

s NOT FA-AIR.

15 SO-O,

he

said,

- 444 -

Appendix 1
NARRATIVE Conj Temp 16 Subj
YOU

EVALUATION Aux
could

Verb
be

Comp
the FUNniest man

Loc INT/Phon INT/D.Sp INT/Lex INT/Qua COM/Mod COM/Sup INT/Phon INT/D.Sp INT/For COM/Neg

in the WHOLE WIDE WORLD.

17

ONE day

wont.

18

ONE day

ll

be

the BEST, Ben,

INT/D.Sp INT/D.Ad INT/For INT/Rep COM/Fut/Mod COM/Sup INT/Phon INT/For COR/D.Ap

19 20 SO-O

Billy one DAY BEN, Billys FRIEND, BEN

said.

said, 21
YO-OU

could

be

the FUNniest ACtor.

INT/Phon INT/D.Sp INT/Lex COM/Mod COM/Sup INT/Phon EVALUATION

22 So ORIENTATION Conj 23
And

HE

Opened

a SHO-OW.

Temp
WHEN

Subj
he

Verb
got on

Comp
the HO-ORSE

INT/Phon INT/For EVALUATION

NARRATIVE Conj 24 Subj he Aux DIDnt Verb FA-ALL ANYthing (NOthing). Comp

INT/Phon COM/Neg INT/Phon COM/Neg COM/Or.Cl INT/Phon EVALUATIVE ACTION

25

or

do

26

He

RODE (RI-Ided)

the HORSE

27 28 29

and and THE-EN

EVrybody THEY THEY the MAN

LAUGHED CLAPPED gave HIM the PRIZE -

INT/Qua INT/S.Ap INT/Rep INT/Phon

- 445 -

Appendix 1
NARRATIVE Conj 30 31 32 33 Subj BILly
I it

EVALUATION Aux Verb gave said,

THINK WASnt ME

Comp HIM the PRIZE. INT/Rep INT/D.Sp INT/D.Sp COM/Neg INT/D.Sp

the HORSE.

The MAN

34 35 36

(and) SO-O

THINK (THOUGHT)
was

it he

INT/D.Sp INT/Phon

GAVE

the PRIZES TO THE HORSE.

FARIBA and TASLEEM: FARIBAS STORY E ORIENTATION Temp 1 2 (One DAY) Subj there
who LIKED

EVALUATION Aux Verb a boy called was ^

to ride

Comp BILly
a HORSE.

Loc INT/Phon INT/Phon INT/Lex COM/Q.Mod INT/Phon INT/For DOWN. INT/Lex EVALUATION

3 4

WhenEVer

he

JUMped on

a HORSE

the HORSE

dropped

him

NARRATIVE Conj 5 Temp One DAY and

What

Subj

Aux

Verb

Comp

Loc INT/For INT/S.Ap

his FRIEND CALLED BEN

came SAID,
IS the MATter?

over INT/Phon INT/D.Sp COM/Que

6 7

8 9 10

And

Billy
My HORSE when I I just

said, dropping
keeps ^ m HURT LOOK at IT! my BACK me DOWN ON ITS BACK.

INT/Phon INT/D.Sp INT/D.Sp INT/Phon INT/D.Sp INT/Phon INT/D.Sp INT/Emp COM/Imp

11 And 12 (and)

- 446 -

Appendix 1
NARRATIVE Conj 13 And 14 Temp Subj BEN (HE) Aux Verb said,
LOOK at ME-E!

EVALUATION Comp Loc

INT/Phon INT/D.Sp COM/Imp INT/Phon INT/D.Sp INT/Lex COM/Mod

15

can

DO

GOOD THINGS,

16 (BEN). 17 18
I can

(said)
LOOK! BALance it ON my HEAD ON my FEET and ON my HEAD.

INT/D.Sp COM/Imp INT/Phon INT/D.Sp INT/Lex COM/Mod COR/C.LP

19 And

he

could (can)

PASS (DO)

the ball ^^

FROM (TO) his FEET TO his HEAD

INT/Phon COM/Mod COR/C.LP

20 and 21 and

BILly he

saw got

this ^ RE-EALly CROSS. INT/Phon INT/L.Int INT/Lex EVALUATION

ORIENTATION Conj 22
And

Temp
WHEN

Subj
HE

Verb
went

Loc
on a HORSE

Temp
aGAIN

INT/For EVALUATION

NARRATIVE Conj 23 Subj he Aux Verb fell Comp/Loc OFF (DOWN)

EVALUATIVE ACTION 24 25 26 27 28 29 and and and and

beCAUSE

Ben

LAUGHED LAUGHED LAUGHED

INT/Phon INT/Rep INT/Rep A-ANgry INT/Phon INT/Lex COR/B-ing EXP/S.Caus

BILly
he was

got
LAUGHing.

And

BILly

said,

- 447 -

Appendix 1
NARRATIVE Conj 30
ARE YOU LAUGHing at ME-E?

EVALUATION Subj Aux Verb Comp/Loc

WHY

INT/Phon INT/D.Sp INT/Rep COM/Que COR/B-ing INT/D.Sp EXP/S.Caus

31 32

BeCAUSE,

he
THAT

said,
S the FUNniest thing

INT/Phon INT/D.Sp INT/Lex COM/Sup INT/Phon INT/D.Sp INT/Qua INT/Emp INT/D.Sp INT/D.Sp INT/Lex COM/Mod COM/Neg INT/D.Sp COM/Hor

33

EVer

SAW

in the WHOLE TOWN.

34 35
but

YOU you cant

ARE BALance

a ^ COWboy
on a HORSE.

36 37 38

So
Let

he
s YO-OU

SAID,
see BALance on a horse!

---

INT/Phon INT/D.Sp INT/Lex INT/Rep INT/Phon INT/D.Sp INT/D.Sp COM/Mod INT/D.Sp COM/Hor

39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

And

he
THERE

said,
S can COME SEE WIN TWO PRIZes. a GAME

and and let if

YOU s you

INT/D.Sp INT/Qua INT/Phon COM/Que INT/Int INT/Exc

And Billy YES, And

beCAUSE

DID win DID! TWO PRIZes? he

the FIRST PRIZE

he

was
was FUNny.

INT/Lex EXP/S.Caus INT/Phon EXP/S.Caus

The second PRIZE

WAS

beCAUSE of his HORSE.

- 448 -

Appendix 1
NARRATIVE Conj 49 50 51 And and and Subj Aux Verb got went drank Comp/Loc TI-Ired to the WATerside some WATer EVALUATIVE ACTION 52 53 54 55 And and And BILly evryone CHEERED CLAPPED said,
LOOK!

EVALUATION the HORSE INT/Phon INT/Lex

INT/Qua SEVen TIMES. INT/Qua INT/Phon INT/D.Sp COM/Imp

two PRIZes -

56

VE

won

INT/Phon INT/D.Sp INT/Qua INT/D.Sp COM/Neg

57 58 59 And and

YOU

havent.

BEN they BOTH

got

CRO-OSS

INT/Phon INT/Lex INT/Qua COM/Q.Mod

started CODA 60 THE END.

FIGHting. EVALUATION INT/Phon

SAKANDER and SUKHBIR: SAKANDERS STORY E ORIENTATION Conj 1 2 Temp Subj BILly HE WANted TO GO but (and) on his HORSE Aux Verb was Comp Loc/Inst INT/Phon INT/Phon COM/Q.Mod a COWboy. EVALUATION

EVry TIME

he

GOES

on his HORSE

INT/Phon INT/For COM/CHP INT/Phon COM/CHP INT/Phon COM/Mod COR/O.PP EXP/Cl.Lex

4 5 6 and

he BEN HE could

FALLS was do a football MAN ANything

OFF.

with BALLS FOOTballs.

- 449 -

Appendix 1
ORIENTATION Conj Temp 7 And, ONCE, he (DID) was
and um ^ KICking JUMping KICking JUST um (on) THE BALL, ONE leg the BALL the OTHer leg KICking the BALL. UP UP

EVALUATION Subj Aux Verb BUMPed (BUMP) Comp the BALL (BALL) Loc/Inst in on HIS HEAD INT/Phon INT/For EXP/Cl.Lex COR/P. Rt COR/P. Rt INT/Phon COR/P. Rt INT/Qua INT/Emp COR/P. Rt COR/P. Rt

8 9 10 11

and ^ and ^

PUTting KICking

12 and 13 and and 14 ^ NARRATIVE Conj Temp 15 And ONE day BILly the COWboy Subj Aux

COR/P. Rt EVALUATION

Verb

Comp/Man

Loc INT/Phon INT/For INT/S.Ap

went BOUNCED up (FELL off HI-IGH) NEARly REACHED

on his HORSE

16 and 17 and 18 and SO-O 19 and

INT/Phon the SKY.

he

BUMPED BANGED

himself ^ his HEAD

INT/Phon on his tail INT/Phon EVALUATIVE ACTION

20 and 21 22 23 THAT 24 And

BILly BEN BEN

he

started (start)

LAUghing. LAUGHED. LAUGHED SO MUCH

ROLLED aROUND IN the GRASS.

COM/Q.Mod INT/P. Qua INT/Rep INT/Lex INT/S.Ap

BILly, the COWboy

SAID,

- 450 -

Appendix 1
NARRATIVE Conj 25 [MY DEArie!] Subj
IT

EVALUATION Aux Verb

S

Comp/Man
NOT FUNny

Loc/Temp INT/Phon INT/D.Sp INT/D.Ad INT/Lex COM/Neg INT/Phon INT/D.Sp INT/D.Ad INT/Lex INT/Rep COM/Neg EVALUATIVE ACTION

26 [BEN.]

IT

NOT FUNny

27

BEN

LAUGHED THREW (ROLLED himself aWAY in the AIR HIGH)

28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35

and AND and and SO and as and they THEY THEY ALL the PEOple usually ^ HE

LAUGHED LAUGHED LAUGHED MADE did DID enJOYED it INT/Phon INT/Lex INT/Qua
HIGH.

INT/Rep INT/Rep a SHO-OW the SAME INT/Phon INT/Phon

36 37 38 39 40 41

when (that) SO and AND SO

BILly

BOUNCED up (MADE it) were WENT did not laugh TIred of WATching HOME

the PEOple they BEN

COR/O.PP

any MORE.

INT/Phon COM/Neg INT/S.Ap

BILly the COWboy

let
HAVE

him
a RIDE on his OWN HORSE.

INT/Emp EVALUATION

CODA 42 The END.

INT/Phon

HUMIRA and NADIA: HUMIRAS STORY E TITLE/ORIENTATION Temp 1 (ONE DAY) Subj BILly and the FOOTball team INT/Phon COR/C.NP EVALUATION

- 451 -

Appendix 1
NARRATIVE Conj 2 3 Subj Aux Verb went WENT Comp/Acc Loc/Temp outside to the FOOTball TEAM. Ben (that) INT/D.Sp INT/Lex COM/Que INT/D.Sp COM/Neg COM/Mod
MISS the TEAM.

EVALUATION

ONE DAY ^ ^ BILly and HE

4 5

And

he
DO you

ASKED play (do) SAID,

CANT.

NICE FOOTball?

6 7

He
I

8 9 SO-O 10 and 11 And 12

INT/D.Sp INT/Phon

BILly BILly
I DONT WANT

CHANGED PLAYED SAID,

to PLAY

his CLOTHES as WELL. - - -

ANy MORE

INT/D.Sp COM/Neg COM/Q.Mod EMBEDDED ORIENTATION

13 14 SO 15 and 16 SO-O

AM

FEEling (GETting) went DID WROTE (WRITE)

SICK.

INT/D.Sp COR/B-ing HOME

BILly

SOMEthing ELSE. a LETter to the FOOTball TEAM saying (that)

FOOTball

HE

INT/Phon

17

DONT

LIKE

INT/D.Quo INT/Lex COM/Neg INT/D.Quo COM/Q.Mod EXP/S.Caus EXP/Cl.Lex

18 beCAUSE

KEEP

FELling DOWN FALling DOWN HURting mySELF.

19 and 20 SO-O 21 and 22 23 And BILly HE

I m going

INT/D.Quo in the POST INT/Phon

PUT said
to PLAY

the LETter to BEN (that)

with the COWboy.

INT/D.Sp COM/Fut

he

SAID

- 452 -

Appendix 1
NARRATIVE Conj 24 25 Subj BEN
I dont

EVALUATION Aux Verb SAID

CARE

Comp/Ins/Man/Loc (that) INT/Phon INT/D.Sp INT/Lex COM/Neg INT/D.Sp

with the FOOTball. MUCH BETter than YOU.

26 if 27 28

you I I can

PLAY. play m

INT/D.Sp COM/Mod INT/Phon INT/D.Sp INT/Qua COM/Com INT/D.Sp INT/Qua INT/Rep COM/Com INT/D.Sp

29 30

BILly
I M GOing

SAID,
to be MUCH BETter than YOU

31 32 SO-O 33 34 35 and 36 CODA 37 The END BILly BEN BEN

at PLAYing (TO PLAY) SAID went

to play

COWboy.

OFF OFF
with the COWboy.

went
to PLAY

INT/Rep EVALUATION INT/Phon

SHEIBA and VICTOR: SHEIBAS STORY E ORIENTATION Temp 1 One DAY Subj BILly Aux was Verb PLAYing INT/Phon COR/B-ing EVALUATION Subj he He and It BILly and then he Aux Verb FOUND GAVE PUT BIT went found A DOG Comp A - CAT. it some FOOD it BILly. INside INT/Phon outSIDE. Loc EVALUATION

NARRATIVE Conj 2 3 4 5 6 7 and

- 453 -

Appendix 1
NARRATIVE Conj 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 So and and and THEN he and and Subj HE the DOG He The DOG he STARted Aux Verb gave Comp the DOG some FOOD INT/Phon bit ran to CHASE RAN RAN RAN WENT to his NANnies house. INT/Rep INT/Rep COR/D.At him. HIS ARM. aWAY. COM/Q.Mod Loc/Temp EVALUATION

16 17

Nannie have ^ YOU

SAID,
WHY come KEEPS CHASing ME. HERE?

INT/D.Sp COM/Que INT/D.Sp COM/Q.Mod EXP/S.Caus INT/D.Sp COM/Neg

18

CAUSE

a DOG

19 20

HAVEnt

GOT

a DOG,

SAID NANnie.
YES, you HAVE.

21

INT/Phon INT/D.Sp INT/Int a GREEN DOG. INT/Phon INT/D.Sp COR/C.NP

22 23 And then

YOU

VE

GOT

the DOG

RAN AFter

BILly and BILlys DAD INT/Phon INT/D.Sp INT/D.Ad INT/Int

WHAT

24

[OH
DAD!]

SAID BILly.

25

[SILly BILly!]
y er DOing?

INT/Phon INT/D.Sp INT/D.Ad COM/Que

toDAY,

26
y er DOing

WHAT

[SILly BILly?]

INT/Phon INT/D.Sp INT/D.Ad INT/Rep COM/Que

- 454 -

Appendix 1
NARRATIVE Conj 27 did ^ 28
BeCAUSE I WANted TO. WHY DID YOU

EVALUATION Subj Aux Verb GO Comp

WHY

Loc INT/D.Sp COM/Que

to the PARK?

you

(WENT)

INT/D.Sp COM/Q.Mod EXP/S.Caus INT/D.Sp COM/Que

29 WANT (WANted)
JUST WANted TO? TO.

30

Because

INT/D.Sp INT/Emp INT/Rep EXP/S.Caus

WHY

31
DID YOU

WANT (WANted)

INT/D.Sp INT/Rep COM/Que INT/Qua

TO?

32 33

And

THEY BOTH BILly

HAD WENT

a FIGHT. INside EVALUATIVE ACTION

34 35

and
CAUSE HE

STARted

to CRY
BIT

--HIS FINger.

INT/Phon COM/Q.Mod EXP/S.Caus

AQEEL and SHVINDER: AQEELS STORY E ORIENTATION Temp 1 ONCE upon a TIME Subj THERE Verb was Subj INT/Phon EVALUATION Subj BILly his HORSE and HE - um HE HE THEN he HE Verb was RAN RODE (RIDE) FELL GOT Loc OUT to the HORSE on the HORSE OFF. ON aGAIN INT/Phon INT/Phon INT/Rep Temp a boy called ^ BILly - - EVALUATION

NARRATIVE Conj 2 3 Temp

4 5 6

AND AND And

- 455 -

Appendix 1
NARRATIVE Conj Temp 7 8 9 and And and Subj HE HE Verb RODE (RIDE) FELL (FALL) CAME (COME) RAN (RUNNED) SAID, STOLE
YOU (STEALED) MY PUFF.

EVALUATION Comp/Loc ?? ^. OFF (DOWN) BACK UP aGAIN aGAIN. Temp INT/Phon INT/Rep INT/Phon INT/Rep

10 11 12

And and

HE he

to BILly

INT/Phon INT/D.Sp EVALUATION

CODA Subj 13 That Verb s Comp the the END of ^ STOry.

INT/Phon

SHAZIA and NADIA: SHAZIAS STORY E ORIENTATION Temp 1 2 NARRATIVE Conj 3 4 THEN Subj BILly
I M NOT

EVALUATION Subj BILly He Verb PLAYED PLAYED Inst with BALL. with the BALL --INT/Rep EVALUATION Aux Verb SAID,
PLAYing.

Once upon a TIME

Loc

Temp INT/Phon --INT/Phon INT/D.Sp COM/Neg COR/B-ing INT/Phon ---

5 6 7 8 9 10 Then Then THEN

Billy He he

DID ?? (DO-O) - - - ^ SAID, WENT (GO) ?? .^. on his HORSE

[ What did he do? What happened next? ]

What HAPpened - - -

he he

DID (DO-OS) FELL (FALL)

--off

INT/Phon

- 456 -

Appendix 1
NARRATIVE Conj 11 12 13 14 15 Then THEN Subj
What

EVALUATION Aux Verb

HAPpened - - -

Comp/Loc ?? --^HIM

Temp

HE BEN he
I m NOT

DOES LAUGHED (LAUGH) at SAID,

PLAYing.

EVALUATIVE ACTION INT/D.Sp INT/Rep COM/Neg COR/B-ing

16 17 18 19

Then

BILly
I What

SAID,
AM HAPpened

?? --^?? --^his BACK aGAIN.

INT/D.Sp

is HE HURT (DO)

20 ORIENTATION Subj 21 he ^

BILly

Verb was ^

Loc

Temp um a LONG TIME

the on ^ HORSE NARRATIVE Subj 22 the ^ PEOple Verb DID (DO-OS) ?? ^

MODEL STORY E: BILLY AND THE WILD WEST GAMES Billy was a cowboy who fancied himself as a bare-back rider. He was always practising riding his horse without a saddle, but every time he mounted his horse, he immediately fell off again. However, as he picked himself up he always said, Practice makes perfect. One day Ill be the best rider in town. His friend, Ben, was a footballer but he had no team to play with, so Ben practised playing football all by himself. He kicked the ball up with his left foot, balanced it on his right foot, and then kicked it up again without dropping it. Soon he found all sorts of different ways of passing the ball from one foot to the other, and from his feet to his head and back again. He could roll the ball across his back and down his arm, and do lots of clever tricks without dropping it once. Billy watched enviously. Then he complained, Why are you so clever with a ball and Im so bad at staying on a horse? You practise your ball skills and improve all the time: I practise and nothing happens. I cant stay on for two seconds even when my horse is quiet - let alone when he starts bucking!

- 457 -

Appendix 1
Let me watch you, suggested Ben kindly. Ben watched as Billys horse ambled out of the stall and then stood there, munching grass and taking no notice of anybody. Billy ran up behind his horse, leapt into the air and grabbed his mane. He landed on the poor horses back with such force that he bounced in the air and came down again with his arms and legs stretched out like the spokes of a wheel. He looked so funny that Ben laughed out loud, especially when he slid along his back, flipped over his tail, and landed face down in the grass. Billy was not hurt, but he was cross with Ben for laughing at him. Ben laughed so much that he was rolling about in the grass. Its not funny, muttered Billy. Yes, but it is, countered Ben. It is very funny indeed. Youll never be the best rider in town but you are the funniest Ive ever seen. Why dont you enter the Wild West Games as the funniest cowboy in the Wild West? What a good idea! agreed Billy, brightening up. Everyone came to the Wild West Games and there were all sorts of events, side-shows, games and competitions. Ben entered the Ball Skills Competition. There was a juggler who could juggle with five balls at once and balance a bat on his head. Bens heart sank. The only way he could beat him was to keep going longer; so he did, but everyone got tired of watching. Soon it was Billys turn. The other competitors werent all that funny - even though they were dressed as clowns and their horses wore funny hats! Billy did just what he always did. He ran up behind his horse, took a running jump into the air, grabbed him by the mane and bounced on to his back. Only this time he kept on bouncing. First on his back, then on his head, and even on his two feet. His horse joined in the fun by kicking up his back legs and then his front legs, but instead of trying to throw Billy off, he somehow managed to keep him bouncing for a very long time. Everyone gasped. Billy not only looked very funny, bouncing on his horse in every imaginable position, he also looked very skilful. No-one had ever done such clever tricks before and stayed on his horse! At last his horse got tired and stopped abruptly, tipping Billy off head first into a trough of water. The crowd really enjoyed the joke and laughed and clapped for several minutes. Billy was awarded two prizes, one for being the funniest rider in the Games and the other for being the best rider in the Wild West. Billy couldnt believe his luck. Perhaps practice does make perfect, after all? Or, was it his horse that really deserved the prizes?

- 458 -

Appendix 1

SHVINDER and DHARMINDER: SHVINDERS STORY F ORIENTATION Subj 1 2 3 MR. WONG

WHO

EVALUATION Verb was

had

Comp a CHInaman
A TAKE-away SHOP.

INT/Phon INT/Phon INT/Lex EVALUATION

HE

WAS

FED UP with ChiNESE food.

NARRATIVE Conj 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 But 11 ALASka 12 SO-O 13 he

I LL and

Subj he He

Aux deCIDed

Verb TO have SAID,

too HOT ARE

Comp/Loc SOME Other FOOD COM/Q.Mod

So

Indian foods are ENGlish foods

INT/D.Sp INT/L.Int
BOring.

INT/D.Sp INT/Lex INT/D.Sp COM/Que COM/Neg

SO

he
WHAT

SAID,
aBOUT ALASka?

he

DIDnt

KNOW WHERE (WHAT)

INT/Phon INT/Phon

WA-AS. said,
GO to ALASka.

INT/Phon INT/D.Sp COM/Mod/Fut INT/Rep

14 So 15 16 17 18 19 WELL

he He The ESkimo man

You

WENT MET said,

SEEM

to ALASka. An (A) - ESkimo man

INT/Rep
a BIT LO-OST.

INT/Phon INT/D.Sp INT/D.Sp INT/Int COM/Q.Mod

He
I WANT to

said,
GO to a COLD COUNTry.

20 21

He
WHAT

said,
S

its (the) NA-AME?

INT/Phon INT/D.Sp COM/Que INT/D.Sp

22 he SAID.

ALASka,

- 459 -

Appendix 1
NARRATIVE Conj 23 Subj
You

EVALUATION Aux Verb

re

Comp/Loc
IN ALASka,

Des INT/Phon INT/D.Sp INT/Rep INT/D.Sp INT/Lex

24 25 26
if

he
I you CAN

SAID.
WONder MA-AKE ARCtic RO-OLL?

INT/Phon INT/D.Sp COM/Que COM/Mod INT/Phon INT/D.Sp INT/Rep COM/Que INT/Phon INT/D.Sp INT/Int EXP/Cl.Lex

27 28

he

said.
ARCtic RO-OLL?

said the ESkimo. 29

YES, ARCtic roll ICE-cream.

30

WHAT

IS

ICE-cream?

INT/Phon INT/D.Sp INT/Rep COM/Que INT/Lex

31 32

HE
It

SHOUted OUT.
s a ROLL with ICE-cream ON.

INT/Phon INT/D.Sp COR/O.PP EXP/S.Qual INT/Phon INT/D.Sp COM/Imp INT/Rep

33

COME

INto my SNOWhouse.

34 35 36

So

he He

went said,
TELL

into the SNOWhouse.

me ALL aBOUT THIS ICE-cream.

INT/Phon INT/D.Sp INT/Qua COM/Imp INT/Qua INT/Rep INT/Phon INT/D.Sp INT/Int INT/Phon INT/D.Sp COM/Neg

37 38 39

So Then
Oh

he he
THAT

TOLD said,
S

him ALL aBOUT the ICE-cream.

ICE-cream!

40

DONT

KNO-OW

it ^.

- 460 -

Appendix 1
NARRATIVE Conj 41 42 So Subj he HE Aux Verb MADE HAD Comp it. MEAT and a SOUPy (SOUP) DRINK. COR/C.NP Loc EVALUATION

43 44
Mm-m

He
this

said,
is deLICious.

INT/Phon INT/D.Sp INT/Int INT/Lex

HOME

45

NOW

will

GO

INT/D.Sp INT/For COM/Mod/Fut INT/Phon INT/D.Sp INT/D.Sp COM/Neg

46 47

and I dont

MAKE KNOW

it

in CHIna.

48

if

CAN

cook (make)

MEAT or ^

SOUPy (SOUP) drink. - - -

[whisper INT/Phon] INT/D.Sp INT/Rep COM/Mod COR/C.NP HUNting. HOME in the TAKE-away SHOP. EVALUATION COR/P. Rt

49 50 51 Then and then

He he

went WENT COOKED

CODA Conj 52 53 Subj He they (that Verb had were was) Comp/Temp CUStomers INdian CUStomers ENGlish CUStomers kinds of and ALL (the) CUStomers. the MEAT and SOUPy the (SOUP) drink. EVry DAY

INT/Phon INT/Qua COR/C.NP EXP/S.Qual INT/Phon INT/Lex INT/Rep COR/C.NP INT/Phon INT/Phon EXP/S.Caus INT/Phon

54

They

LO-OVED

55 56 57
and

They

came
to EAT DRINK.

- 461 -

Appendix 1
FARIBA and JEROME: FARIBAS STORY F ORIENTATION Conj 1 (ONE DAY) Subj MR. WONG HE ALways Aux Verb WAS SOLD (SELLED) Comp a CHInaman RICE. INT/Phon COM/Q.Mod EVALUATION Temp ONE day Subj he he he
can I FIND some DIFferent

EVALUATION

and

NARRATIVE Conj 3 4 5 6 But and and Aux Verb WAS WENT SAID,
WHERE

Comp/Loc FED UP to SOME of HIS FRIENDS INT/Phon INT/Lex INT/P. Qua COR/M.At INT/D.Sp COM/Que COM/Mod COR/M.At INT/D.Sp EVALUATION

KINDs (KIND) of FOOD? 7 And they SAID,

In AusTRAlia.

ORIENTATION Conj 8
And

Temp
WHEN

Subj
he

Verb
went

Loc
THERE

INT/For EVALUATION

NARRATIVE Conj/Temp 9 10 11 12
ARE the Others?

Subj he

Aux

Verb SAW
coming

Comp an ESkimo (a EKsimo)

Loc

toWARDS HIM

COR/P. Rt

AND

HE

SAID,
WHERE

INT/Phon INT/D.Sp COM/Que INT/D.Sp INT/Emp INT/Qua COM/Mod INT/Phon INT/D.Sp INT/Qua COM/Neg INT/Phon INT/D.Sp INT/Emp

13

can ONly (ONly can)

SEE ONE.

14 15

And

MR. WONG
There

SAID,
ARENT ANy Others.

16

There

only ME!

- 462 -

Appendix 1
NARRATIVE Conj/Temp 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
I

EVALUATION Subj
Who

Aux
s

Verb
COMing to FIND

Comp/ Loc

Des INT/D.Sp COM/Que

YOU FOOD?

INT/D.Sp COR/C.NP INT/D.Sp COM/Imp INT/For INT/Phon INT/D.Sp COM/Que COM/Mod INT/D.Sp INT/Int for COR/O.PP sale (BY SOMEone). INT/Qua EVALUATION

AND Then

HE He he
GO

GAVE had SAID,

TO SLEEP

HIM SOME TEA. SOUP and SUgar.

IN a WARM BED.

AND in the MORning

HE
CAN

SAID,
GO TO the TOWN?

25 26 27

And So and

ESkimo the (EKsimo) he he

said, WENT SAW

YES.

to the TOWN some RICE

28

So

he

BOUGHT (BUYED)

SOME RICE.

ORIENTATION Conj 29 30 NARRATIVE Conj 31 So Subj he Verb COOKED Comp it (them) Man VEry QUICKly.
And

Temp
WHEN

Subj
he

Verb
CAME

Subj/Loc
BACK

INT/For

THERE

WERE (WAS)

some VISitors. EVALUATION

INT/L.Int EVALUATION

ORIENTATION Conj 32
And

Temp
WHEN

Subj
they

Verb had EAten (ATE)

Comp it (them) INT/For EVALUATION

NARRATIVE Conj 33 Temp Subj they Verb said, Comp

VEry NICE.

INT/Phon INT/D.Sp INT/Lex INT/L.Int

- 463 -

Appendix 1
NARRATIVE Conj 34 And Temp THEN Subj he Verb GOT BACK to ^ Comp CHInese the (CHIna) FOOD. EVALUATION Subj THAT The END. Verb was Comp the END of MR. WONG INT/Phon INT/Phon EVALUATION

CODA Conj 35 36 And

SAKANDER and ASIF: SAKANDERS STORY F ORIENTATION Subj 1 2 MR. WONG

WHO

EVALUATION Verb WAS

HAD

Comp A CHIna man

A - TAKE-aWAY SHOP.

INT/Phon

NARRATIVE Conj 3 4
ALL HIS CUStomers WOULD LIKE.

EVALUATION Temp Subj HE Aux Verb THOUGHT Comp/Loc about ^

what

And

INT/Phon INT/Qua COM/Mod

5 6 7 8 9 And THEN

HE
THEY

THOUGHT
LIKED -

that
FRIED RICE.

INT/Lex

Mr. WONG He has (is)

EVryone

went said,

to ALASka. INT/D.Sp INT/Qua COM/Que INT/Qua

WHERE

GONE?

10

And

he

SAW

ONE ALASkan (ALASka)

in the

11

WALking aBOUT

COR/P. Rt

ALASkan (ALASka)
STREET - - -

12

He

TALKED

TO THE ALASkan (ALASka) ?? .^..

INT/Rep

13

and

SAID,

- 464 -

Appendix 1
NARRATIVE Conj 14 15
I

EVALUATION Subj Aux Verb SAID,

HELP you?

Comp

And

ALASkan the (ALASka)

CAN

INT/Phon INT/D.Sp COM/Que COM/Mod INT/Phon INT/D.Sp COM/Que

16
YOU

Are LOST?

ORIENTATION Conj 17 And Conj 18 19

YOU

Subj THERE Subj he

Verb WAS Aux

Are LOST?

Subj a STRANger EVALUATION Verb SAID, INT/Phon INT/D.Sp COM/Que --INT/Phon INT/D.Sp INT/Int COM/Neg INT/Phon INT/D.Sp COM/Imp
WITH ME.

NARRATIVE Comp/Loc and

20 21

And
NO,

Mr. WONG said,

I am NOT lost.

22 23

AND

THE STRANger

SAID,
COME

24

AND

LIVE

INT/Phon INT/D.Sp COM/Imp

25 26

AND

MR. WONG SAID, INT/Phon INT/D.Sp INT/Lex COM/Que INT/D.Sp

WHY DO ESkimos LIKE ChiNESE FOOD?

27 28 29 30 31 32 and AND THEN

??
I WONder WHERE - ^ - -

HE MR. WONG
the Other MEN

WENT WENT
WENT to GET

?? TO - - ^to WHERE

THEIR SHOPping

HE

FOUND - RICE.

- 465 -

Appendix 1
CODA Conj 33 And Subj the STRANger and MR. WONG Verb LIVED Man HAPpily (HAPpy) Ever AFter. INT/Phon INT/Lex COR/C.NP EVALUATION

HUMIRA and DAVID: HUMIRAS STORY F ORIENTATION Temp/Conj 1 2 ONCE uPON A TIME and Subj THERE MR. SONG Verb was Subj/Comp a man called ^ MR. WONG ESkimo the (ESkiMO). EVALUATION Subj Mr. WONG
I

WAS

NARRATIVE Conj/Temp 3 4 One DAY Aux Verb said,

am FED UP

Comp EMBEDDED ORIENTATION INT/D.Sp INT/Lex INT/D.Sp EXP/S.Caus INT/D.Sp INT/Rep

EVryBOdy FOOD.

5 6

beCAUSE

of (for)

all this ^ ^

COOKing COOKing)

(and AND (FOR)

GIVing

INT/D.Sp INT/Qua EXP/S.Caus INT/Phon INT/D.Sp INT/Qua

EVrybody

COMES (CAME)
to have FOOD

INT/D.Sp EXP/S.Caus INT/Phon INT/D.Sp COM/Neg COM/Mod INT/Phon INT/D.Sp INT/Rep COM/Neg COM/Mod INT/D.Sp COM/Neg EXP/S.Caus

10

But

CANT

make

PAKisTAni (ones).

meals / dishes

11

CANT

make

ENGlish ones

12

beCAUSE

they

DONT

LIKE

THEM (IT).

- 466 -

Appendix 1
NARRATIVE Conj/Temp 13
But

EVALUATION Subj
they

Verb
LIKE

Comp
SAUsage and things LIKE THAT.

INT/D.Sp INT/Lex COR/C.NP EVALUATION

ORIENTATION Conj 14 A-AND Subj ESkimo Mr. SONG the (EKsimo) Verb lived Loc in AlASka

INT/Phon INT/S.Ap EVALUATION

NARRATIVE Conj 15 16
you

Subj HE-E

Aux

Verb said,

Comp INT/Phon
HELP?

and

Do want DONT KNOW

INT/Phon INT/D.Sp COM/Que INT/Phon INT/D.Sp INT/Int COM/Neg

17

YES,

18
to MAKE.

WHAT They ALL like SAUSages

INT/D.Sp INT/D.Sp INT/Lex INT/Qua INT/D.Sp INT/Rep INT/D.Sp EXP/S.Caus INT/Phon INT/D.Sp COM/Que COM/Mod/Fut INT/D.Sp COM/Que

19

20

and

they

get

FATter and FATter (FAT and FAT)

21 22

from (for)
SO shall

EATing

SAUSages WHAT

them
I GIVE ^ ? SOMEthing ELSE? - - WHAT HELP?

23 SAID Mr. SONG. 24 25 26 27 And Mr. WONG

I

SAID,
need HELP (for) FOOD. FOOD?

with the

INT/D.Sp INT/Phon INT/D.Sp INT/D.Sp COM/Neg

He
I DONT

said,
know

- 467 -

Appendix 1
NARRATIVE Conj 28
FOOD ^ - - -

EVALUATION Subj Aux Verb (is) is Comp

what

Temp INT/D.Sp

29 30 31

SO
beCAUSE Oh NO-O!

Mr. Song
Mr. WONG shall I

set OFF
SAID, WHAT DO?

EXP/S.Caus INT/Phon INT/D.Sp INT/Int COM/Que COM/Mod/Fut EMBEDDED ORIENTATION

32

EVryBOdy

very CRUEL (CRUEL and CRUEL).

INT/Phon INT/D.Sp INT/Lex INT/Qua INT/Rep INT/Phon INT/D.Sp COM/Neg INT/Phon INT/D.Sp INT/Phon INT/D.Sp COR/O.PP EMBEDDED ORIENTATION

33

They

NEVer

tell

me

34
to DO

WHAT and to COOK WHAT for the Others.

35

36 37

SO

Mr. WONG
I

SAID,
DO NOthing.

INT/Phon INT/D.Sp COM/Neg INT/Phon INT/D.Sp COM/Neg INT/D.Sp INT/Rep

38

NEVer

COOK

39 40 41

(and)
beCAUSE the MAN who Mr. SONG,

NEVer, NEVer CAME, DIDnt HELP

INT/D.Sp EXP/S.Caus (with) ME INT/D.Sp INT/S.Ap COM/Neg

NOW

42

and

CANT

DO

ANYthing (NOthing)

INT/Phon INT/D.Sp COM/Neg COM/Mod

- 468 -

Appendix 1
NARRATIVE Conj 43 44 about (for) (and Subj Aux Verb
COOKing COOKing).

EVALUATION Comp INT/D.Sp COR/P. Rt INT/D.Sp INT/Rep MORE and MORE BORED (BORED and BORED) INT/Phon INT/D.Sp INT/Lex INT/Rep COR/B-ing EMBEDDED ORIENTATION

45

am

GETting

46

and

the Others

are

GETting

FATter and FATter

INT/D.Sp INT/Rep COM/Com COR/B-ing INT/Phon INT/D.Sp INT/Rep COR/P. Rt EVALUATION

47

From (for)

eating

SAUSages (SAUSage and SAUSage).

CODA 48 THE END.

INT/Phon

SHAZIA and SHADI: SHAZIAS STORY F ORIENTATION Temp 1 ONCE upon a TIME Subj there Verb ?? was - ^ - EVALUATION Subj He Aux s Verb BUYing Comp the DRINK and KRISpies RICE (KRISPS). MILk SOME (MILik). some - er RICE KRISpies (krips) and (DRINK) a and ^ NICE dinner. his BREAKfast. INT/Phon INT/Lex COR/C.NP COR/B-ing COR/C.NP

NARRATIVE Conj 2

3 4

THEN

he He

DRINKS (EAT) EATs (EAT)

THEN

he

EATs (EAT)

INT/Phon

- 469 -

Appendix 1
EAT

NARRATIVE Conj 6 7 8 THEN THEN THEN Subj he he he Verb EATS (EAT) DRINKS (EAT) EATS (EAT) Comp KRISpies SOME - er RICE (krips). MILk SOME (MILik). COOKies SOME (COOKing).

EVALUATION

FEHDAH and VICTOR: FEHDAHS STORY F ORIENTATION Conj/Temp 1 One DAY Subj Aux Verb was um Comp anNOYED very (NOYED) INT/Phon INT/L.Int INT/Lex INT/Phon INT/Lex COM/Neg EXP/S.Caus INT/Phon INT/Emp COM/Neg EVALUATION Subj he HE he Aux (DID) Verb LOCKED LOCK up WENT WENT STAYED (WENT) Comp/Loc the SHOP to the PARK. to the SHOP in (to) the CAR behind the SHOP. ALL NIGHT (TIME) - - COR/O.PP Loc/Temp EVALUATION

Mr. WONG

beCAUSE

he

didnt

like

TABleland

He would ^ ^

NEVer EVer

COME BACK.

NARRATIVE Conj 4 5 6 And and then And

And

he

INT/Phon INT/Qua

8 9

And

he
I dont

said,
LIKE ENGlish food

INT/Phon INT/D.Sp INT/Lex COM/Neg INT/Phon INT/D.Sp INT/Lex

10 but

LIKE

ChiNESE food.

11 So

he

WENT

to the MAN

- 470 -

Appendix 1
NARRATIVE Conj 12 and Subj MR. WONG ?? MR. WONG - - ^ ORIENTATION Conj 13 and Subj there Verb were (was) NOT Comp SO (SUCH) MANY PEOple. INT/Phon INT/P. Qua INT/L.Int COM/Neg EVALUATION Subj he He AND [I Verb SAID, GAVE THINK] Comp ?? .^.. - - HIM TEA ice-CREAM SUSPENSION OF THE ACTION EVALUATION Verb was was Comp ?? ^ NICE. INT/Lex EVALUATION Subj he he Aux Verb WENT CLOSED Comp/Loc to the SHOP it for ^ TWO DAYS THREE DAYS. INT/Phon INT/Qua EXP/Cl.Lex INT/Phon COM/Neg Temp/Man EVALUATION EVALUATION

NARRATIVE Conj 14 15 16 SO

ORIENTATION Conj 17 18 and and Subj it the ^ ice-CREAM

NARRATIVE Conj 19 20 So and

21

So

he

DIDnt COME BACK. ?? a-^

22 23 24 SO

He he
I DONT WANT

did said,
to LIVE

in that COUNtry in the COLD COUNtry.

INT/D.Sp COM/Neg COM/Q.Mod EXP/Cl.Lex ALL DAY INT/Phon INT/Qua

25

So

he

WENT to the

shop ChiNESE food ^ .

- 471 -

Appendix 1
NARRATIVE Conj 26 SO Subj he Verb DID Comp/Loc a - some COOKing it HIMself BY (HISself). INT/Phon Man EVALUATION

27

and

he

ATE

MODEL STORY F: MR. WONG AND HIS TRIP TO ALASKA Mr. Wong was a Chinaman who had a smart little Take-away Shop in the High Street. His customers always enjoyed his sweet-and-sour pork and his fried rice but he was getting tired of cooking Chinese food all the time. He didnt fancy Indian food - that was too hot! - and English food was far too boring! Where could he find some exciting new recipes? Mr. Wong talked to some of his friends. One friend said, Why dont you travel to some unlikely places like Australia, Albania and Alaska to see what people eat there? Mr. Wong thought about it: Australia was too far away, Albania he hadnt even heard of, and Alaska - that was a cold country, wasnt it? But maybe the Alaskans could show him how to make delicious sweets like Arctic Roll and Baked Alaska? So Mr. Wong decided to shut his shop for three months and visit Alaska. He took some notebooks in which to write down his new recipes, but when he arrived in Alaska, there was hardly anyone there! Where were the shops and the cafes? Where would he find some recipes? As he was wondering what to do, he saw a man in a fur hood coming towards him. Can I help you? asked the stranger kindly. You look as if you are lost. Im not lost, but Alaska is not quite what I expected. You are the first person I have seen. Where is everybody? There arent many of us living here - just a few Eskimos. We live by hunting and fishing. Its a good life - but why are you here? enquired the Eskimo, who was called Mr. Song. Im a Chinaman and I have a little Take-away Shop but Im fed up with cooking Chinese food. I came to Alaska to learn how to make Arctic Roll and Baked Alaska. What are they? asked Mr. Song. Delicious desserts, answered Mr. Wong, his mouth watering at the very thought of them. Havent you heard of Baked Alaska? he queried anxiously. No, what is it? Sponge with ice-cream - but dont you make it here? No, Ive never heard of it. Come to my igloo and tell me all about it. Mr. Wong was feeling tired so he was glad to have somewhere to go. Mr. Song gave him a hot drink which tasted like a mixture of tea and soup. And then he gave him some raw fish; this was a bit tough, but he was so hungry that he could have eaten anything. He then went to sleep on a warm rug in Mr. Songs snowhouse. Mr. Song let him stay with him and he gradually got used to Eskimo food. Would the Eskimos like Chinese food? he wondered. Where can I get some rice? He went to the Trading Station where everyone did their shopping. Much to his surprise and delight, he found that they did sell rice and lots of other things too. So he quickly collected together all the things he needed for savoury rice and sweet-and-sour whalemeat. He had to change his Chinese recipes a bit, but it was fun to start cooking again. Mr. Song was quite happy to try Chinese food and Mr. Wong soon learnt to cook on an open fire. After a while Mr. Song came to prefer Chinese food and was always asking Mr. Wong to cook for him. Mr. Wong asked his brother to look after his Take-away back home. He wanted to open a new Chinese Takeaway in Alaska! He built himself a smart little cabin with his own stove and kitchen - he even built a proper little cafe in case the people wanted to eat the food there, while it was hot, rather than take it home in the cold.

- 472 -

Appendix 1
Soon Mr. Wong had lots of customers. All the Eskimos enjoyed his fried rice, his delicious sauces and his sweet-and-sour whalemeat. He didnt get fed up because he never knew what meat they would get when they went out hunting.

- 473 -

Appendix 2 APPENDIX 2 The knitted dolls on which the Story Characters were based; these were used for the Puppet Activity to elicit conversational data.

The characters represented, from left to right, are: Mr. Wong the Chinaman, Stories A and F; Peter in Story B, Ben in Story E; Mr. Walter Kristel the Snowman, Stories A and D; Billy the Cowboy, Stories C and E; Mr. Song the Eskimo, Stories C and F; Father Christmas, Stories A, B and D.

- 474 -

Appendix 2 The picture cards which also represented these characters; these were used in the Drawing Activity for giving instructions.

1. Peter 2. Billy-the-Twit 3. Walter Kristel 4. and 5. Mr. Wong 6. and 7. Mr. Song

8. Ben 9. Walter Kristel 10. Father Christmas 11. Billy 12. Father Christmas in disguise.

- 475 -

Appendix 2 BIBLIOGRAPHY Abudarham, S. (ed.) (1987) Bilingualism and the Bilingual: an Interdisciplinary Approach to Pedagogical and Remedial Issues. Windsor: NFER-Nelson. Agnihotri, R. K. (1979) Processes of Assimilation: a Sociolinguistic Study of Sikh Children in Leeds. Unpublished D.Phil Thesis, University of York. Altman, R. (1984) Assessing Modal Proficiency in English as a Second Language. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Southern California. Amidon, A. and P. Carey (1972) Why Five-year-olds Cannot Understand Before and After. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1972, 11, pp. 417423. Andersen, Elaine (1990) Speaking with Style: The Sociolinguistic Skills of Children. London: Routledge. Andersen, R. W. (ed.) (1981a) New Dimensions in Second Language Acquisition Research. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House. Andersen, R. W. (1981b) Two Perspectives on Pidginization as Second Language Acquisition. In R. W. Andersen (ed.) New Dimensions in Second Language Research, Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House. Antinucci, F. and R. Miller (1976) How Children Talk about What Happened. Journal of Child Language, 3, pp. 167189. Applebee, Arthur N. (1976) The Concept of Story. Chicago, Ill.: University of Chicago Press. Applebee, Arthur N. (1978) The Childs Concept of Story: Ages Two to Seventeen. Chicago, Ill.: University of Chicago Press. Astington, J. (1990) Narrative and the Childs Theory of Mind. In B. Britton and A. Pellegrini (eds.) Narrative Thought and Narrative Language, pp. 151171. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum. Austin, J. L. (1962) How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

- 476 -

Appendix 2 Bal, M. (1985) Narratology: Introduction to the Theory of Narrative. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Bamberg, Michael G. W. (1987) The Acquisition of Narratives: Learning to Use Language. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Bamberg, Michael G. W. and Robin Damrad-Frye (1991) On the Ability to Provide Evaluative Comments: Further Explorations of Childrens Narrative Competencies. Journal of Child Language, 18, 3, pp. 689709. Banfield, A. (1982) Unspeakable Sentences: Narration and Representation in the Language of Fiction. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Barth, F. (1969) Introduction to Ethnic Groups and Boundaries. Boston: Little, Brown. Barthes, Roland (1967) Elements of Semiology, translated by Annette Lavers and Colin Smith, Boston. Barthes, Roland (1977a) Introduction to the Structural Analysis of Narratives. ImageMusic-Text, pp. 79124. London: Fontana. Barthes, Roland (1977b) Structural Analysis of Narratives. In Roland Barthes The Semiotic Challenge (1988), pp. 217245, translated by Richard Howard. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Bartlett, F. C. (1932) Remembering: An Experimental and Social Study. Cambridge, Mass: Cambridge University Press. Bauman, Richard (1986) Story, Performance, Event: Contextual Studies of Oral Narrative. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Baynham, M. J. (1988) Narrative and Narrativity in the English of a First Generation Migrant Community. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, University of Reading. Beaman, Karen (1984) Coordination and Subordination Revisited: Syntactic Complexity in Spoken and Written Narrative Discourse. In D.Tannen (ed.) Coherence in Spoken and Written Discourse. Advances in Discourse Processes, 12, pp. 4580. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex. - 477 -

Appendix 2 Beebe, L. (1980) Sociolinguistic Variation and Style Shifting in Second Language Acquisition. Language Learning, 30, 1, pp. 433447. Bennett-Kastor, T. (1983) Noun Phrases and Coherence in Child Narratives. Journal of Child Language, 10, pp. 135149. Bennett-Kastor, T. (1986) Cohesion and Predication in Child Narratives. Journal of Child Language, 13, pp. 353370. Benton, R. (1964) Research into the English Language Difficulties of Maori School Children, 1963 1964. Wellington, New Zealand: Maori Education Foundation. Benveniste, Emile (1959) Les Relations de Temps dans la Verbe Francais. Bulletin de la Socit Linguistique de Paris, 54, pp. 237250. Reprinted in E. B. (1966) Problmes de Linguistique Gnrale, I, pp. 6982. Paris: Gallimard. Berko-Gleason, Jean and Sandra Weintraub (1978) Input Language and the Acquisition of Communicative Competence. In Keith Nelson (ed.) Childrens Language, Vol.1. New York: Gardner Press. Bernstein, B. (1969) A Critique of the Concept Compensatory Education. Paper given at the Work Conference of the Teachers College, Columbia University, New York. In Basil Bernstein (1971) Class, Codes and Control, Vol.1: Theoretical Studies Towards a Sociology of Language. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Bernstein, B. (1977) Class, Codes and Control, Vol.3. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Bickerton, D. (1981) Discussion of Two Perspectives on Pidginization as Second Language Acquisition. In R. W. Andersen (ed.) New Dimensions in Second Language Acquisition Research. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House. Bloom, Lois (1970) Language Development: Form and Function in Emerging Grammars. Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press. Bloom, L., M. Lahey, L. Hood, K. Lifter, and K. Fiess (1980) Complex Sentences: Acquisition of Syntactic Connectives and the Semantic Relations they Encode. Journal of Child Language, 7, pp. 235256.

- 478 -

Appendix 2 Bloom, Hood and Lightbown (1978) Structure and Variation in Child Language. Journal of Child Language, 8, pp. 583608. Bloome, David (1981) An Ethnographic Approach to the Study of Reading Activities among Black Junior High School Students: A Sociolinguistic Perspective. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Kent State University. Borman, M. B. (1977) Cofan Paragraph Structure and Function. In R. E. Longacre (ed.) Discourse Grammar, Part 3, pp. 289338. Arlington: Summer Institute of Linguistics and University of Texas. Boves, L., B. L. ten Have and W. H. Vieregge (1984) Automatic Transcription of Intonation in Dutch. In D. Gibbon and H. Richter (eds.) Intonation, Accent and Rhythm: Studies in Discourse Phonology. Berlin: de Gruyter. Bowerman, M. (1973) Early Syntactic Development: a Crosslinguistic Study with Special Reference to Finnish. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bowerman, M. (1979) The Acquisition of Complex Sentences. In P. Fletcher and M. Garman (eds.) Language Acquisition, pp. 285306. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bowerman, M. (1982) Reorganizational Processes in Lexical and Syntactic Development. In E. Wanner and L. Gleitman (eds.) Language Acquisition: The State of the Art, pp. 319346. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bowerman, M. (1985) What Shapes Childrens Grammars? In D.I. Slobin (ed.) The Crosslinguistic Study of Language Acquisition, Vol. 2: Theoretical Issues, pp. 12571319. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum. Braine, M. D. S. (1963) On Learning the Grammatical Order of Words. Psychological Review, 70, pp. 323348. Braumwald, S. R. (1985) The Development of Connectives. Journal of Pragmatics, 9, pp. 513525. Bremond, Claude (1964) Le Message Narratif. Communications, 4, pp. 410.

- 479 -

Appendix 2 Brown, Gillian (1989) Making Sense: the Interaction of Linguistic Expression and Contextual Information. Applied Linguistics, 10, 1, pp. 97108. Brown, Gillian, Karen L. Currie and Joanne Kenworthy (1980) Questions of Intonation. Croom Helm Linguistics Series (ed.) Roger Lass. London: Croom Helm. Brown, G. and G. Yule (1983) Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Brown, R. (1973) A First Language: the Early Stages. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press; London: Allen and Unwin. Brown, R., C. B. Cazden and U. Bellugi (1969) The Childs Grammar from I to III. In J.P. Hill (ed.) Minnesota Symposium on Child Psychology, Vol. 2, pp. 2973. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Bruner, E. (ed.) (1984) Text, Play and Story: The Construction and Reconstruction of Self and Society. Washington D.C.: American Ethnological Society. Burt, M. and C. Kiparsky (1972) The Gooficon: A Repair Manual for English. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House. Burton, D. (1980) Dialogue and Discourse: A Sociolinguistic Approach to Modern Drama Dialogue and Naturally Occurring Conversation. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Burton, D. (1982) Through Glass Darkly: through Dark Glasses. In R. Carter (ed.) Language and Literature, pp. 195214. London: Allen and Unwin. Bygate, M. (1988) Units of Oral Expression and Language Learning in Small Group Interaction. Applied Linguistics, 9, pp. 5982. Cameron, C. A., A. K. Hunt and M. J. Linton (1988) Medium Effects on Childrens Story Rewriting and Story Retelling. First Language, 8, pp. 118. Cazden, Courtney B. (1974) Play with Language and Metalinguistic Awareness: One Dimension of Language Experience. Urban Review, 1974, 7, pp. 2339.

- 480 -

Appendix 2 Cazden, Courtney B. (1979) Peekaboo as an Instructional Model: Discourse Development at Home and at School. Stanford Papers and Reports in Child Language Development, 17, pp. 129. Cazden, Courtney B. (1981) Social Context of Learning to Read. In John Guthrie (ed.) Comprehension and Reading. Newark, D. E.: International Reading Association. Cazden and Bellugi (1969) The Childs Grammar from I to III. In Roar Raven (ed.) Language Acquisition in a Second Language. Education Resources Information Center. Chafe, Wallace L. (1982) Integration and Involvement in Speaking, Writing, and Oral Literature. In Deborah Tannen (ed.) Spoken and Written Language: Exploring Orality and Literacy, Volume IX in the series: Advances in Discourse Processes, (ed.) Roy O. Freedle. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex. Charleston, B. M. (1960) Studies on the Emotional and Affective Means of Expression in Modern English. Swiss Studies in English, 46. Berne: Franke. Chatman, Seymour (1969) New Ways of Analysing Narrative Structures. Language and Style, 2, pp. 336. Chatman, Seymour (1978) Story and Discourse: Narrative Structure in Fiction and Film. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press. Cheshire, Jenny (1982) Variation in an English Dialect: A Sociolinguistic Study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cheshire, Jenny (1984) Indigenous Nonstandard English Varieties and Education. In P. Trudgill (ed.) Language in the British Isles, pp. 546558. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Chomsky, Carol (1969) The Aquisition of Syntax in Children from 5 to 10. Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press. Chomsky, Noam (1965) Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press. Chomsky, Noam (1975) Reflections on Language. New York: Pantheon Books. - 481 -

Appendix 2 Christie, F. et al (1984) Childrens Writing: Reader. Victoria: Deakin University Press. Chukovsky, K. (1963) From Two to Five. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. Clark, Eve V. (1971) On the Acquisition of the Meaning of Before and After. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 10, pp. 266275. Clark, Eve V. (1983) Meanings and Concepts. In J. H. Flavell and E. M. Markmam (eds.) Cognitive Development. Vol. 3 of P. Mussen (ed.) Handbook of Child Psychology, 4th Edition, pp. 787840. New York: Wiley. Clark, Herbert H. and Eve V. Clark (1977) Psychology and Language: An Introduction to Psycholinguistics. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Coates, Jennifer (1983) The Semantics of Modal Auxiliaries. London: Croom Helm. Coates, Jennifer (1988) The Acquisition of the Meanings of Modality in Children aged Eight and Twelve. Journal of Child Language, 15, 2, pp. 425434. Cochran-Smith, Marilyn (1984) The Making of a Reader. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex. Colby, B. N. (1970) The Description of Narrative Structures. In P. Garvin (ed.) Cognition: A Multiple View. New York: Spartan Books. Colby, B. N. (1973) A Partial Grammar of Eskimo Folk-tales. American Anthropologist, 75, pp. 645662. Collins, J. (1985) Some Problems and Purposes in Narrative Analysis in Educational Research. Journal of Education, 167, pp. 5770. Collins Cobuild English Language Dictionary (1987). London and Glasgow: Collins. Cook-Gumperz, Jenny (1975) The Child as Practical Reasoner. In Mary Sanches and Ben G. Blount (eds.) Sociocultural Dimensions of Language Use, pp. 137162. New York: Academic Press.

- 482 -

Appendix 2 Cook-Gumperz, Jenny (1977) Situated Instructions: Language Socialization of School Age Children. In S. Ervin-Tripp and C. Mitchell-Kernan (eds.) Child Discourse, pp. 103121. New York: Academic Press. Cook-Gumperz, Jenny, John J. Gumperz and Herbert Simons (1981) Final Report on School/Home Ethnography Project. National Institute of Education Grant NIE G78-0082. Cook-Gumperz, J. and J. L. Green (1984) A Sense of Story: Influences on Childrens Story Telling Ability. In Deborah Tannen (ed.) Coherence in Spoken and Written Discourse, Volume XII in the series: Advances in Discourse Processes, (ed.) Roy O. Freedle. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex. Corder, S. Pit (1983) Strategies of Communication. In Claus Fearch and Gabriele Kasper (eds.) Strategies in Interlanguage Communication, pp. 1519. Longman: London and New York. Coulmas, Florian (1986) Reported Speech: Some General Issues. In Florian Coulmas (ed.) Direct and Indirect Speech (Trends in Linguistics: Studies and Monographs 31), pp. 128. Berlin - New York - Amsterdam: Mouton de Gruyter. Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth (1986) An Introduction to English Prosody. London: Edward Arnold. Cruttenden, Alan (1974) An Experiment Involving Comprehension of Intonation in Children from 7 to 10. Journal of Child Language, 1, pp. 221232. Cruttenden, Alan (1984) The Relevance of Intonational Misfits. In D. Gibbon and H. Richter (eds.) Intonation, Accent and Rhythm: Studies in Discourse Phonology. Berlin New York: de Gruyter. Cruttenden, Alan (1985) Intonation Comprehension in 10-year-olds. Journal of Child Language, 12, pp. 543586. Cruttenden, Alan (1986) Intonation. Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics: Cambridge University Press.

- 483 -

Appendix 2 Crystal, David (1969) Prosodic Systems and Intonation in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Crystal, David (1991) A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics, Third Edition. Oxford: Blackwell. Crystal, D., P. Fletcher and M. Garman (1976) The Grammatical Analysis of Language Disability. London: Edward Arnold. Curme, G. O. (1935) Parts of Speech and Accidence. Boston: Heath. Dahl, Osten (1985) Tense and Aspect Systems. Oxford: Blackwell. Dickerson, L. (1975) Interlanguage as a System of Variable Rules. TESOL Quarterly, 9, pp. 401407. van Dijk, Teun A. (1981) Studies in the Pragmatics of Discourse. The Hague: Mouton. Dry, Helen (1981) Sentence Aspect and the Movement of Narrative Time. Text, 1, 3, pp. 233240. Dry, Helen (1983) The Movement of Narrative Time. Journal of Literary Semantics, 12, 2, pp. 1953. Dulay, Heidi and Marina Burt (1973) Should We Teach Children Syntax? Language Learning, 24, pp. 245258. Dulay, Heidi and Marina Burt (1974a) You Cant Learn without Goofing: an Analysis of Childrens Second Language Errors. In J. Richards (ed.) Error Analysis, pp. 95 123. London: Longman. Dulay, Heidi and Marina Burt (1974b) Natural Sequences in Child Second Language Acquisition. Language Learning, 24, pp. 3753. Dulay, Heidi and Marina Burt (1975) A New Approach to Discovering Universals of Child Second Language Acquisition. In D. Dato (ed.) Developmental Psycholinguistics (Monograph Series on Languages and Linguistics), pp. 209233. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.

- 484 -

Appendix 2 Dulay, Heidi and Marina Burt (1978) Some Remarks on Creativity in Language Acquisition. In William C. Ritchie (ed.) Second Language Acquisition Research: Issues and Implications, pp. 6590. New York: Academic Press. Dulay, H., E. Hernandez-Chavez and M. Burt (1978) The Process of Becoming Bilingual. In S. Singh and J. Lynch (eds.) Diagnostic Procedures in Hearing, Speech and Language, pp. 251303. Baltimore: University Park Press. Dulay, Heidi, Marina Burt and Stephen Krashen (1982) Language Two. New York: Oxford University Press. Dundes, A. (1968) Introduction to Propp, V. (1968 [1928]) The Morphology of the Folktale. Austin: University of Texas Press. Durkin, Kevin (ed.) (1986) Language Development in the School Years. London: Croom Helm. Edwards, A. D. (1976) Speech Codes and Speech Variants: Social Class and Task Differences in Children. Journal of Child Language, 3, pp. 247265. Eisenberg, Ann R. (1981) Developments in Displaced Reference: Language Learning through Routine. Paper presented at the Second International Conference on the Study of Child Language, Vancouver, B.C., August 1981. Elley, Warwick (1991) Acquiring Literacy in a Second Language: The Effect of BookBased Programs. Language Learning, 41, 3, pp. 375411. Ellis, Rod (1984) Classroom Second Language Development: A Study of Classroom Interaction and Language Acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon. Ellis, Rod (1985) Understanding Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ellis, Rod (1989) Sources of Intra-learner Variability in Language Use and Their Relationship to Second Language Acquisition. In S. Gass, C. Madden, D. Preston and L. Selinker (eds.) Variation in Second Language Acquisition: Psycholinguistic Issues. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Ellis, Rod (1992) Second Language Acquisition and Language Pedagogy. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. - 485 -

Appendix 2 Erickson, Frederick (1979) Talking Down: Some Cultural Sources of Miscommunication in Inter-racial Interviews. In Aaron Wolfgang (ed.) Nonverbal Communication, pp. 99126. New York: Academic Press. Erlich, Victor (1965) Russian Formalism: History, Doctrine. Second Edition. The Hague: Mouton. Erreich, A. (1980) The Acquisition of Inversion in WH-questions: What Evidence the Child Uses? Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, City University of New York. Ervin-Tripp, S (1964) Imitation and Structural Change in Childrens Language. In E. H. Lenneberg (ed.) New Directions in the Study of Language, pp. 163189. Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press. Ervin-Tripp, S (1970) Discourse Agreement: How Children Answer Questions. In J. R. Haynes (ed.) Cognition and the Development of Language, pp. 79107. New York: Wiley. Ervin-Tripp, S. and C. Mitchell-Kernan (eds.) (1977) Child Discourse. New York: Academic Press. Faerch, C. and G. Kasper (1983) On Identifying Communication Strategies in Interlanguage Production. In C. Faerch and G. Kasper (eds.) Strategies in Interlanguage Communication, pp. 210238. London and New York: Longman. Farr, M. (ed.) (1985) Childrens Early Writing Development. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex. Fawcett, R. P. and M. R. Perkins (1980) Child Language Transcripts 6-12, Vols.IIV. Pontypridd: Polytechnic of Wales. Feagans, L. and M. I. Applebaum (1986) Validation of Language Subtypes in Learning Disabled Children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, pp. 358364. Feagans, L. and E. J. Short (1984) Developmental Differences in the Comprehension and Production of Narratives by Reading-disabled and Normally Achieving Children. Child Development, 55, pp. 17271736. Ferriero, E. (1971) Les Relations Temporelles dans le Langage de lEnfant. Geneva: Libraire Droz. - 486 -

Appendix 2 Fine, Jonathan (1988) The Place of Discourse in Second Language Study. In Jonathan Fine (ed.) Second Language Discourse: A Textbook of Current Research, Volume XXV in the Series: Advances in Discourse Processes, pp. 4155. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex. Fisher, Margery (1964) Intent Upon Reading. London: Brockhampton. Fivush, R. and E. A. Slackman (1986) The Acquisition and Development of Scripts. In K. Nelson (ed.) Event Knowledge. Structure and Function in Development, pp. 4769. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum. Fletcher, P. and M. Garman (eds.) (1986) Language Acquisition. Second Edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Fleischman, Suzanne (1990) Tense and Narrativity: from Medieval Performance to Modern Fiction. London: Routledge. Foster, Susan H. (1986) Learning Discourse Topic Management in the Preschool Years. Journal of Child Language, 13, pp. 231250. Foster, Susan H. (1990) The Communicative Competence of Young Children. London: Longman. Francis, Hazel (1975) Language in Childhood: Form and Function in Language Learning. London: Paul Elek. French, L.A. and K. Nelson (1981) Temporal Knowledge expressed in Preschoolers Descriptions of Familiar Activities. Paper presented at the 17th Annual Child Language Research Forum, Stanford University, 1981. French, L.A. and K. Nelson (1985) Young Childrens Knowledge of Relational Terms. New York: Springer. Galda, L. and A. Pellegrini (1985) Play, Language and Stories: The Development of Childrens Literate Behavior. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex. Gee, J. P. (1989) Two Styles of Narrative Construction and their Linguistic and Educational Implications. Discourse Processes, 12, pp. 287307.

- 487 -

Appendix 2 Genette, G. (1980) Narrative Discourse. Trans. J. Lewin, Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Ghuman, P. (1980) Punjabi Parents and English Education. Educational Research, 22, 2, pp. 121130. Gibbs, Dorothy A. (1990) Second Language Acquisition of the English Modal Auxiliaries Can, Could, May, and Might. Applied Linguistics, 11, 3, pp. 297311. Givn, Talmy (1984) Syntax: A Functional Typological Introduction, Vol.1. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Givn, Talmy (1990) Syntax Volume II, Amsterdam - Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Glenn, C. G. (1978) The Role of Episodic Structure and of Story Length in Childrens Recall of Simple Stories. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1978, 17, pp. 229247. Godfrey, D. (1980) A Discourse Analysis of Tense in Adult ESL Monologues. In D. Larsen-Freeman (ed.) Discourse Analysis in Second Language Acquisition Research, pp. 92110. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House. Goffman, Erving (1974) Frame Analysis. New York: Harper & Row. Golden, Joanne (1983) Structuring and Restructuring Texts. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada. Goodwin, M. H. (1982) Instigating: Storytelling as Social Process. American Ethnologist, 9, pp. 799819. Green, Judith L. (1977) Pedagogical Style Differences as Related to Comprehension Performance. Unpublished Ph. D. Dissertation, University of California, Berkeley. Green, Judith L. and Judith O. Harker (1982) Reading to Children: A Communicative Approach. In Judith Langer and Trika Smith-Burke (eds.) Reader Meets Author: Bridging the Gap, pp. 196221. Newark, D.E.: International Reading Association.

- 488 -

Appendix 2 Greene, Judith and Manuela DOliviera (1982) Learning to Use Statistical Tests in Psychology: Students Guide. Milton Keynes: Open University Press. Gregg, K. (1990) The Variable Competence Model of Second Language Acquisition and Why It Isnt. Applied Linguistics, 11, pp. 364383. Grice, H. P. (1975) Logic and Conversation. In P. Cole and J. L. Morgan (eds.) Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 3: Speech Acts, pp. 4158. New York: Seminar Press. Grimes, J. E. (1975) The Thread of Discourse. The Hague: Mouton. Gumperz, John J. (1982) Discourse Strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gumperz, John J., Hannah Kaltman and Mary Catherine OConnor (1984) Cohesion in Spoken and Written Discourse: Ethnic Style and the Transition to Literacy. In Deborah Tannen (ed.) Coherence in Spoken and Written Discourse, Volume XII in the series: Advances in Discourse Processes (ed.) Roy O. Freedle. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex. Haiman, John and Sandra Thompson (1984) Subordination in Universal Grammar. Proceedings of the 10th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Hakuta, Kenji (1974) Prefabricated Patterns and the Emergence of Structure in Second Language Acquisition. Language Learning, 24, pp. 287297. Halliday, M. A. K. (1967) Grammar, Society and the Noun. London: H. K. Lewis (for University College London). Halliday, M. A. K. (1971) Linguistic Function and Literary Style. In S. Chatman (ed.) Literary Style: A Symposium, pp. 330365. London: Oxford University Press. Halliday, M. A. K. (1973) Explorations in the Function of Language. London: Edward Arnold. Halliday, M. A. K. (1975) Learning How to Mean: Explorations in Development of Language. London: Edward Arnold. Halliday, M. A. K. (1978) Language as Social Semiotic. London: Edward Arnold.

- 489 -

Appendix 2 Halliday, M. A. K. and Ruqaiya Hasan (1976) Cohesion in English. London: Longman. Harker, Judith O. (1983) Relationship between Evolving Oral Discourse and the Discourse of the Story. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada. Harpin, W. (1976) The Second R. London: George Allen & Unwin. Harris, John and Jeff Wilkinson (eds.) (1986) Reading Childrens Writing: A Linguistic View (Aspects of English 2). London: Allen & Unwin. Hasan, Ruqaiya (1984) The Nursery Tale as a Genre. Nottingham Linguistic Circular, 13. pp. 71102. Hasan, R. (1989) Linguistics, Language and Verbal Art, 2nd Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hatch, E. (1978) Discourse Analysis and Second Language Acquisition. In E. Hatch (ed.) Second Language Acquisition, pp. 401435. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House. Hatch, E., R. Shapiro and J. Gough (1978) Foreigner-talk Discourse. IRAL: Review of Applied Linguistics, pp. 2960. Hatch, E. and M. H. Long (1980) Discourse Analysis, Whats That? In D. LarsenFreeman (ed.) Discourse Analysis and Second Language Research, pp. 140. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House. Hawthorn, J. (ed.)(1985) Narrative: From Malory to Motion Pictures. London: Edward Arnold. Heath, Shirley Brice (1982a) What No Bedtime Story Means: Narrative Skills at Home and School. Language in Society, 11, 2, pp. 4976. Heath, Shirley Brice (1982b) Questioning at Home and at School: a Comparative Study. In George Spindler (ed.) Doing the Ethnography of Schooling: Educational Anthropology in Action. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Heath, Shirley Brice (1983) Ways with Words: Language, Life, and Work in Communities and Classrooms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

- 490 -

Appendix 2 Hecht, B. F. and R. Morse (1974) What the Hell are Dese? Unpublished Paper, Harvard University. Cited in J. G. de Villiers and P. A. de Villiers The Acquisition of English. In D. I. Slobin (ed.) The Crosslinguistic Study of Language Acquisition, Vol.1: The Data, pp. 27140. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum. Heinamaki, O.T. (1974) Semantics of English Temporal Connectives. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Texas at Austin. Hemphill, L., N. Picardi and H. Tager-Flusberg (1991) Narrative as an Index of Communicative Competence in Mildly Retarded Children. Applied Psycholinguistics, 12, 3, pp. 263279. Hickmann, M. (1982) The Development of Narrative Skills. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Chicago. Huddleston, R. (1976) An Introduction to English Transformational Syntax. London: Longman. Hudson, J. and K. Nelson (1984) Differentiation and Development in Childrens Event Narratives. Papers and Reports on Child Language Development, (Stanford University, Department of Linguistics), 23, pp. 5057. Hunt, Geoffrey (1989) Interpreting CECIL. Horsleys Green: SIL. Hunt, K. W. (1966) Recent Measures in Syntactic Development. Elementary English, 43. Hunt, K. W. (1970) Syntactic Maturity in School Children and Adults. Society for Research in Child Development Monographs, 35, 1. Hymes, D. (1972) Models of the Interaction of Language and Social Life. In J. Gumperz and D. Hymes (eds.) Directions in Sociolinguistics. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Ingham, Richard (1992a) The Optional Subject Phenomenon in Young Childrens English: a Case Study. Journal of Child Language, 19, 1, pp. 133152. Ingham, Richard (1992b) Acquiring Subject Ellipsis in Discourse. Unpublished Manuscript, University of Reading.

- 491 -

Appendix 2 Ingram, D. and D. Tyack (1979) Inversion of Subject NP and Auxiliary in Childrens Questions. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 8, pp. 333341. Jackson, Howard (1987) The Value of Error Analysis and its Implications for Teaching and Therapy - with Special Reference to Panjabi Learners. In S. Abudarham (ed.) Bilingualism and the Bilingual. Windsor: NFER-Nelson. Jason, Heda (1972) Jewish Near-Eastern Numbskull Tales: An Attempt at Interpretation. Asian Folklore Studies, 31, 1, pp. 139. Jassem and Demenko (1986) Extracting Linguistic Information from F0 traces. In C. Johns-Lewis (ed.) Intonation in Discourse, pp. 117. London - Sydney: Croom Helm Johansson, S. (1975) The Uses of Error Analysis and Contrastive Analysis. English Language Teaching, 29, pp. 330336. Johns-Lewis, Catherine (1986) Prosodic Differentiation of Discourse Modes. In C. Johns-Lewis (ed.) Intonation in Discourse. London and Sydney: Croom Helm. Johnson, Carolyn E. (1980) The Ontogenesis of Question Words in Childrens Language. Paper presented at the Fifth Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, October 1980. Johnson, H. L. (1975) The Meaning of Before and After for Preschool Children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 19, pp. 8899. Johnson, H. M. (1972) Children in the Nursery School. New York: Agathon Press. Johnson-Laird, P. (1981) Mental Models. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Johnstone, Barbara (1990) Stories, Community, and Place. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press. Jordens, P. (1988) The Acquisition of Word Order in L2 Dutch and German. Unpuplished Manuscript, Vrje Universiteit, Amsterdam.

- 492 -

Appendix 2 Kalmr, Ivan (1982) Transitivity in a Czech Folk Tale. In Hopper and Thompson (eds.) Studies in Transitivity. Syntax and Semantics 15, pp. 241259. New York: Academic Press. Karmiloff-Smith, A. (1980) Psychological Processes Underlying Pronominalisation and Non-pronominalisation in Childrens Connected Discourse. In J. Kreiman and A. E. Ojeda (eds.), Papers from the Parasession on Pronouns and Anaphora. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. Karmiloff-Smith, A. (1981) The Grammatical Marking of Thematic Structures in the Development of Language Production. In W. Deutsch (ed.), The Childs Construction of Language, pp. 121147. London: Academic Press. Karmiloff-Smith, A. (1985) Language and Cognitive Processes from a Developmental Perspective. Language and Cognitive Processes, 1, pp. 6185. Karmiloff-Smith, A. (1986) Some Fundamental Aspects of Language Development after Age 5. In P. Fletcher and M. Garman (eds.) Language Acquisition, Second Edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kato, K. (1986) Another Look at Ellipsis. Journal of Pragmatics, 10, 4, pp. 415434. Kellerman, E. (1983) Now You See It, Now You Dont. In S. Gass and L. Selinker (eds.) Language Transfer in Language Learning, pp. 112134. Rowley, Mass.: Nerbury House. Kemper, S. (1984) The Development of Narrative Skills: Explanations and Entertainments. In S. A. Kuczaj, II (ed.), Discourse Development: Progress in Cognitive Research, pp. 99124. New York: Springer-Verlag. Kemper, S. and L. L. Edwards (1986) Childrens Expression of Causality and their Construction of Narratives. Topics in Language Disorders, 7, pp. 1120. Kennedy, C. (1982) Systemic Grammar and its Use in Literary Analysis. In R. Carter (ed.) Language and Literature, pp. 8399. London: Allen and Unwin.

- 493 -

Appendix 2 Kernan, K. (1977) Semantic and Expressive Elaboration in Childrens Narratives. In S. Ervin-Tripp and C. Mitchell-Kernan (eds.) Child Discourse, pp. 91102. New York: Academic Press. Khubchandani, L. M. (1979) A Demographic Typology for Hindi, Urdu, Panjabi Speakers in South Asia. In W. C. McCormack and S. Wurm (eds.) Language and Society, pp. 183194. The Hague: Mouton. Klein, W. (1986) Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Klein, W and N. Dittmar (1979) Developing Grammars: the Acquisition of German Syntax by Foreign Workers. Berlin: Heidelberg. Klima, E and U. Bellugi (1966) Syntactic Regularities in the Speech of Children. In J. Lyons and R. J. Wales (eds.) Psycholinguistic Papers, pp. 183219. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Krashen, Stephen and Robin Scarcella (1978) On Routines and Patterns in Language Acquisition and Performance. Language Learning, 28, pp. 283300. Krauss, R. M. and S. Glucksberg (1969) The Development of Communication: Competence as a Function of Age. Child Development, 40, pp. 255266. Kuczaj, S. A. and M. Maratsos (1975) What a Child Can Say Before He Will. MerrillPalmer Quarterly, 21, pp. 89111. Kumpf, Lorraine E. (1987) The Use of Pitch Phenomena in the Structuring of Stories. In R. S. Tomlin (ed.) Coherence and Grounding in Discourse, pp. 189216. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Labov, William (1966) The Social Stratification of English in New York City. Washington D.C.: Centre for Applied Linguistics. Labov, William (1972a) The Transformation of Experience in Narrative Syntax. Chap. 9 of Language in The Inner City: Studies in the Black English Vernacular, pp. 354396. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

- 494 -

Appendix 2 Labov, William (1972b) Sociolinguistic Patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Labov, William (1981) Speech Actions and Reactions in Personal Narratives. In Analyzing Discourse: Text and Talk. Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics, (ed.) Deborah Tannen, pp. 219247. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press. Labov, William and David Fanshell (1977) Therapeutic Discourse: Psychotherapy as Conversation. London and New York: Academic Press. Labov, W and J. Waletsky (1967) Narrative Analysis: Oral Versions of Personal Experience. In J. Helm (ed.) Essays on the Verbal and Visual Arts, pp. 1244. Seattle: University of Washington Press. Ladd, D. Robert, K. R. Scherer and Kim Silverman (1986) An Integrated Approach to Studying Intonation and Attitude. In C. Johns-Lewis (ed.) Intonation in Discourse, pp. 125138. London and Sydney: Croom Helm. Lakoff, G. (1972) Structural Complexity in Fairy Tales. The Study of Man, 1, pp. 128150. Leith, R. (1992) Storytelling, Sociolinguistics, Rhetoric: the Use of the Historic Present. Unpublished Manuscript, Sociolinguistic Symposium 9, Reading 1992. Leopold, W.F. (1947) Speech Development of a Bilingual Child: A Linguists Record, Volume 2: Sound-learning in the First Two Years. Evanston, Illinois: North-western University Press. Levinson, Stephen C. (1983) Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Li, Charles N. (1986) Direct Speech and Indirect Speech: A Functional Study. In Florian Coulmas (ed.) Direct and Indirect Speech (Trends in Linguistics: Studies and Monographs 31), pp. 2945. Berlin and New York and Amsterdam: Mouton de Gruyter. Lieberman, Philip (1967) Intonation, Perception and Language. Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press.

- 495 -

Appendix 2 Linguistic Minorities Project (1985) The Other Languages of England. London and Boston: Routledge & K. Paul. Lyons, John (1969) Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lyons, John (1977) Semantics, Volume 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Maclure, Erica, Jana Mason and Joan Barratz (1979) Story Structure and Age Effects on Childrens Ability to Sequence Stories. Urbana, Ill.: Center for the Study of Reading Technical Report 22. MacWhinney, Brian J. (1978) The Acquisition of Morphophonology. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 43 (12, Serial No.174). Major, D. (1974) The Acquisition of Modal Auxiliaries in the Language of Children. The Hague: Mouton. Mandler, J. M. (1983) Representation. In P. Mussen (ed.) Handbook of Child Psychology, Fourth Edition; Volume 3: Cognitive Development, pp. 420494. New York: Wiley. Mandler, J.M. (1984) Stories, Scripts, and Scenes: Aspects of Schema Theory. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum. Mandler, J. M. and N. S. Johnson (1977) Rememberance of Things Parsed: Story Structure and Recall. Cognitive Psychology, 9, pp. 111151. Mansen, Richard and Karis Mansen (1976) The Structure of Sentence and Paragraph in Guajiro Narrative Discourse. In R. E. Longacre (ed.) Discourse Grammar, Part 1, pp. 147258. Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics and the University of Texas at Arlington. Marshall, Margaret (1982) An Introduction to The World of Childrens Books. Aldershot: Gower. Martin, J. (1983) The Development of Register. In J. Fine and R. Freedle (eds.) Developmental Issues in Discourse, pp. 139. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex.

- 496 -

Appendix 2 McGann, W. and A. Schwartz (1988) Main Characters in Childrens Narratives. Linguistics, 26, pp. 215233. McHale, B. (1978) Free Indirect Discourse: A Survey of Recent Accounts. Poetics and Theory of Literature, 3, pp. 249287. McLaughlin, B. (1984) Second-language Acquisition in Childhood, Vol.1: Preschool Children. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum. McLaughlin, B. (1987) Theories of Second-language Learning. London: Edward Arnold. McNeill, D. (1966) Developmental Psycholinguistics. In F. Smith and G. A. Miller (eds.) The Genesis of Language: a Psycholinguistic Approach, pp. 1584. Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press. McTear, M. (1985) Childrens Conversation. Oxford: Blackwell. Mehan, Hugh (1980) Learning Lessons. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Meisel, J. M. (1976) The Notions of Simplifications, Simple Codes, Inter-languages and Pidgins: Their Relation to Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Teaching. Paper presented at the 5ime Colloque de Linguistique Applique, University of Neuchtel. Meisel, J. M., H. Clahsen and M. Pienemann (1981) On Determining Developmental Stages in Natural Second Language Acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 3, pp. 109135. Menig-Peterson, C. and A. McCabe (1978) Childrens Orientation of a Listener to the Context of their Narratives. Developmental Psychology, 14, pp. 582592. Menyuk, Paula (1963) Syntactic Structures in the Language of Children. Child Development, 34, pp. 407422. Merritt, D. D. and B. Z. Liles (1989) Narrative Analysis: Clinical Applications of Story Generation and Story Retelling. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 54, pp. 438447.

- 497 -

Appendix 2 Michaels, Sarah (1981) Sharing Time: Childrens Narrative Styles and Differential Access to Literacy. Language in Society, 10, pp. 423443. Michaels (1984) Listening and Responding Hearing the Logic in Childrens Classrooms Narratives. Theory into Practice, 23, 3, pp. 218224. Michaels, Sarah and James Collins (1984) Oral Discourse Styles: Classroom Interaction and the Acquisition of Literacy. In Deborah Tannen (ed.), Coherence in Spoken and Written Discourse, Volume XII in the series: Advances in Discourse Processes, (ed.) Roy O. Freedle, pp. 219244. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex. Michaels, Sarah and Jenny Cook-Gumperz (1979) A Study of Sharing Time with First Grade Students: Discourse Narratives in the Classroom. Proceedings of the Fifth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, pp. 5180. Miller, P. J. and L.L. Sperry (1988) Early Talk about the Past: the Origins of Conversational Stories of Personal Experience. Journal of Child Language, 15, pp. 293315. Munro, Pamela (1982) On the Transitivity of Say Verbs. In P. Hopper and S. A. Thompson (eds.) Studies in Transitivity, pp. 301318. New York: Academic Press. Nakazima, S. A. (1962) A Comparative Study of the Speech Development of Japanese and American English in Childhood. Studia Phonologica, 2, pp. 2746. Nelson, Katherine (1973) Structure and Strategy in Learning to Talk. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 39 (1-2, Serial No. 149). Nelson, Katherine (1978) How Children Represent Knowledge of their World in and out of Language: A Preliminary Report. In R. S. Siegler (ed.) Childrens Thinking: What Develops?, pp. 255273. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum. Nelson, K. and J. M. Gruendel (1979) At Morning its Lunchtime: A Scriptal View of Childrens Dialogues. Discourse Processes, 2, pp. 7394.

- 498 -

Appendix 2 Nelson, K. and J. M. Gruendel (1981) Generalized Event Representations: Basic Building Blocks of Cognitive Development. In A. L. Brown and M. E. Lamb (eds.) Advances in Developmental Psychology, Vol.1, pp. 131158. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum. Ninio, Anat and Jerome Bruner (1978) The Achievement and Antecedents of Labelling. Journal of Child Language, 5, pp. 115. Nwokah, E.E. (1982) Once upon a Time - Aspects of Storytelling in Normal and Retarded Children. Language and Speech, 25, pp. 293298. Ochs, Elinor (1982) Talking to Children in Western Samoa. Language in Society, 11, pp. 77104. Ochs, Elinor (1988) Culture and Language Development: Language Acquisition and Language Socialization in a Samoan Village. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ochs, E. and B. B. Schieffelin (1984) Language Acquisition and Socialization: Three Developmental Stories and Their Implications. In R. Shweder and R. Le Vine (eds.) Culture and Its Acquisition, pp. 277320. New York: Cambridge University Press. OConnor, J. D. (1973) Phonetics. Penguin Books. OConnor, J. D. and G. F. Arnold (1961) Intonation of Colloquial English. London: Longman (Second Edition 1973). ODonnell, R. C., W. J. Griffin and R. C. Norris (1967) Syntax of Kindergarten and Elementary School Children: a Transformational Analysis. Urbana, Ill.: National Council of Teachers of English. Olson, David R. (1977) From Utterance to Text: The Bias of Language in Speech and Writing. Harvard Educational Review, 47, pp. 257281. Olson, D. and N. Torrance (1981) Learning to Meet the Requirements of Written Text: Language Development in the School Years. In C. Fredericksen and J. Dominic (eds.) Writing: Process, Development, and Communications, pp. 235255. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.

- 499 -

Appendix 2 Palermo, D.S. and D.L. Molfese (1972) Language Acquisition from Age Five Onwards. Psychological Bulletin, 78, pp. 409428. Palmer, F. (1971) Grammar. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books. Palmer, F. (1979) Modality and the English Modals. London: Longman. Palmer, F. (1986) Mood and Modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Partee, Barbara H. (1973) The Syntax and Semantics of Quotation. In S. Anderson and P. Kiparsky (eds.) A Festschrift for Morris Halle, pp. 410418. New York: Holt. Pawley, Andrew and Frances Syder (1976) Creativity vs. Memorization in Spontaneous Discourse: the Role of Institutionalized Sentences, pp. 191226. Manuscript, University of Auckland, New Zealand. Pawley, Andrew and Frances Syder (1983) Two Puzzles for Linguistic Theory: Nativelike Selection and Nativelike Fluency. In Jack C. Richards and Richard W. Schmidt (eds.) Language and Communication. London: Longman. Perera, Katharine (1984) Childrens Writing and Reading: Analysing Classroom Language. Oxford: Blackwell. Perera, Katharine (1986) Language Acquisition and Writing. In P. Fletcher and M. Garman (eds.) Language Acquisition, Second Edition, pp. 494518. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Perkins, M. (1983) Modal Expressions in English. London: Francis Pinter. Peters, Ann M. (1977) Language Learning Strategies: Does the Whole Equal the Sum of the Parts? Language, 53, pp. 560573. Peters, Ann M. (1980) The Units of Language Acquisition. University of Hawaii Working Papers in Linguistics, 12, 1, pp. 172. Peters, Ann M. (1983) The Units of Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

- 500 -

Appendix 2 Peterson, Carole (1990) The Who, When and Where of Early Narratives. Journal of Child Language, 17, 2, pp. 433455. Peterson, C. and A. McCabe (1983) Developmental Psycholinguistics: Three Ways of Looking at a Childs Narrative. New York: Plenum Press. Piaget, J. (1954) The Construction of Reality in the Child. New York: Basic Books. Piaget, J. (1959 [1926]) The Language and Thought of the Child. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Piaget, J. (1969) The Childs Conception of Time. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Piaget, J. (1970) Structuralism. Translated by Chaninah Maschler, New York: Basic Books. Piaget, J. (1978) The Development of Thought: Equilibration of Cognitive Structures. Oxford: Blackwell. Piaget, J. (1979 [1929]) The Childs Conception of the World. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Polanyi, Livia (1978) The American Story: Cultural Constraints on the Structure and Meaning of Stories in Conversation. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Michigan. Polanyi, Livia (1979) So Whats the Point? Semiotica, 25, pp. 207241. Polanyi, Livia (1981a) Discourse Analysis and the Role of Cultural Presuppositions in Story-telling. In Allen James and Paul Westney (eds.) New Linguistic Impulses in Foreign Language Teaching. Tbingen: Gunter Narr Verlag. Polanyi, Livia (1981b) Telling the Same Story Twice. Text, 1, pp. 315336. Polanyi, Livia (1982a) Linguistic and Social Constraints on Storytelling. Journal of Pragmatics, 6, pp. 509524. Polanyi, Livia (1982b) The Nature of Meaning of Stories in Conversation. Studies in Twentieth-Century Literature, 6, 1-2, pp. 5165.

- 501 -

Appendix 2 Polanyi, Livia (1985) Telling the American Story: From the Structure of Linguistic Texts to the Grammar of a Culture. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex. Polanyi-Bowditch, L. (1976) Why the Whats are When: Mutually Contextualizing Realms of Discourse. In Proceedings of the Second Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, pp. 5977. Politzer, R. and A. Ramirez (1973) An Error Analysis of the Spoken English of MexicanAmerican Pupils in a Bilingual School and a Monolingual School. Language Learning, 18, pp. 3553. Pratt, M.L. (1977) Towards a Speech-Act Theory of Literary Discourse. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Preece, Alison (1987) The Range of Narrative Forms Conversationally Produced by Young Children. Journal of Child Language, 14, 2, pp. 353373. Prince, G. (1973) A Grammar of Stories. The Hague: Mouton. Prince, G. (1982) Narratology: The Form and Functioning of Narrative. Berlin - New York Amsterdam: Mouton. Propp, V. (1968 [1928]) The Morphology of the Folktale. Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana University Research Centre in Anthropology, Folklore, and Linguistics. (Also, Austin: University of Texas Press.) Quasthoff, U. M. (1980) Erzahlen in Gesprachen. Linguistische Untersuchungen zu Strukturen und Funktionen am Beispiel einer Kommunikationsform des Alltags. Tbingen: Gunter Narr Verlag. Quasthoff, U.M. (1983) Kindliches Erzahlen. Zum Zusammenhang von erzahlendem Diskurmuster und Zuhoreraktivitaten. In D. Boneke and W. Klein (eds.) Untersuchungen zur Dialogfahigkeit von Kindern. Tbingen: Gunter Narr Verlag. Quasthoff, U. M. and K. Nikolaus (1981) What Makes a Good Story? Towards the Production of Conversational Narratives. Paper presented at the International Symposium on Text Processing in Fribourg, Switzerland, 1981.

- 502 -

Appendix 2 Quirk, Randolph and Sidney Greenbaum (1973) A University Grammar of English. London: Longman. Quirk, R., S. Greenbaum, G.N. Leech and J. Svartvik (1972) A Grammar of Contemporary English. London: Longman. Ratner, Nancy and Jerome S. Bruner (1978) Games, Social Exchange and the Acquisition of Language. Journal of Child Language, 5, pp. 391401. Reid, J. (1987) Learning Style Preference of ESL Students. TESOL Quarterly, 20, pp. 87 111. Richards, D. (1980) Problems in Eliciting Unmonitored Speech in a Second Language. Interlanguage Studies Bulletin 5, 12, pp. 6398. Rimmon-Kenan, S. (1983) Narrative Fiction: Contemporary Poetics. London: Methuen. Romaine, S. (1984) The Language of Children and Adolescents. Oxford: Blackwell. Romaine, Suzanne (1985) Childrens Narratives. Linguistics, 23, pp. 83104. Romaine, Suzanne (1989) Bilingualism. Oxford: Blackell. Roth, F. P. and J. J. Spekman (1986) Narrative Discourse: Spontaneously Generated Stories of Learning Disabled and Normally Achieving Students. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 51, pp. 823. Rothery, J. and J. Martin (1980) Writing Project, Papers 1 (Narrative: Vicarious Experience) and 2 (Exposition: Literary Criticism). Sydney: Department of Linguistics, University of Sydney. Rumelhart, D. E. (1975) Notes on a Schema for Stories. In D. G. Dobrow and A. M. Collins (eds.) Representation and Understanding: Studies in Cognitive Science, pp. 211 236. New York: Academic Press. Rumelhart, D. E. (1977) Understanding and Summarizing Brief Stories. In D. LaBerge and S. J. Samuels (eds.) Basic Processes in Reading: Perception and Comprehension, pp. 217241. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.

- 503 -

Appendix 2 Sachs, Jacqueline (1977) Talking about the There and Then. Stanford Papers and Reports in Child Language Development, 13, pp. 5663. Sacks, Harvey (1972) An Initial Investigation of the Usability of Conversational Data for Doing Sociology. In David Sudnow (ed.) Studies in Social Interaction, pp. 3174. New York: Free Press. Saussure, F. de (1983) Course in General Linguistics. Translated by R. Harris. London: Duckworth. Schank, R. and R. P. Abelson (1977) Scripts, Plans, Goals, and Understanding. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum. Schegloff, E. A. and Harvey Sacks (1973) Opening up Closings. Semiotica, 8, pp. 289327. Schieffelin, B. B. (1979) Getting it Together: An Ethnographic Approach to the Study of the Development of Communicative Competence. In E. Ochs and B. B. Schieffelin (eds.) Developmental Pragmatics. New York: Academic Press. Schieffelin, B. B. and E. Ochs (eds.) (1986) Language Socialization Across Cultures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Schiffrin, D. (1981) Tense Variation in Narrative. Language, 57, 1, pp. 4562. Schiffrin, D. (1987) Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Schmidt, R. (1977) Sociolinguistic Variation and Language Transfer in Phonology. Working Papers on Bilingualism, 12, pp. 7995. Scholes, R. and R. Kellogg (1966) The Nature of Narrative. New York: Oxford University Press. Schumann, J. H. (1975) Second Language Acquisition: The Pidginization Hypothesis. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Harvard University. Schumann, J. H. (1978) The Pidginization Process: A Model for Second Language Acquisition. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.

- 504 -

Appendix 2 Scollon, R. (1976) Conversations with a One Year Old: a Case Study of the Developmental Foundation of Syntax. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Scollon, R. and S. B. K. Scollon (1979) Linguistic Convergence: an Ethnography of Speaking at Fort Chipewyan Alberta. New York: Academic Press. Scollon, R. and S. B. K. Scollon (1981) Narrative, Literacy and Face in Interethnic Communication. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex. Scott, C. M. (1984) Adverbial Connectivity in Conversations of Children Six to Twelve. Journal of Child Language, 11, pp. 423452. Shepherd, S. C. (1980) Strategies and Semantic Distinctions in the Acquisition of Standard English and Creole Modals. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, San Antonio, December 1980. Shepherd, S. C. (1981) Modals in Antiguan Creole, Child Language Acquisition, and History. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Stanford University. Shuman, Amy (1986) Storytelling Rights: The Uses of Oral and Written Texts by Urban Adolescents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Silva, Marilyn N. (1991) Simultaneity in Childrens Narratives: the Case of When, While and As. Journal of Child Language, 18, pp. 641662. Silva-Corvaln, C. (1983) Tense and Aspect in Oral Spanish Narrative: Context and Meaning. Language, 59, 4, pp. 760780. Sinclair, J. and M. Coulthard (1975) Towards an Analysis of Discourse: The English used by Teachers and Pupils. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Singh, Gurbachan (1988) Language, Race and Education. Birmingham: Jayson. Slaughter, Helen B. (1991) A Sociolinguistic Paradigm for Bilingual Language Proficiency Assessment. In J. Fine (ed.) Second Language Discourse: A Textbook of Current Research. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex.

- 505 -

Appendix 2 Sleight, C. C. and P. M. Prinz (1985) Use of Abstracts, Orientations, and Codas in Narration by Language-disordered and Nondisordered Children. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 50, pp. 361371. Slimani, A. (1987) The Teaching-Learning Relationship: Learning Opportunities and Learning Outcomes, an Algerian Case Study. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, University of Lancaster. Slobin, D. I. and C. A. Welsh (1973) Elicited Imitation as a Research Tool in Developmental Psycholinguistics. In Ferguson and Slobin (eds.) Studies of Child Language Development. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Snow, C. (1981) The Uses of Imitation. Journal of Child Language, 8, pp. 205212. Snow, C. (1983) Literacy and Language: Relationships during the Preschool Years. Harvard Educational Review, 53, pp. 165189. Snow, C. and C. Ferguson (1977) Talking to Children: Language Input and Acquisition. New York: Cambridge University Press. Spearman, C. (1904) The Proof and Measurement of Association between Two Things. American Journal of Psychology, 15, pp. 88103. Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. (1986) Relevance, Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell. Stein, N. L. (1983) On the Goals, Functions, and Knowledge of Reading and Writing. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8, pp. 261292. Stein, N. L. and C. G. Glenn (1977) A Developmental Study of Childrens Construction of Stories. Paper presented at the Meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, New Orleans 1977. Stein, N. L. and C. G. Glenn (1979) An Analysis of Story Comprehension in Elementary School Children. In R. Freedle (ed.) New Directions in Discourse Processing. Hillsdale, N.J.: Ablex. Stein, N. L. and T. Nezworski (1978) The Effects of Organization and Instructional Set on Story Memory. Discourse Processes, 1, pp. 177193. - 506 -

Appendix 2 Stein, N. L. and T. Trabasso (1982) Whats in a Story: An Approach to Comprehension and Instruction. In R. Glaser (ed.) Advances in the Psychology of Instruction, Vol. 2. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum. Stenning, K. and L. Michell (1985) Learning to Tell a Good Story: the Development of Content and Language in Childrens Telling of One Tale. Discourse Processes, 8, pp. 261279. Stephany, U. (1986) Modality. In P. Fletcher and M.Garman (eds.) Language Acquisition, Second Edition, pp. 375400. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Stoel-Gammon, Carolyn and Lenor Cabral (1977) Learning to Tell It Like It Is: the Development of the Reportative Function in Childrens Speech. Stanford Papers and Reports in Child Language Development, 13, pp. 6471. Strickland, R.G. (1962) The Language of Elementary School Children: Its Relationship to the Language of Reading Textbooks and the Quality of Reading of Selected Children. Bulletin of the School of Education, 38, 4. Bloomington, Indiana: University of Indiana. Stubbs, Michael (ed.) (1985) The Other Languages of England: Linguistic Minorities Project. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Tannen, Deborah (1978) A Cross-Cultural Study of Oral Narrative Style. Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, pp. 640650. Tannen, Deborah (1979) Whats in a frame? In R. Freedle (ed.) New Dimensions in Discourse Processing, pp. 137181. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex. Tannen, Deborah (1982a) Oral and Literate Strategies in Spoken and Written Narratives. Language, 58, 1, pp. 121. Tannen, Deborah (1982b) The Oral/Literate Continuum in Discourse. In Deborah Tannen (ed.) Spoken and Written Language: Exploring Orality and Literacy. Advances in Discourse Processes 9, Roy O. Freedle (ed.). pp. 116. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex.

- 507 -

Appendix 2 Tannen, Deborah (1984a) (ed.) Coherence in Spoken and Written Discourse. Advances in Discourse Processes 12, Roy O. Freedle (ed.). Norwood, N.J.: Ablex. Tannen, Deborah (1984b) Conversational Style: Analyzing Talk among Friends. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex. Tannen, Deborah (1986) Introducing Constructed Dialogue in Greek and American Conversational and Literary Narrative. In Florian Coulmas (ed.) Direct and Indirect Speech (Trends in Linguistics: Studies and Monographs 31), pp. 311360. Berlin, New York and Amsterdam: Mouton de Gruyter. Tarone, Elaine (1988) Variation in Interlanguage. London: Edward Arnold. Tarone, Elaine, Andrew D. Cohen and Guy Dumas (1983) A Closer Look at Some Interlanguage Terminology: a Framework for Communication Strategies. In Claus Faerch and Gabriele Kasper (eds.) Strategies in Interlanguage Communication, pp. 414. London: Longman. Thomas, A. (1979) Ellipsis: the Interplay of Sentence Structure and Context. Lingua, 47, pp. 4368. Thorndyke, P. (1977) Cognitive Structures in Comprehension and Memory of Narrative Discourse. In Cognitive Psychology, 9, pp. 77110. Todorov, Tzvetan (1966) (ed.) Theorie de la Litterature. Paris. Todorov, Tzvetan (1977) The Poetics of Prose. Oxford: Blackwell. Tolstaya, N. I. (1981) The Panjabi Language: Languages of Asia and Africa, Vol. 2. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Tomashersky, Boris (1925) Teorija Literatury (Poetika). Leningrad. The relevant section Thematique appears in Todorov (1966), pp. 263307, and in Lemon and Reis (eds.) Russian Formalist Criticism (1965) Lincoln, Neb., pp. 6198. Moscow. Tomlin, R. S. (1984) The Treatment of Foreground - Background Information in the Online Descriptive Discourse of Second Language Learners. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 6, 2, pp. 115142. - 508 -

Appendix 2 Toolan, Michael J. (1988) Narrative: A Critical Linguistic Introduction. London and New York: Routledge. Tosi, Arturo (1984) Immigration and Bilingual Education. Oxford: Pergamon. Traugott, E. and M. L. Pratt (1980) Linguistics for Students of Literature. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Trudgill, Peter (ed.) (1984) Language in the British Isles. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Trudgill, Peter and J. K. Chambers (eds.) (1991) Dialects of English: Studies in Grammatical Variation. London: Longman. Twite, S. (1981) Language Development In and Out of School. In N. Mercer (ed.) Language in School and Community. London: Edward Arnold. Tyack, D. and D. Ingram (1977) Childrens Production and Comprehension of Questions. Journal of Child Language, 4, pp. 211224. Umiker-Sebeok, D. J. (1979) Preschool Childrens Intraconversational Narratives. Journal of Child Language, 6, pp. 91109. Valian, V. (1990a) Logical and Psychological Constraints on the Acquisition of Syntax. In L. Frazier and J. de Villiers (eds.) Language Processing and Language Acquisition, pp. 119145. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Valian, V. (1990b) Null Subjects: a Problem for Parameter-Setting Models of Acquisition. Cognition, 35, pp. 105122. Valian, V. (1991) Syntactic Subjects in the Early Speech of American and Italian Children. Cognition, 40, pp. 2181. Villaume, S. K. (1988) Creating Context within Text: an Investigation of Primary-grade Childrens Character Introductions in Original Stories. Research in Teaching English, 22, pp. 161182.

- 509 -

Appendix 2 de Villiers, J. G., H. Tager-Flusberg and K. Hakuta (1977) Deciding Among Theories of the Development of Co-ordination in Childrens Speech. Stanford Papers and Reports on Child Language Development, 13, pp. 118125. Vygotsky, L. S. (1962 [1932]) Thought and Language. Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press. Wagner-Gough, J. and E. Hatch (1975) The Importance of Input Data in Second Language Acquisition Studies. Language Learning, 25, pp. 297308. Wales, R. (1986) Deixis. In P. Fletcher and M. Garman (eds.) Language Acquisition, Second Edition, pp. 401428. Wallman, S. (ed.) (1979) Ethnicity at Work. London: Macmillan. Waltz, Nathan E. (1976) Discourse Functions of Guanano Sentence and Paragraph. In R. E. Longacre (ed.) Discourse Grammar, Part 1, pp. 21146. Wardetsky, Kristin (1990) The Structure and Interpretation of Fairy Stories Composed by Children. Journal of American Folklore, 103, pp. 157176. Warren, W.H., D.W. Nicholas and T. Trabasso (1979) Event Chains and Inferences in Understanding Narratives. In R. Freedle (ed.) New Directions in Discourse Processing, pp. 2352. Hillsdale, N.J.: Ablex. Watson-Gegeo, K. and S. Boggs (1977) From Verbal Play to Talk Story: The Role of Routines in Speech Events among Hawaiian Children. In S. Ervin-Tripp and C. Mitchell-Kernan (eds.) Child Discourse, pp. 6790. New York: Academic Press. Weaver, P. A. and D.K. Dickinson (1979) Story Comprehension and Recall in Dyslexic Students. Bulletin of the Orton Society, 29, pp. 157171. Weinrich, Harald (1973) Le Temps. Translated by Michele Lacoste. Paris: Seuil (originally published in German, 1964). Wells, G. (1979) Learning and Using the Auxiliary Verb in English. In V. Lee (ed.) Language Development: a Reader, pp. 250270. London: Croom Helm.

- 510 -

Appendix 2 Wells, G. (1985) Language Development in the Pre-School Years. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wells, G., M. Montgomery and M. MacLure (1979) Adult-Child Discourse: Outline of a Model of Analysis. Journal of Pragmatics, 3, pp. 337380. White, L. (1990) Second Language Acquisition and Universal Grammar. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, pp. 120134. Wieman, L. A. (1976) Stress Patterns of Early Child Language. Journal of Child Language, 3, pp. 283286. Wierzbicka, Anna (1974) The Semantics of Direct and Indirect Discourse. Papers in Linguistics, 7, 3-4, pp. 267307. Willing, K. (1987) Learning Styles in Adult Migrant Education. National Curriculum Resource Centre, Adult Migrant Education Program, Australia. Wilson, D. and D. Sperber (1987) An Outline of Relevance Theory. Notes on Linguistics, 39, pp. 524. Wimmer, H. (1980) Childrens Understanding of Stories: Assimilation by a General Schema for Actions or Co-ordination of Temporal Relations? In F. Wilkening, J. Becker and T. Trabasso (eds.) Information Integration by Children, pp. 267288. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum. Wimmer, H. (1982) Zur Entwicklung des Verstehens von Erzahlungen. Bern: Hans Huber Verlag. Winograd, Terry (1971) Procedures as a Representation for Data in a Computer Program for Understanding Natural Language (= Artificial Intelligence Laboratory Report A1 TR-17), pp. 117118. Cambridge: M.I.T. Press. Winograd, Terry (1977) A Framework for Understanding Discourse. In Just and Carpenter (eds.) Cognitive Processes in Comprehension. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum. Witte, Paul (1977) Functions of the Andoke Copulative in Discourse and Sentence Structure. In R. E. Longacre (ed.) Discourse Grammar, Part 3, pp. 253288. - 511 -

Appendix 2 Wode, Henning (1981) Learning a Second Language: An Integrated View of Language Acquisition. Tbingen: Gunter Narr Verlag. Wolf, D. and D. Hicks (1989) The Voices within Narratives: the Development of Intertextuality. Discourse Processes, 12, pp. 329351. Wolfson, N. (1978) A Feature of Performed Narrative: The Conversational Historical Present. In Language in Society, 7, pp. 215237. Wolfson, N. (1982) CHP: The Conversational Historical Present in American English Narrative. Dordrecht, Holland: Foris Publications. Wong Fillmore, Lily (1976) The Second Time Around: Cognitive and Social Strategies in Second Language Acquisition. Doctoral Dissertation, Stanford University. Woods, Anthony, Paul Fletcher and Arthur Hughes (1986) Statistics in Language Studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wooten, J., S. Merkin, L. Hood and L. Bloom (1979) WH-questions: Linguistic Evidence to Explain the Sequence of Acquisition. Paper presented to the Biennial Meeting for the Society for Research in Child Development, San Francisco, March 1979. Young, Katharine (1983) Tale Worlds and Story Realms: The Phenomenology of Narrative. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.

- 512 -

Appendix 2

LIST OF CHILDRENS BOOKS REFERRED TO IN CHAPTER THREE Aesop. Aesops Fables. ed. by G. Beal. London: Angus and Robertson, 1977. Ahlberg, Janet and Allan. Burglar Bill. London: Heinemann, 1977. Andersen, Hans Christian. Classic Fairy Tales. Trans. by Erik Haugaard. London: Gollancz, 1976. Barrie, J.M. Peter Pan. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1979. Blakeley, Peggy. The Great Big Book of Nursery Rhymes. London: Black, 1978. Blishen, Edward ed. Oxford Book of Poetry for Children. London: O.U.P. , 1963. Bond, Michael. Paddington Bear. London: Collins, 1972. Briggs, Raymond. The Mother Goose Treasury. London: Hamilton, 1966. Burke, Susan. Alexander in Trouble. London: Bodley Head, 1979. Burningham, John. Mr. Gumpys Outing. London: Cape, 1970. Carroll, Lewis. Alice in Wonderland. London: Bodley Head, 1974. Edwards, Dorothy. My Naughty Little Sister. London: Methuen, 1969. Eliot, T.S. Old Possums Book of Practical Cats. London: Faber, 1975. Gallico, Paul. Snow Goose. London: Joseph, 1969. Gray, J.E.B. Indian Tales and Legends. London: O.U.P. , 1979. Grimm, J.C. and W.K. Fairy Tales. ed. by Annabel Williams-Ellis. London: Blackie, 1977. Hallworth, Grace. Listen to This Story: Tales from the West Indies. London: Methuen, 1978. Haviland, Virginia, ed. The Faber Book of North American Legends. London: Faber, 1979. Jansson, Tove. Finn Family Moomintroll. London: Penguin, 1970. Kipling, Rudyard. Just So Stories. London: Macmillan, 1965. Lear, Edward. Book of Bosh. ed. by Brian Alderson. London: Kestrel, 1975. Milligan, Spike. Silly Verse for Kids. London: Dobson, 1963. Milne, A. A. The Christopher Robin Verse Book. London: Methuen, 1969. Milne, A. A. Winnie the Pooh. London: Methuen, 1973. Mitchnik, Helen. Egyptian and Sudanese Folk Tales. London: O.U.P. , 1978. - 513 -

Appendix 2 Nesbit, E. The Railway Children. London: Benn, 1978. Pearce, Philippa. A Dog So Small. London: Longman, 1962. Piers, Helen. Rabbit is Hungry. London: Methuen, 1978. Potter, Beatrix. Mrs. Tiggywinkle. London: Warne, 1950. Rayner, Mary. Mr. and Mrs. Pigs Evening Out. London: Macmillan, 1976. Seuss, Dr. The Cat in the Hat. London: Collins, 1963. Sharma, Elizabeth. The Four Friends, Tiger Books, 1985. Webb, Kaye ed. I Like This Poem: Favourite Poems Chosen by Children. London: Penguin, 1979.

- 514 -