(Amelia Church) Preference Organisation and Peer D

PREFERENCE ORGANISATION
AND PEER DISPUTES

Church Book.indb 1 13/01/2009 12:11:30
Directions in Ethnomethodology
and Conversation Analysis
Series Editors:
Stephen Hester, University of Wales, UK
David Francis, Manchester Metropolitan University, UK
Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis are cognate approaches to the study
of social action that together comprise a major perspective within the contemporary
human sciences. This perspective focuses upon naturally occurring talk and
interaction and analyses the methods by which social activities are ordered and
accomplished. From its origins within sociology, EM/CA has ramifed across
a wide range of human science disciplines, including anthropology, social
psychology, linguistics, communication studies and social studies of technology.
Its infuence is international, with large and active research communities in many
countries, including J apan, Australia, Canada, France, The Netherlands, Denmark
and Sweden as well as the UK and USA.
The International Institute of Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis is
the major association of EM/CA researchers worldwide. It was set up in 1978 by
Prof. George Psathas to provide a forum for international collaboration between
scholars working in the feld of studies of social action and to support their work
through conferences and publications. It published several books in EM/CA in
association with University Press of America. Now reconstituted under the
direction of Francis and Hester, supported by an international steering committee,
the IIEMCA holds regular conferences and symposia in various countries.
This major new book series will present current work in EM/CA, including
research monographs, edited collections and theoretical studies. It will be essential
reading for specialists in the feld as well as those who wish to know more about
this major approach to human action.
Other titles in this series
Talk and Social Interaction in the Playground
Carly W. Butler
ISBN 978-0-7546-7416-0
Ethnographies of Reason
Eric Livingston
ISBN 978-0-7546-7106-0
Church Book.indb 2 13/01/2009 12:11:30
Preference Organisation
and Peer Disputes
How Young Children Resolve Confict
AMELIA CHURCH
University of Melbourne, Australia
Church Book.indb 3 13/01/2009 12:11:30
Amelia Church 2009
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval
system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying,
recording or otherwise without the prior permission of the publisher.
Amelia Church has asserted her moral right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act,
1988, to be identifed as the author of this work.
Published by
Ashgate Publishing Limited Ashgate Publishing Company
Wey Court East Suite 420
Union Road 101 Cherry Street
Farnham Burlington
Surrey, GU9 7PT VT 05401-4405
England USA
www.ashgate.com
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
Church, Amelia
Preference organisation and peer disputes : how young
children resolve confict. - (Directions in
ethnomethodology and conversation analysis)
1. Interpersonal confict in children 2. Social skills in
children 3. Conversation analysis
I. Title
302.3'4'083
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Church, Amelia, 1974-
Preference organisation and peer disputes : how young children resolve confict / by
Amelia Church.
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978-0-7546-7441-2 -- ISBN 978-0-7546-9146-4
(ebook) 1. Confict management. 2. Interpersonal confict in children. 3. Interpersonal
relations in children. 4. Problem solving in children. 5. Social skills in children. I. Title.
HM1126.C49 2008
303.6'90833--dc22
09ANSHT
2008043655
ISBN 978-0-7546-7441-2
e-ISBN 978-0-7546-9146-4
Church Book.indb 4 13/01/2009 12:11:31
Contents
List of Figures and Tables vii
Acknowledgements ix
1 Introduction 1
2 Defning Child Confict 7
3 Conversation Analysis 31
4 Peer Disputes 53
5 Dispute Outcomes 111
6 Preference and Dispute Outcomes 151
7 How to Resolve Disputes 187
Appendix A 197
Observation 1 transcripts 198
Observation 2 transcripts 233
Observation 1 summary 253
Observation 2 summary 254
References 255
Index 273
Church Book.indb 5 13/01/2009 12:11:31
This page has been left blank intentionally
List of Figures and Tables
Figure 2.1 Sequences in contradicting routines, Boggs (1978) 23
Figure 6.1 Continuum of account objectivity 176
Table 2.1 Categories of opposition 17
Table A.1 Transcription conventions 197
Church Book.indb 7 13/01/2009 12:11:31
Acknowledgements
This study was supported by a Monash Graduate Scholarship and the singular
supervision of Professor Keith Allan I continue to be grateful for his guidance
and support. Publication of this work was assisted by a publication grant from the
University of Melbourne.
Since completing this study I have had the good fortune to participate in
conversation analysis forums with established scholars. In particular, thanks to
Professor Susan Danby, Dr Mike Forrester, Professor Bill Wells, Dr J ohanna
Rendle-Short and Dr Anna Filippi for their interest in this work. I would also like
to acknowledge the encouragement given by Professor Li Wei, Professor Trisha
Maynard, Professor Bridie Raban, Professor Collette Tayler and Professor Field
Rickards.
Thanks are most obviously extended to the children and staff of the two
childcare centres in Melbourne who participated in the project; without their
interest in the research and willingness to participate, this contribution to our
understanding of childrens interactions would not exist.
The study presented in this monograph was undertaken as doctoral research
in the then Linguistics Department at Monash University. Parts or versions of
the research presented in this monograph have appeared in earlier publications:
Rask: International Journal of Language and Linguistics; Journal of Australian
Research in Early Childhood Education; and a chapter in Thomas, N. (ed.) (2009),
Children, Politics and Communication: Participation at the Margins. Bristol:
Policy Press.
Church Book.indb 9 13/01/2009 12:11:31
For my parents, for making everything possible.
Church Book.indb 10 13/01/2009 12:11:31
Chapter 1
Introduction
Confict between children
Lauren and Fran (aged three) are sitting in the back garden having a tea party.
As Lauren pours tea into chipped cups, she accidentally spills some on Frans
leg. In response to Frans challenge You poured juice on me, Lauren replies
quickly: I didnt. Frans insistence (You did), and Laurens counter-denial
(I didnt) is repeated over a number of turns, until Lauren issues the indirect
threat Im not your friend anymore. Fran accompanies a later counter-threat
(Well Im gonna tell on you) by poking Lauren in the ear. The subsequent
claim (I was only tickling) is obviously rejected by Lauren as she kicks Fran,
who responds by pulling Laurens dress. The physical struggle escalates until
Lauren bursts into tears and runs towards the back door of the house in search
of her mother.
In this episode,
1
the young girls are engrossed in their pretend play and the
subsequent collapse of co-operative interaction. As adults, our involvement
is usually restricted to the collapse of childrens arguments, where confict has
escalated beyond the point of childrens own sociolinguistic resources. Disputes
between children, for the most part, are reconstructed from retrospective reports
rather than frst hand evidence. In the absence of adult supervision or intervention,
then, how do young children manage disputes? What resources do young children
employ to persuade, assuage or confront their peers in confict situations? What do
they say? How do they respond? What is the most effective way of pursuing ones
own goals in the preschool playroom? Fundamentally, how do children go about
resolving disputes? Addressing these questions is the overriding aim of this book.
The purpose of this chapter is to locate the work in the broader felds of confict
and childrens language development, and introduce the research project which
informs the work as a whole.
1 This footage appears in the documentary Woodbine Place (McEvoy, 1989),
which explores childrens friendships and play activities in a neighbourhood of urban
Northumberland, UK.
Church Book.indb 1 13/01/2009 12:11:31
Preference Organisation and Peer Disputes 2
What constitutes confict?
Intuitively we recognise the episode between the two girls described above as a
form of confict. Given the range of interaction encompassed by this term, however,
the type of confict studied in this book needs to be identifed. The generic phrase
adversative discourse is used to identify stretches of talk (and accompanying
nonverbal behaviour) in which children oppose the prior utterance(s) or action(s)
of another child or group of children. Opposition is fundamental to this type of
discourse. Whilst defnitions of verbal confict are discussed in the next chapter, the
terms adversative discourse, confict, dispute and argument are used throughout to
denote mutually articulated disagreement. For the most part, disagreement refers
to real (rather than pretend) and serious (rather than joking) opposition which
occurs spontaneously in the childrens interaction.
The emphasis in this research rests on verbal disputes as illustrative of young
childrens developing communicative competence (see below), rather than
on argument per se. This work is not concerned with exploration of reasoning,
argumentation theory or studies of negotiation processes in the adult world (e.g.
Pruitt, 1981; Diez, 1986; van Eemeren, Grootendorst, Blair and Willard, 1991;
Pruitt and Carnevale, 1993; Ehlich and Wagner, 1995; van Eemeren, Grootendorst
and Henkemans, 2002) nor with related concepts such as game theory (e.g.
Schelling, 1960; Rapoport and Chammah, 1965). Here, the term argument refers
to opposing interaction between parties; in other words we are concerned with
arguing about rather than arguing that (OKeefe, 1977).
Negotiation theory falls beyond the scope of this book primarily because it
concerns adult interaction. Whilst the overlap between adult and child conversation
is acknowledged, I do not support the idea of child language as an imperfect
version of adult language. A tradition of identifying children as incomplete, or by
their inabilities rather than abilities precludes a comprehensive understanding of
childrens social and linguistic competence (Waksler, 1991; Danby, 2002). The
social world of young children can be considered an experience distinct from adult
perspective (e.g. Corsaro, 2004). Indeed, childhood is attributed with specifc
social status, a status which exits through contrast with the adult world (Baker and
Campbell, 2000).
Not only are arguments between adults outside the immediate area of inquiry,
adult-child disputes (e.g. Vuchinich, 1984, 1999; Grootevant and Cooper, 1985;
Hess and McDevitt, 1984) are also, for the most part, excluded. Our concern here
is the talk-in-interaction, specifcally adversative discourse, between children.
Examining peer confict affords an opportunity to see how children of similar ages
manage to persuade or attempt to manipulate others of essentially equal status
and same stage of language development. To this end, the skill and complexity of
young childrens talk is uncovered, moving away from the idea of preschool as
pre-competent.
Church Book.indb 2 13/01/2009 12:11:31
Introduction 3
Adversative discourse as productive interaction
Competency is subsumed by the notion of disputing as a complex, rule-governed,
constructive, shared activity (Laursen, Hartup and Koplas, 1996: 77; Lein and
Brenneis, 1978: 308; Brenneis, 1998). Moving away from viewing children as
egocentric, Piaget would propose that argument leads to intellectual co-operation
and the increased understanding of self and others (Eisenberg, 1987: 114). In
accommodating (or rejecting) the intentions of another speaker, children negotiate
locally determined roles and rules, co-constructing the outcomes of disputes.
Although disagreements require some sort of resolution for the prior content of
conversation to resume (Stalpers, 1995: 288), adversative discourse should not
be seen as an aberration or sort of non-conversation. Indeed, the data in this book
shows childrens disputes to be the site of co-operative and productive talk-in-
interaction. Furthermore, the ability to manage confict is related to other indexes
of competence, including sociometric status, aggression, emotional control, and
social adjustment (Chen and French, 2008: 604).
Oppositional talk provides an opportunity for children to construct and negotiate
their own social world, simultaneously refecting and constructing their particular
cultural experiences. Indeed, confict among children latently functions to develop
their sense of social structure and helps reproduce authority, friendship, and other
interactional patterns that transcend single episodes of dispute (Maynard, 1985b:
220). Confict fosters the acquisition and refnement of social skills (Hay and
Ross, 1982: 112), and is related to social acceptance (Putallaz and Sheppard, 1995:
346). Far from causing permanent rifts or discord, arguments between children
tend to be quickly forgotten: That stupid Mr. Dan gonna come up there and say
(0.4) Yall better (0.2) come on and shake hands. Dont mean nothin cuz we be
playing together next day anyway (Goodwin, 1982: 87).
Opposition arising in isolated disputes does not permanently disrupt peer
interaction, and, moreover, the co-operative benefts of negotiating social
relationships are enduring. As Corsaro and Rizzo (1990: 65) summarise, it is clear
that disputes and argumentation serve positive functions in terms of childrens
development of communicative competence and social knowledge. So whilst
language remains the focus of this book, analysis of confict discourse is also
demonstrative of children as competent social agents, actively constructing peer
culture.
Communicative competence
Childrens acquisition of language and developing abilities in social interaction
have been studied in a myriad of ways beyond traditional cognitive (Piaget,
1959) and socio-cultural (Vygotsky, 1986) theories from behavioural approaches
(Skinner, 1957), structural emphasis on syntax (e.g. Chomsky, 1957, 1965; Brown,
1973), rule-based systems (Bloom, 1970; MacWhinney, 1982), and systemic
Church Book.indb 3 13/01/2009 12:11:31
linguistics (Halliday 1975, 1978; Fine and Freedle, 1983), to an increasing
emphasis on social context (e.g. Ochs and Schieffelin, 1979, 1983; Schieffelin
and Ochs, 1986; Romaine, 1984). This study of childrens disputes belongs to
the domain of developing communicative competence (Hymes, 1972, 1974; cf.
Gumperz, 1986) where ability or performance is recognised not only as linguistic
but encompassing broader, culturally-situated aspects of language in use. Although
it is not designed to address the concept of communicative competence directly, the
research contributes to a greater understanding of childrens developing abilities
in language in interaction.
2
As children acquire language for multiple purposes, they are learning to
argue (Eisenberg, 1987; Maynard, 1986b). Far from being a disordered activity,
3

in adversative discourse children are playing with structures of embedding and
ellipsis in return actions, providing disclaimers disarming the illocutionary force
(Austin, 1962) of a prior speakers talk, and formulating logical proofs all
without creating rifts in relationships (Goodwin, 1982: 91). Verbal disputes, then,
provide children with an opportunity not only to manipulate or persuade their play
partners but use increasingly complex language to do so. Viewing verbal confict
as an activity best avoided, one to be ended as quickly as possible (cf. Sackin
and Thelen, 1984), fails to acknowledge the opportunity afforded by adversative
discourse for children to pay close attention to language. Indeed, dispute contexts
provide children with far greater motivation to quickly produce creative structures
than could be constructed by the teacher for pedagogic purposes (Goodwin and
Goodwin, 1987).
The ubiquitous teacher instruction for children to use your words during
confict with peers, prompts consideration of the range of strategies employed
by young children. Children are encouraged to pursue verbal rather than physical
resolution of confict, yet there is little specifcation in the preschool classroom as
to what words the children should actually use. We need to consider not only what
words children use, but what words they use in response to opposition. Moreover,
the words produced by children in serial oppositional utterances will be considered
in terms of dispute outcomes. What words do children use to resolve disputes?
Outline of monograph
Existing research in childrens arguments has predominantly focused on types
of verbal strategies produced within dispute episodes. As shown throughout
2 For exemplary work in the area of childrens developing communicative
competence see Susan Ervin-Tripp (e.g. 1977, 1978, 1982).
3 Preschool-aged childrens ability to manage conversations with peers is well
documented (e.g. Dore, 1979, 1985; Corsaro, 1979; Garvey and Berninger, 1981; Garvey,
1974, 1984; Ochs, 1983; McTear, 1985; Wood, 1989; Foster, 1990; Ninio and Snow, 1996;
Thompson, 1997).
Church Book.indb 4 13/01/2009 12:11:32
Introduction 5
Chapter 2, earlier studies in peer confict have identifed speech acts in disputes
and, in some cases, attempted to establish patterns of subsequent utterances. Whilst
illustrative of types, frequency and social context of disputes, these prior studies
do not effectively account for the sequential, turn-by-turn structure of adversative
discourse. The primary aim of this research is to understand what leads to confict
resolution, or alternatively, to a breakdown of collaborative play, by investigating
childrens responses to opposition and the relationship between oppositional
turns.
The limitations of speech act theory in the study of adversative discourse are
addressed more directly in Chapter 3, through juxtaposition with the methodological
advantages of a conversation analytic approach. Conversation analysis (CA) is
particularly well suited to investigation of childrens peer language given the
insistence on recording real interaction, analysis driven by the data in favour of a
priori hypotheses, and consequent attention to features of the talk-in-interaction
which are salient to the participants themselves. The real interaction in this study
was recorded (audio and video) in two child care centres in Melbourne, involving
children enrolled in the four-year-old preschool program (attending on average
3 days per week), which generated a dataset of the 60 disputes transcribed for
analysis (see Appendix A).
Preference organisation, (an ordering principle defned by the asymmetry of
second pair parts described in Chapter 3) was found to be prominent in the
preliminary analysis. That is, turns in the childrens disputes were typically produced
in one of two ways: (1) as short direct opposition (preferred turn shape) or (2) as
delayed (by markers or pauses) and justifed opposition (dispreferred turn shape).
Chapter 4 presents an analysis of preference features occurring throughout the
disputes. In order to determine if preference organisation is an organising principle
in adversative discourse, a description of the outcome of disputes is required; so
Chapter 5 is devoted to exemplifying three types of dispute endings identifed in
the data: resolution, abandonment and teacher intervention. The function of threats
as atypical dispreferred turn shapes is also considered in Chapter 5.
Chapter 6 establishes the relationship between turn shape and outcome. The
analysis shows preferred turn shapes to be sustaining more likely to promote
confict and dispreferred turn shapes as non-sustaining resolution is only
secured through fnal utterances where the opposition is justifed. The quality
of accounts (i.e. the reason given for the speakers objection) also proves to be
infuential in the development of disputes; the more objective the content of
the account, the more persuasive the utterance. The micro-analysis afforded by
conversation analysis, with particular focus on features of preference organisation,
proves effective in uncovering how children go about resolving disputes.
Intervention strategies for children to manage relationships with their peers
tend to be adult-centric. Children, however, do not necessarily negotiate social
relationships as adults would. Empirical evidence, such as provided in the
research reported here, is essential to improve understanding of the highly ordered
activity of young childrens social interaction. The fndings contribute to a greater
Church Book.indb 5 13/01/2009 12:11:32
understanding of how children function in their own social worlds. Importantly,
these social worlds are constructed and maintained by increasingly complex
language use, that is, by developing communicative competence.
Church Book.indb 6 13/01/2009 12:11:32
Chapter 2
Defning Child Confict
Introduction
To position the research reported in this monograph, it is important to identify its
departure from prior studies. Throughout this book, the method of conversation
analysis (CA) is framed as a novel perspective on this type of childrens discourse
although there is increasing interest in CA in childrens interactions more broadly
(see Chapter 3). The analytic account presented in this book responds immediately
to the unexplored ground in existing research in childrens confict. As such the
existing ground requires some account.
Chapter 1 was concerned with identifying our interest in peer disputes and
articulating why childrens adversative discourse should be studied. This chapter
presents a summary of what has already been studied in child confict. Each of the
sections in the chapter represents a theme identifed in studies in child confict. First,
defnitions of confict are discussed, followed by the interdependent classifcation
of types and frequencies of confict, and interpretation of how disputes begin.
Identifying verbal strategies produced during arguments is a prominent concern in
existing research, and some attempts have been made to investigate sequences of
these strategies (where disputes may escalate or, conversely, be resolved). Few of
these attempts have satisfactorily captured the properties of dispute closings. Lastly,
the wide interest in gender differences in childrens arguments is discussed.
This review is deliberately restricted to studies of confict between children of
the same age. Discussion of arguments between children and their parents (e.g.
Maccoby, 1996; Crockenberg and Lourie, 1996), siblings (e.g. Ross, 1995), or
children of signifcantly different ages are, for the most part (with the exception of
e.g. Vuchinich, 1990) beyond the scope of immediate relevance. Similarly, research
in confict resolution strategies in atypical populations for example children with
specifc language impairment (e.g. Horowitz, Jansson, Ljungberg and Hedenbro,
2005) do not feature here. Furthermore, whilst work in developmental psychology
extends to examining why children argue and determining the infuence of such
interaction on developing social cognition, this research is concerned with features
of the language used by children to manage confict with peers. Before the existing
work on childrens language in disputes is reported, however, what actually
constitutes adversative discourse needs to be established.
Church Book.indb 7 13/01/2009 12:11:32
Defnitions of confict
Argument can be considered a fuzzy concept (OKeefe and Benoit, 1982: 157).
As disputes arise in ongoing interaction, identifying adversative sequences is not
a straightforward task (Corsaro and Rizzo, 1990: 26). Yet despite the breadth of
discourse denoted by the nominal argument and debate about confning episode
boundaries, core features of confict can be identifed. Essential properties
of disputes are: the central notion of opposition, boundaries of episodes, and
mutuality. These properties carry across registers of disputes.
The adversative episode is defned as the interaction which grows out of an
opposition to a request for action, an assertion, or an action. It is a social task
whose objective is the resolution of that confict or contradiction. The negating
responses include refusals, disagreements, denials and objections. Thus, an
adversative episode is a sequence which begins with an opposition and ends with
a resolution or dissipation of confict. Its apparent goal is to work out the initial
opposing positions of the participants (Eisenberg and Garvey, 1981: 150).
Oppositional talk (Corsaro and Maynard, 1996) and its various guises (confict,
argument, dispute, adversative discourse, etc.) is fundamentally identifed through
opposition to some prior objectionable utterance or event. Elsewhere, opposition
is described as overt disagreement (Miller Danaher and Forbes, 1986: 544),
expressing an adversary position (Coulter, 1990: 185) or counter-assertion
that rejects, denies or contradicts the prior assertion (Phinney, 1986: 48). Protest,
resistance, or retaliation (Hay and Ross, 1982: 107) are also used to describe the
onset and progress of opposition. Confict, then, denotes an articulated form of
disagreement where one party impedes the satisfaction of the wants of the other
(OKeefe and Benoit, 1982: 163). We note that disagreement is not necessarily
overt; persuasion (Miller, Danaher and Forbes, 1986: 544) is also proposed as a
defning characteristic of confict. That is, confict can be identifed where Child
A attempts to infuence Child B, Child B resists, and Child A persists (Shantz and
Shantz, 1985: 4).
Importantly, confict is viewed as a type of exchange which disrupts the ongoing
interaction. In this light, disputes function as a sort of side-sequence in ongoing
talk, one which must be resolved if non-adversative talk is to resume.
Misunderstanding and dissent are two manifestations of divergence in common
ground.[
1
] When disagreement occurs, common ground must be established
before the discourse can proceed. (Establishing common ground does not
necessarily lead to a common opinion.) Most often disagreements call for
additional interactional work, e.g. repair and insertion sequences, before the
1 For discussion of common ground, see Clark (1997).
Church Book.indb 8 13/01/2009 12:11:32
Defning Child Confict 9
conversation can proceed (that is, before the expansion of common ground can
continue) (Stalpers, 1995: 275).
Consequently, the beginnings and endings of disputes are inseparable from
the defnition of confict itself. The boundaries of a confict episode, thus, are
identifed by the onset and termination of oppositional exchanges (Garvey and
Shantz, 1995: 96). As confict is seen as a halt to non-argumentative conversation,
the departure is marked by the onset and cessation of overt objection (OKeefe and
Benoit, 1982: 163) to a prior utterance/speaker.
Inherent in this idea of resuming co-operative, non-adversative discourse, is
the co-operative nature of confict itself. Identifying confict as a type of discourse
with distinctive boundaries does not signify that disputes are something other
than conversation. Confict, as with all forms of talk-in-interaction, is mutually
created. Indeed, opposition must be mutual for argument to continue. A core,
defning feature of confict is the performance of adversary positions (Coulter,
1990: 185) maintained by at least two people (Garvey and Shantz, 1995: 94;
Hay, 1984: 2). Mutuality is not limited to opposition (both parties must produce
some form of objection), given that mere participation requires more than one
party. Consequently, disputes are defned as spontaneously co-constructed by the
children themselves (Eisenberg and Garvey, 1981: 150).
Defnitions also extend to the range of disputes which appear in childrens peer
play. It should be noted that while aggression is typically expressed in the context
of confict, it does not follow that all confict is aggressive (Shantz, 1987: 285).
Sprott (1986: 427) points out that contemporary defnitions of confict include
exchanges which have a joking or teasing quality or a cooperative, playful quality,
in addition to the serious or angry dispute. Manifestation of cultural variation is
also apparent in more ritualised forms of confict such as playing the dozens
(Labov, 1972b; Mitchell-Kernan, 1972), the stylised brogez of Israeli children
(Katriel, 1985) or other varieties of verbal dueling (e.g. Dundes, Leach and Ozkok,
1972; Corsaro and Maynard, 1996). To this end, Garvey and Shantz (1995) propose
four dimensions of confict talk: orientation (serious/joking); format (ritual/non-
ritual); frame (pretend/real) and mode (mitigated/ aggravated).
Whilst the range of confict types is considered, for the purposes of the
current research, confict is taken to mean episodes of real or serious opposition.
Although other domains of disputes are not discounted (and a degree of shifting
between modes is recognised), the primary interest in this study is to understand
dispute resolution where non-pretend, non-ritual, non-joking argument serves
as the default, unmarked norm of child confict a norm, at least, for middle-
class, English-speaking Australian children attending urban daycare centres. It is
proposed that variation in disputing styles according to shifting key or register can
then be explored from this platform of standard adversative discourse.
Church Book.indb 9 13/01/2009 12:11:32
Confict openings
From the defnitions above, we surmise that confict begins with overt opposition
between individuals and continues until opposition ceases. Moves within
confict either continue the opposition or address it with attempts at conciliation
or resolution (Ross and Conant 1995: 154). Before moving on to consider
the content and outcome of disputes, we should note that the identifcation of
opening moves in verbal confict is inherently tied to the defnition of confict.
A description of adversative discourse needs clear identifcation of how children
begin arguments. Whilst the defnitional relationship between confict and confict
openings can be viewed as bi-directional, in the following discussion, emphasis
rests on distinguishing the beginnings of confict.
To nominate the beginning of an argument, establishing what actually constitutes
the frst move of the sequence is fundamental, because assigning a particular
move as the opening of the dispute has implications for the subsequent analysis
of the unfolding argument. A prominent disparity in studies of young childrens
confict lies in identifying either (a) the frst act of overt (verbal) opposition as the
beginning of the dispute, or (b) the action or utterance which provokes the initial
opposition. The following summary outlines the differing justifcations offered in
labelling specifc turns as the beginning of arguments.
The frst turn of adversative discourse can be marked as the initial statement of
opposition to an antecedent event. Eisenberg and Garvey (1981) propose that the
central defnition of argument is the action of opposition, so it follows that they
propose argument begins with this action. Phinney (1986: 50) also claims that
an argument does not begin until a statement or action is challenged by another
speaker; consequently, the frst move of the quarrel is identifed as the frst counter-
assertion made by another child. Corsaro and Rizzo (1990: 26) do not view the
antecedent event as part of the dispute per se but rather as its source. Similar to
Eisenberg and Garvey (1981) then, the authors view initial opposition moves to be
the defning characteristic of confict openings.
In contrast, Brenneis and Lein (1977) propose that the beginning of an
argument is marked by the statement or action which is refuted by a next speaker,
thus instigating confict. The debate, therefore, is not limited to determining which
move constitutes the beginning of the dispute, but involves classifcation of which
acts or moves are considered as part of the confict at all. Within these discrepancies
of identifcation lies the problem of denoting verbal turns as exclusively intrinsic
to the opening of disputes. That is, ignoring properties of non-verbal turns.
Maynard (1985a) criticises Eisenberg and Garveys (1981) concept of
antecedent event for being primarily linguistic. By focusing on the semantic
continuity of disputes (Brenneis and Lein, 1977), challengeable nonverbal
actions are overlooked in instigating the argument. That is, the presupposition
that antecedent events are verbal often fails to account for what may actually
constitute the initial opposition. Maynard argues that recognising actions as well
Church Book.indb 10 13/01/2009 12:11:32
as utterances as antecedent events (or arguables as he prefers to label them) has
signifcant implications for the interpretation of the structure of disputes.
The following episode appeared in Eisenberg and Garveys (1981) data and is
reproduced here as the example used by Maynard to demonstrate the repercussions
of ignoring nonverbal actions as possible opening moves.
((B has been screaming))
A: Dont be so loud
B: ((shouts)) YES!
A: Dont be so loud
B: Why?
A: Because it hurts my ears, yes, it does
((B is quieter))
Maynard (1985a) argues that the screaming serves as the antecedent or arguable
event and that As opposition (Dont be so loud) should be numbered as the
frst opposition in the adversative episode. It appears not only reasonable, but
essential to recognise the role of nonverbal actions in disputes if the structure of
the discourse is to be understood.
Attributing opening status to a particular action or utterance has an additional
analytical infuence on the allocation of speaker roles. That is, opening moves
not only instigate argument, but also function to nominate specifc roles for
the participants in the dispute. Eisenberg and Garvey (1981) propose that the
beginning of confict establishes the role of each participant, roles which are held
throughout the episode. The Opposer makes the initial statement of opposition,
while the interlocutor is the Opposee by default. The authors claim that these
roles are signifcant in the choice of strategies used by each child in that the
Opposee is trying to infuence his partner while the Opposer is resisting infuence
(1981: 152). As these roles are determined by attribution of the initial move of the
confict, the analytical signifcance of assigning the frst point of opposition is two-
fold (assigning both the opening move and speaker roles).
Most closely related to earlier defnitions of confict, is the response to the
frst opposition move, that is, the next utterance in the exchange. The defnition
of confict obviously infuences which episodes constitute the data for a particular
study. For example Laursen and Hartup (1989) follow Shantz (1987), and include
interactions consisting of only two turns: a statement or action and opposition to
this prior move. However, as most data in research on childrens confict comprises
episodes of three or more turns (e.g. Dunn and Munn, 1987), it can be argued that
Church Book.indb 11 13/01/2009 12:11:32
a sequence of two turns is not indicative of disputing but is rather an example
of repair (i.e. a correction of sorts). Consequently the original speaker has the
option of treating the initial opposition as a prompt for self repair and to diffuse
the possibility of confict by letting the opposition pass (Maynard, 1985a: 7). The
situation escalates, however, when the opposition is treated by the original speaker
as a challenge of some sort and the argument unfolds (Maynard, 1986a).
It follows then, that confict takes hold in the third turn, where the original
action (the antecedent event or arguable) is defended by the frst speaker. If the frst
speaker accepts the challenge or correction made by the second speaker, argument
dissipates and the episode is one of repair. Although the earlier two turns become
established as the beginning of the confict retrospectively, they do not constitute a
dispute in isolation. Maynard (1985a: 8) states this position as follows:
initial opposition does not constitute an argument. An utterance may oppose
a prior action, but its status as part of an argument is dependent on whether it is
treated as a legitimate repair initiation or whether it is let to pass or whether it is
itself counteracted. Thus, in addition to the notion of the antecedent event, as
an arguable utterance or action that can potentially be opposed, we also need a
concept of an argumentative which would capture how an initial statement of
opposition is only contingently turned into an element of an argument or dispute
episode.
It has also been found that particular pairs of utterances are more likely to function
as the beginning of an argument. OKeefe and Benoit (1982: 172) found that
amongst 2-5 year-olds, the majority of disputes began with request-refusal, order-
refusal, need statement-refusal and assertion-denials. Furthermore, the manner
in which the dispute is begun (e.g. aggravated or mitigated objection) not only
infuences the development of the dispute, but determines how the hearer responds
to the initial opposition (e.g. probable threat to face as mentioned by Benoit and
Benoit, 1990: 171-172).
In this research, the beginning of the dispute is taken to mean the frst point of
overt opposition (be it verbal or non-verbal), as confict does not exist until this
occurs. In the transcripts (Appendix A), however, this opposition is not necessarily
marked numerically, i.e. identifed as line 1 in the episode. In some cases, prior
utterances (antecedent events) are recorded to provide contextual cues to the reader.
Indeed, for the most part, the antecedent event that directly precedes the primary
opposition appears as the frst line of the transcript. Only episodes which consist
of three or more turns are included as data for the present analysis. Problems
associated with defning the openings of disputes are not the preoccupation of this
study, as it attempts to detail the closings of confict episodes. Before reviewing
existing research on dispute endings, however, we need to consider what
constitutes the substance of disputes, what happens between the beginning and the
end. Our discussion moves, therefore, from the initiation of confict to consider the
frequency and types of confict in young childrens peer interaction.
Church Book.indb 12 13/01/2009 12:11:32
Frequency and types of confict
Given the range of studies in childrens peer disputes, we presume that arguments
are a regular feature of childrens interaction. Intuitively, we perceive disputes
between children to be common events. In moving from general perception to
quantifcation, however, problems are encountered. It becomes clear that frequency
of confict evades objective calculation: the manner in which confict is defned
determines the number of instances or episodes recorded in a specifed period of
time. Consequently, the incidence of disputing in the preschool environment is
inherently dependent on the theoretical approach of the researcher. Also, practical
concerns of available resources, number of children, dimensions of play space and
so on infuence the prevalence of arguments.
Given that the working defnition of confict determines the values of frequency,
and that this defnition shifts from one study to another, it is unreasonable to
contrast the various fndings. Likewise, variation in methodology (e.g. naturalistic
observation vs. contrived episodes recorded in laboratory settings) precludes viable
comparison. This summary, therefore does not attempt to collate the frequencies
reported in each study, but rather identifes the occurrence of confict within other
domains. That is, a more meaningful overview of the prevalence of childrens
conficts exists in the relationship between frequency of confict and (1) age of
participants, (2) friendship relations and (3) activity type. Frequency of confict
and gender of participants also receives attention in extant research, as described
later in this section.
Frequency of confict is associated with the age of the disputants. Although
longitudinal studies are not common in research on preschool childrens
interactions, uncontroversial fndings point to fewer disputes among older children.
In one of the earliest studies in this area, Dawe (1934) recognised a tendency for
fewer quarrels amongst the older children in her observation sessions, suggesting
a decrease with age. Chen et al. (2001) similarly report that insistence in disputes
declines with age and that instances of resolution increase as children get older.
OKeefe and Benoit (1982) comment that if a relationship exists between age and
frequency of confict exists, it is a negative one. That is, rather than learning to
disagree, children ultimately learn not to disagree so often (p.170).
A distinction is also evident in relation to friendship categories. Given the
interest in interpersonal relationships in developmental psychology, considerable
attention in confict research has been paid to the frequency of arguments between
friends and between to non-friends. A correlation was described in the early
work of Green (1933) who claimed that there are more quarrels between mutual
friends, suggesting that quarrelling is a part of friendly social intercourse (p.251).
Indeed, amongst some groups of children, initiating confict can be equated with
fostering friendship (Corsaro and Rizzo, 1990). The greater number of disputes
between children who nominate each other as friends can also be explained by
increased contact between friends, and underscores the idea that disagreement
is not problematic in the maintenance of peer relationships (Ross and Conant,
Church Book.indb 13 13/01/2009 12:11:32
1995). The form or structure of arguments between friends may differ in structure,
however, as there is increased motivation to sustain or resume shared play, to
sustain the relationship.
Frequency of confict is also related to the specifcations of the play environment
and the type of activity in which play partners are engaged. The number of disputes
is higher when children are indoors, in contrast to play outside (Dawe, 1934),
a proportion which can be attributed to a restriction of play space. The greater
frequency of disputes indoors (a discrepancy not often recorded because the large
majority of studies are conducted inside preschools or laboratories) can also be
ascribed to the necessity of sharing resources. Particular activities are also more or
less likely to serve as environments in which disputes unfold. Where children are
engaged in parallel play (activities such as drawing, painting, cutting and pasting),
where resources are not restricted, confict is less frequent.
The infuence of play activity is not limited to the frequency of disputes. The
type of dispute is in some ways constrained by the play environment and play
materials. Object conficts, for example, are obviously more frequent in activities
which demand the sharing of resources, such as playing with building blocks. This
brings us to the content of childrens disputes and attempts to categorise the cause
of confict. Parallel with the variation in reporting the frequency of confict, the
identifcation of dispute types is dependent on the focus of the research, where
classifcation is generated by the researchers themselves. Again, the focus of the
research dictates the working defnitions employed, in this case, the categories of
confict observed.
Dawe (1934) proposed four categories of quarrels amongst preschool children:
possessions, physical violence, interference with activity and social adjustment.
Genishi and Di Paolo (1982) proposed the following as major themes of argument:
possession, number, conduct, truth, role, opposition to request, and exclusion.
Phinneys (1986) study of 5-year-olds arguing with siblings and peers categorised
six types of disputes (frequency given in brackets) as follows: procedure (44 per
cent), fact (28 per cent), possession (11 per cent), intention (11 per cent), attribution
(5 per cent) and opinion (2 per cent).
In their study of an integrated early childhood classroom, of typically developing
children and children with disabilities, Malloy and McMurray (1996: 191-192)
identifed seven social goals associated with confict that have been identifed
by previous researchers. These were object acquisition, annoyance, group entry,
change in the course of play, invasion of space, defying school rules, and stopping
others actions (Krasnor and Rubin, 1983; Shantz, 1987; Wilson, 1988).
The most prevalent type or category of recorded child peer confict involves
object disputes of some kind. Indeed, these types of arguments typically make up
the greatest percentage of preschool confict (Shantz, 1987). Disputes involving
objects are not solely driven by desire for the article in demand, as the object may
assume a social signifcance, depending on who maintains possession. That is, a
toy may appeal to a child as a valuable commodity if it has been seen to be enjoyed
or owned by another child (Hay and Ross, 1982). Additionally, as Bakeman and
Church Book.indb 14 13/01/2009 12:11:32
Brownlee (1982) found in their work with children aged 12-48 months, possession
of an object is not simply determined by the power status of the children involved
in the study. That is, confict is not only infuenced by individual dominance, but
by possession rights established prior to the dispute. If one child had the object in
his or her possession at some earlier time, his or her claim to it is reinforced.
Although object disputes predominate most studies involving young children,
this prevalence is not claimed universally. Corsaro and Rizzo (1990) found an
inverse proportion of nature of play disputes to object disputes as reported by
Eisenberg and Garvey (1981) and Genishi and Di Paolo (1982). However, this
difference may be explained by varying defnitions (Corsaro and Rizzo included
all opposition to the action of others in nature of play disputes). The disparity
may also be accounted for by methodological differences (specifcally resulting in
an absence of disputes over access to play in Eisenberg and Garveys (1981) and
Genishi and Di Paolos (1982) research). The greater frequency of claim disputes
amongst Italian children could also be attributed to the childrens apparent
enjoyment of the discussione as a verbal routine (Corsaro and Rizzo, 1990; see
also Eisenberg, 1990). That is, the children enjoy the (culturally specifc) format of
the argument, similar to participation in other ritualised games (e.g. sounding or
playing the dozens; Labov, 1972b; Kochman, 1983). Indeed, cultural imperatives
infuence the purpose, content, and management of confict (e.g. Medina, Lonzano
and Goudena, 2001; French, Pidada, and Victor, 2005).
Furthermore, in the earliest studies by Green (1933) and Dawe (1934), a
positive correlation was suggested between gender and frequency of quarrelling:
boys were involved in more disputes with their peers than girls. Contemporary
research, however, does not point to discrepancies in frequency, but rather a
different focus or purpose in girls compared with boys disputes. Goodwin and
Goodwin (1987: 227) note that although they had much in common, when the boys
and girls on Maple Street interacted in same-sex groups they displayed different
interests, engaged in different activities, and constructed different types of social
organization. This had consequences for the types of disputes that occurred within
each group. Differences in the underlying social structure of the groups, then,
infuence the types of disputes in same-sex interaction.
The analyses of both object and person control conficts indicate that ones
gender predisposes one toward becoming involved in conficts over particular
issues (often objects for boys, and others behavior for girls) in ways that are not
accounted for by differences in social-cognitive functioning (Shantz and Shantz,
1985: 12). This does not suggest that children engage exclusively in these types of
confict according to gender, but rather that disputes function differently depending
on the goals or underlying motivations of the group. Boys appear to be more
concerned with power and status during their interactions with other children, girls
with relationships and sustaining harmonious interaction (Putallaz and Sheppard,
1995: 344).
Differences can be viewed through the contrasting social organisation of each
group. That is, the comparisons made by girls characteristically deal with ties they
Church Book.indb 15 13/01/2009 12:11:32
have to others or their appearance, whereas the boys employ a variety of criteria to
explicitly rank themselves against each other (Goodwin and Goodwin, 1987: 229).
Consequently, the boys disputes are frequently centred around issues of relative
power while the format of the girls challenges refects their concerns with what
others say about them (p.230). This latter format of reporting and challenging
accusations is discussed in detail by Goodwin and Goodwin (1987), emphasising
the highly structured pattern of he-said-she-said disputes. Given the embedded
sequences in these arguments, they constitute a much greater complexity than
exists when only two positions to an argument are debated, the general situation in
most boys and cross-sex disputes (p.238).
The indirect style of disputing attributed to girls can be seen as multi-layered,
enhancing the speakers position while maintaining solidarity within the group.
Sheldon (1992, 1996) identifes the concept of double-voice discourse where
the speaker promotes her own agenda whilst sustaining social harmony. Sheldon
(1992) also notes that the framework of pretend play allows girls an indirect form
of opposition which in turn allows a greater number of alternatives for solving
an incompatibility of intentions. The difference in girls and boys production of
double-voice discourse should not be attributed to ability (boys are as capable
of recognising the perspective of other) but rather it is more likely that that
the difference in usage is due to discourse norms in solidarity-based groups
(Sheldon, 1992: 113). Sheldon concludes by returning to the acceptability of direct
confrontation in boys confict in contrast (but not in opposition) to the expectation
of girls to attend to the needs of the social group.
In an earlier paper, Sheldon (1990) comments that dispute episodes involving
girls were typically constructed of strategies that asked for or provided clarifcation
of the speakers intentions. Sheldon relates this fnding to Maltz and Borkers
(1982) claim that girls maintain relationships based on closeness and equality,
and to the concept of care orientation put forward by Gilligan (1988). Goodwin
and Goodwin (1987) challenge such an orientation by stating that in contrast
to the prevalent stereotype that female interaction is organized with reference to
politeness and a dispreference for dispute (Gilligan 1982: 9-10; Lever 1976: 482;
Piaget, 1965: 77), we fnd that girls are not only just as skilled in argumentation as
boys but have types of arguments that are both more extended and more complex
in their participation structure than those among boys (p.201).
Verbal strategies
It becomes apparent that subjectivity is not restricted to defning openings,
frequency, and types of confict. Categorising verbal strategies produced in
childrens adversative discourse is also dependent upon the researchers bias
strategies are imposed by the researcher rather than necessarily identifed as
such by the children themselves. Although there is considerable overlap in the
classifcation of argumentative moves put forward in various studies, there is a
Church Book.indb 16 13/01/2009 12:11:33
lack of uniformity which precludes any direct correlation of fndings. Furthermore,
quantifcation of types of verbal strategies used in confict episodes (e.g. Haslett,
1983) does not tell us how children are producing these strategies. However, some
description of the repertoire of verbal strategies identifed across young childrens
peer disputes is called for.
Predominantly, verbal strategies produced throughout episodes are grouped
according to illocutionary intent. Occasionally, opening moves are distinguished
from later oppositional turns. Eisenberg and Garvey (1981) identifed fve types
of initial opposition: simple negative; reason or justifcation; countering move;
postpone (temporise); and evade. Of these the most common was supplying a
reason (101/208), followed by a simple no (73/208). Eisenberg and Garvey (1981)
then classifed nine types of objection which are performed after these opening
moves. As these categories of reaction to opposition are replicated elsewhere (e.g.
Genishi and Di Paolo, 1982), Table 2.1 (below) serves as a summary.
Table 2.1 Categories of opposition
Source: Eisenberg and Garvey, 1981.
Elsewhere, in their study of role-play-elicited confict involving early primary
school children, Brenneis and Lein (1977) used the following categories to identify
moves in the disputes: threats, bribes, insults, praise, command, moral persuasion,
negating or contradictory assertion, simple assertion, denial, affrmative,
supportive assertion, demand for evidence and non-word vocal signals. In his
Insistence Repetition or reinforcement of previous utterance (adding no
new information).
Mitigation/Aggravation Paraphrases of original requests by either increasing
indirectness or increasing directness.
Reasons Statements providing explanation or justifcation for refusal
to comply, or to infuence other speaker.
Counter Speaker offers an alternative proposal.
Conditional directive Composed of two linked, complex propositions:
(1) a promise and (2) a directive.
Compromise Proposal for some form of sharing.
Requests for explanation Used to elicit a reason or justifcation when partner has
failed to provide either.
Physical Force Includes grabbing, taking object that partner has not
released, hitting, struggling, and pushing.
Ignores No response is made within 1.0 second.
Church Book.indb 17 13/01/2009 12:11:33
study of disputing amongst part-Hawaiian children Boggs (1978) identifed ten
distinct verbal strategies: assertion, claim allegation, contradiction, challenge,
insult, supporting argument/allegation, appeal to authority, and counter insult/
threat/trial. Genishi and Di Paolo (1982) borrowed these categories to distinguish
verbal strategies employed by children. The categories were designed to be
mutually exclusive, and were grouped according to Eisenberg and Garveys (1981)
defnitions of (1) antecedent events, (2) initial oppositions and (3) resolutions.
The categories are listed as (1) action, assertion, claim, request, (2) challenge,
contradiction, denial, insult, refusal, threat and (3) acceptance, appeal to authority,
compromise, supporting argument.
A prominent strategy in childrens adversative discourse is stating references
to social rules. These rules are not necessarily invoked for their own sake, i.e. by
a law-abiding speaker, but constitute a means-end approach. Maynard (1985a: 19)
observes that in disagreement episodes, while rules may be related to extraneous
cultural values, they are not necessarily invoked because of a basic concern to
support these values, even though that may be the unintended consequence.
Primarily, rules are used to manage local social concerns which are indigenous to
the childrens own social group.
Also, in each collection of data, threats emerge as a distinct category of
opposition. An inherent aspect of conditionality distinguishes threats as type of
argumentative move, as they express the intention to hurt or punish the hearer
with the purpose of altering the hearers behavior (Benoit, 1983: 315). Essentially,
then, threats invoke undesirable outcomes. Benoit points to the importance of
considering the hearers role (see Grimshaw, 1980) in response to a threat. The
hearer is obliged to produce an appropriate response to the threat to complete
the unit (1983: 306). She further emphasises the collaborative nature of threats,
rather than identifying threats as isolated utterances, because threats as structural
units contribute to the sequential organization and collaborative development
of discourse (Benoit, 1983: 307).
Haslett (1983) found that threats were used more frequently by four and fve
year-olds than two and three-year-olds; not surprisingly, given the prerequisite
level of linguistic complexity. Threats are most powerful when the speaker controls
the projected outcome (e.g. harm-threats, withholding action/outcome), whereas
threatening unspecifed consequences or teacher retribution is less forceful.
The response to a threat is typically rejection by the hearer: the nature of the
conversational unit does not promote open discussion between the interactants
(Benoit, 1983: 327). Consequently, cycles of threats and counter-threats are
implicated in escalating disputes (OKeefe and Benoit, 1982; Haslett, 1983;
Benoit, 1992).
It is not only the content and function of verbal strategies which have been
reviewed in existing research; suprasegmental features in the discourse have
also prompted investigation. Brenneis and Lein (1977), for example, observed a
number of stylistic tactics which accompanied the verbal strategies used by the
children, namely volume (most frequent amongst the younger children), speed,
Church Book.indb 18 13/01/2009 12:11:33
stress and intonation. The distribution of these paralinguistic features was parallel
to that noted by Boggs (1978): a pattern of escalation was characteristic in each.
Visual cues (Camras, 1980), pitch leaps, vowel lengthening and dramatic contours
have all been shown to be meaningful in challenges made in the course of play
(Goodwin, Goodwin and Yaeger-Dror, 2002).
Recycling the content of a prior turn constitutes a particular type of opposition
strategy in childrens adversative discourse. As discussed in the previous section,
Maynard (1985a) distinguished between mutual opposition as confict, and two-
turn sequences identifed as occasions of repair. Once the argument has begun,
however, what may constitute repair in adult speech can function as a confict
strategy among children. That is, partial repetition is a type of oppositional move
used by children (Goodwin and Goodwin, 1987), a form of overt opposition
which is distinguishable from the notion of correction used within the broader
framework of (adult) repair. Partial repetition as an opposition move is distinct
from other-initiated repair by difference in performance: no hesitation and no rising
intonation. This type of opposition not only creates a challenge to the content of
the preceding utterance, but also challenges the authority of the previous speaker.
Opposition can thus call into question not only what has been said, but also the
general competence of someone who would produce such talk (Goodwin and
Goodwin, 1987: 210).
Similarly, in her work with African-American children living in inner cities,
Goodwin (1983) identifed types of aggravation and mitigation strategies produced
in argumentative sequences. The frst of these are identifed as aggravated partial-
repeat correction formats: In contrast to repair operations performed in adult
conversation in a mitigated way, among children, pointing to the trouble source
and supplying the correction may be collapsed into a single turn (p.659). Goodwin
moves on to consider aggravated contradiction and replacement correction formats:
Both of these formats can be considered more aggravated than the partial repeat
formats discussed above in that they provide unquestionable opposition to a prior
turn (1983: 662).
Eisenberg and Garvey (1981) refer to the function of aggravation and mitigation
in adversative episodes, in that they raise or lower the status of the speaker, and
consequently manipulate the participatory role (see Labov and Fanshel, 1977).
The term mitigation denotes the speakers attempt to soften the unwelcome effect
of the utterance (Fraser, 1980).
2
Aggravated disagreements, on the other hand,
are bald-on-record (Brown and Levinson, 1987) and are particularly salient in the
peer culture of Italian preschool children (Corsaro and Rizzo, 1990). This strategy,
one of augmenting the previous action, was most common in claim disputes and
ritualised dispute routines.
2 Fraser makes the point that mitigation is distinct from politeness: Mitigation entails
politeness, while the converse is not true (1980: 344).
Church Book.indb 19 13/01/2009 12:11:33
Strategies and friendships
The relationship between strategy choice and social relationships has also generated
considerable interest (e.g. Hartup, Laursen, Stewart and Eastenson, 1988; Hartup,
1995; Fabes and Eisenberg, 1996). The type of strategies chosen by children
during disputes is infuenced by the relationship existing between the participants.
The relationship is not only defned by the relative power status but also by the
degree to which each child nominates the other as a friend. The point is not that
close peers always avoid disruptive behavior; coercion prevails in voluntary and
involuntary close relationships alike. Instead, we suggest that close peers avail
themselves of mitigation often enough during critical instances to preserve future
rewarding exchanges (Laursen, Hartup and Koplas, 1996: 87).
Laursen, Hartup and Koplas (1996) do not claim that friends engage in fewer
conficts than non-friends, but rather that children are aware that aggravated
strategies are not conducive to maintaining close ties over a period of time.
Children are motivated to negotiate their position during disputes with friends,
because they have a vested interest in an outcome which is satisfactory to both
partners. Consequently friends are more likely to use softer confict management
strategies than non-friends.
It is interesting that a preference for negotiation rather than coercion exists
between friends but not between family members (Laursen, Hartup and Koplas,
1996). It could be argued that the relationship with siblings and parents is
sustained regardless of the childs behaviour, but the relationship between peers
will not withstand disregard for the other childs wishes. In sum, studies are
compatible with the conclusion that close peers try not to allow confict to interfere
with previously established patterns of rewarding exchange. According to Rizzo
(1992), the absence of observed negative confict outcomes suggests that scholars
overestimate the actual threat of confict to friendships (Laursen Hartup and
Koplas, 1996: 90).
An additional aspect of childrens arguments is that help is seldom sought from
the teacher, or at least rarely, by children who are more competent:
Elementary-aged children who experience interpersonal confict with their peers
typically are reluctant to go to an adult authority for assistance. Help seeking
is perceived as a way of avoiding rather than resolving confict. Children who
are socially well accepted, in particular, prefer to use prosocial, constructive
strategies (e.g. discussing the situation) without relying on adults (Newman,
Murray and Lussier, 2001: 398).
While acknowledging that this observation is applicable to relatively mild conficts,
the same authors underscore childrens preference for independence in resolving
more serious disputes with peers. The most common reason given for not seeking
help was that children want to resolve arguments on their own terms. The children
involved in the study appeared to seek teacher intervention as a last resort, when
Church Book.indb 20 13/01/2009 12:11:33
their own repertoire had been exhausted and proven ineffective (Newman, Murray
and Lussier, 2001: 406).
Whilst studies of confict typically report boys using more aggressive or hostile
strategies when compared to the more passive or mitigated disputing practices of
girls (e.g. Chung and Asher, 1996: 138), we should be wary of over-extending
these fndings to claims of female passivity. Female children are not devoid of
aggressive actions; they simply have other strategies of control as well (Benoit,
1983). Additionally, cultural differences should be recognised in disputing
practices; Chinese girls, for example have been shown to use as many direct
strategies in managing confict as American boys (Kyratzis and Guo, 2001).
In her study of Chinese preschool children in Taiwan, Farris (2000: 545) found
that the masculine-associated, direct aggravated style is used interactively by
both girls and boys as the unmarked, or normal mode for engaging in confict in both
all male and cross-sex groups. Fundamentally, both boys and girls demonstrate
ability to use the same range of strategies. As mentioned above, dispute strategies,
are infuenced by differences in play activities and social organisation of groups.
Most importantly, however, the similarities between boys and girls dispute
structures and strategies are greater than the differences (Goodwin and Goodwin,
1987).
This overlap in boys and girls observed patterns of behaviour during confict
situations suggests that gender differences of this type may involve differences in
emphasis rather than a quantitative discontinuity. Rather than conceiving of sex
differences in social development as refecting two distinct paths, which is what
Gilligan (1982) proposes one concerned with justice and the other concerned
with relationships the results of this study suggest that there may be a continuum
of responses to confict. This continuum ranges from avoidance of confict to
aggressive or heavy-handed responses. Males and females are represented by
overlapping distributions on this continuum that are centred more towards direct
persuasion and negotiation for males, and more towards maintaining interpersonal
harmony for females. Although males do engage in confict mitigation, their
predominant mode of dealing with confict is initially more direct. Similarly,
females do engage in heavy-handed persuasion, but their predominant mode of
dealing with confict is more indirect. In addition, there is no indication that boys
and girls are not equally manipulative, they merely use different means to attain
their respective ends (Miller, Danaher and Forbes, 1986: 547).
The variety of verbal strategies summarised above suggests that young childrens
ability to use different approaches in promoting their own position is considerable.
A better indication of developing communicative competence, however, lies in
establishing just how children employ these strategies during arguments. That
is, how do children attempt to manipulate the outcome of disputes by serially
constructing verbal strategies in adversative discourse? The most fundamental
organisation of childrens confict, in terms of the structure of discourse, is found
in the sequences of these strategies.
Church Book.indb 21 13/01/2009 12:11:33
Sequences of strategies
The verbal strategies identifed above have been considered in terms of patterns of
argument, establishing which actions are likely to precede or promote subsequent
strategies. Brenneis and Lein (1977) suggest that dispute sequences follow one of
three patterned structures: repetition, escalation or inversion. They also point to the
interrelatedness of the turns at talk, as one remark indicates what the next remark
will probably be, because the arguments are constrained by structural rules (p.60).
Furthermore, the participants must adhere to the subject or theme put forward
by the previous speaker if the sequence is to be sustained, as Brenneis and Lein
(1977: 61) claim that semantic continuity is the organizing rule for argumentative
sequences.
Building on this research, Lein and Brenneis (1978) looked for patterns of
childrens argument in three different speech communities. They found a tendency
for African-American and Fijian Indian children to respond to insults with a
pattern of escalation (i.e. each insult is exaggerated by the following speaker).
The white American children participating in the study, however, tended to negate
the previous speakers insult (a pattern of inversion). Differences in manner of
escalation were also found: both American groups escalated sentences semantically
(by augmenting the expression of the previous statement). The Fijian Indian
children would use either substitution of equivalent terms or syntactic escalation
(increasing the number of morphemes). As in their previous research, Lein and
Brenneis (1978) found increasing volume in subsequent turns to be a common
occurrence in all three speech communities.
Boggs (1978) identifed a pattern of argument amongst part-Hawaiian
children, aged between one and eight, which he labelled contradicting routines.
The organisation of these routines suggests a predictable sequence of events,
as illustrated in Figure 2.1. Boggs notes that there is a tendency for disputes
to escalate from contradiction to challenge, insult, counter insult, threat or trial
(1978: 332). Each type of strategy may be repeated, but children do not revert to
strategies used earlier in the interaction; the pattern of the contradicting routine
is therefore one of progression. This pattern of escalation was also observed in
paralinguistic features of the routines as there was a complementary pattern of
increasing volume, stress and pitch, and a shortening of gaps between turns.
Church Book.indb 22 13/01/2009 12:11:33
As suggested earlier, the sequence of argument is to some extent predictable
from the form of initial opposition. For example, Phinney (1986) found that the
development of an argument was highly infuenced by the type of opening counter-
assertion. Indeed each turn was seen to be affected by the form of the previous
utterance, as simple strategies (basic rejection, denial or contradiction) were more
likely to elicit a simple response, whereas elaborated forms (reasons, explanations,
justifcations or query of preceding statement) usually prompted elaborate replies.
Goodwin and Goodwin (1987) point out that the content-based escalation observed
in childrens arguments is mirrored in the structural form of the argument itself.
Indeed, there is a nice ft between the social activity of escalating a sequence
and challenging a prior move and the syntactic structure of these utterances, in
which the prior move becomes an embedded subcomponent of the sentence used
to answer it (p.219).
Responding moves in argumentative sequences not only attend to the semantic
and syntactic content of previous turns but also to the force of the utterance, or
type of strategy. Eisenberg and Garvey (1981) emphasise the dynamic nature of
strategy choice, in that each speaker attends to the form of the previous action:
The two participants in the adversative episodes did not use strategies randomly,
but were responding to the strategies of their opponent. The process of confict
resolution was a highly interactive one. If the partner used a strategy which
provided no new material for him to work on or with, the child was less creative
in his own choice of alternatives (p.166-7, emphasis in original).
The serial dependency of turns has also been acknowledged in analysis of threats
in confict episodes:
Figure 2.1 Sequences in contradicting routines, Boggs (1978)
assertion
contradiction supporting
claim
challenge argument/allegation
insult
allegation
appeal to authority
counter insult/threat/trial
Church Book.indb 23 13/01/2009 12:11:33
Analyses of threats as structural units suggest emergent patterns. Harm-threats
are preceded by threats and insults and followed by threats the interactants
both refuse to give ground. Withhold-action/object threats are preceded by
assertions, [objectionable] behaviour, and refusals and followed by rejection or
acceptance Tell-authority threats are preceded by [objectionable] behaviour
and followed by topic shift and explanation. Unspecifed-consequence threats
are preceded by refusal and followed by acceptance or explanation (Benoit,
1983: 327).
In acknowledging the relationship between turns, it could be suggested that
focusing on singular strategies within disputes obscures a central organising
principle of interdependence (cf. Halliday and Hasan, 1976). It is proposed in
this research, however, that a more illuminative approach to adversative discourse
lies in understanding how each successive turn builds on prior moves, rather than
isolating and categorising the moves themselves. Similarly, Goodwin and Goodwin
(1987) do not view episodes of opposition moves as one distinct action followed
in turn, but rather as a development of interrelated utterances. They also highlight
the importance of analysing opposition moves beyond the level of speech acts, as
children manipulate syntactic structures of prior moves.
The sequential nature of childrens arguments is emphasised through
consideration of format tying as a resource in adversative episodes. According
to Goodwin, format tying generally involves participants strategic use of
phonological, syntactic, and semantic surface structure features of prior turns
at talk (Goodwin, 1990: 177; see also Goodwin and Goodwin, 1987) (Corsaro
and Maynard, 1996: 158). Format tying is not only achieved by rephrasing prior
phonological, syntactic and semantic content, but is also accomplished by reusing
the structure of previous utterances. In other words, the child uses the surface
structure of the prior turn and manipulates this structure to promote his or her own
position. Essentially, format tying may be used as a powerful counter, because the
prior speakers words can be turned and used against her/him. Format tying and
substitution thus work hand in hand, the similarity of the structure between two
utterances provided by format tying making the relevant difference in the second
utterance, the substituted term, stand out with particular salience (Goodwin and
Goodwin, 1987: 220).
Multi-party disputes
Many of the studies reported above are based on data collected from contrived
play situations in laboratory settings, and the majority of fndings are specifc to
interactions between two children. Although two-party disputes are common in
naturalistic settings, restricting observation to dyads does not allow analysis of all
manifestations of adversative discourse. Children frequently participate in group
disputes; so the full repertoire of argumentative styles and structures cannot be
generalised from observing dyadic confict.
Church Book.indb 24 13/01/2009 12:11:33
Before reviewing the structure of confict involving more than two participants,
however, a metalinguistic problem should be acknowledged. Goodwin and Goodwin
(1990) criticise the use of the term multi-party to describe the interaction of more
than two speakers. Given that multi-party is used elsewhere to denote a speaker and
hearer, Goodwin (1981) argues that the term appears insuffcient in distinguishing
between two party discourse and discourse involving three or more participants.
However, as the term is used elsewhere (Maynard, 1986a), the Goodwins employ
the term despite reservations about its appropriateness. Goodwin and Goodwin
(1990) present a stronger argument against the use of the term dyadic, in that
it suggests the interaction between two parties is somehow unique, operating
under specifc principles which are not necessarily related to patterns of discourse
involving three or more participants. They would argue that the norm is constituted
by multi-party confguration and that the dyad operates within this same structure.
The jargon also appears redundant when the more neutral two-party functions
effectively as a label to identify the number of participants.
The necessity of distinguishing between disputes involving two participants
and those involving more than two participants is justifed by features which
may only appear in arguments involving multiple participants. Opportunity for
collusion is the most distinctive feature of multi-party arguments. As an argument
begins with an opposition to a prior utterance or action, two distinct positions
are attributed to two participants. A third speaker may then align him or herself
with one of these positions, or raise an alternative objection. Maynard (1986a)
notes that this alignment may or may not be accepted by the original opposer and
consequently should be seen as an offer of collaboration. Acceptance of an offer
of this kind is not marked, but typically is displayed by the fact that the offer is
not rejected.
Offers may be rejected if they are not content-tied to the original opposition.
Thus, not only can an apparent collaboration offer be treated in various ways by
its recipient so that it is more or less successful, but the offerer herself can follow
with various strategies that retrospectively construct how an alignment display
should be constructed (Maynard, 1986a: 274). Furthermore,
One important consequence of the parasitic organization of these utterances,
and in particular of the way in which they second the action of prior speaker, is
that the subsequent speaker affliates himself to the position being taken by the
party whose talk is being followed. Principal parties within the dispute can
reject as well as accept such offers of collaboration (Goodwin and Goodwin,
1990: 102).
Collaboration is therefore not achieved simply through the support of a third
party, nor solely by the acceptance of this participation as compatible with the
position of the original opposer or opposee. As noted by Goodwin and Goodwin
(1990) this piggybacking, as they call it distinct from insertion sequences
is a collaborative achievement accomplished as much through the actions of
Church Book.indb 25 13/01/2009 12:11:33
the subordinate party (who actively demonstrates his willingness to change his
behavior at the suggestion of the other) as through those of the dominant party
(p.113).
Danby and Baker (1998) note that multi-party disputes typically begin as two-
party confrontation, with other speakers rapidly aligning themselves with one
position or the other. Yet Maynard (1986a) underscores the idea that the dispute
does not simply consist of two sides (although it is initiated by only two parties).
Rather, given one partys displayed position, stance or claim, another party
can produce opposition by simply aligning against that position or by aligning
with a counter-position. This means that parties can dispute a particular position
for different reasons and by different means (p.281). Consequently, multi-
party disputes are generally not described as two-party disputes with additional
speakers, because additional participants may attempt to align themselves with
a particular speaker but not necessarily with the position of that speaker. In this
light, collaboration may provide a platform for introducing a new objection or
agenda.
Confict outcomes
As discussed above, most research on child confict illustrates the type of verbal
strategies produced, with provisional attempts made to describe sequences of
these strategies. Consideration of the outcomes of childrens disputes is generally
made only in passing. Although most studies specify the boundaries of confict
episodes disputes end with either clear settlements, physical movement of
dispute participants from the interactive scene, or a shift away from the disputed
event to a new topic or activity (Corsaro and Rizzo, 1990: 26) attention to the
form of closing sequences is limited.
Samuel Vuchinich (1990) is one of the few who has attempted to identify the
characteristics of utterances which bring about the end of disputes. He proposes fve
categories of confict termination: submission, dominant third-party intervention,
compromise, stand-off, and withdrawal. By far the most frequent of these (from
recordings of families during dinner time) was the stand-off (66 per cent), which
is defned as neither party submitting to the position of the other. In the same
paper Vuchinich (1990) suggests that the closing of argumentative sequences is
characterised by a two-slot structure. This structure displays either a dominant/
submissive relationship between the participants or a consensus on compromise
(p.121).
The notion of a two-slot structure (recognisable in other terminal exchanges
see Schegloff and Sacks, 1973) in the ending of disputes, appears in Genishi and
Di Paolos (1982) work. However, Genishi and Di Paolos claim that arguments
are brought to a close by unsuccessful attempts to participate (i.e. by not tying to
previous content) appears circuitously fawed. In this case, the defnition of closing
is generated retrospectively and attempts are qualifed as unsuccessful solely
Church Book.indb 26 13/01/2009 12:11:33
because the dispute is abandoned. On other occasions, where the same type of
utterance is understood as relevant to the dispute and taken up by another speaker,
the move is no longer considered unsuccessful because the dispute proceeds. It
could be argued that prediction of outcome, while facilitated by the knowledge of
the dispute ending, should instead be based on a pattern of discourse recognised by
the participants and demonstrated as universal by the researcher.
Identifcation of patterns of discourse and utterance types which are
instrumental in the closing of arguments is in many ways problematic. Ditchburn
(1988) proposes a number of categories of de-escalation strategies used by the
children (aged 4.5-6 years) she observed in three preschools. The frst of these is
negotiated compliance, which, from the example provided appears to overlap the
category of compromise used elsewhere (Eisenberg and Garvey, 1981). A second
de-escalation strategy is labelled as a topic change, where one speaker shifts from
the dispute and introduces a new topic. (This topic change is a collaborative action,
in that the other participants accept the shift and simultaneous abandonment of the
dispute.) Tracking, a third category proposed by Ditchburn, appears to be a shift
from the pretend to real frame, rather than a de-escalation strategy. That is, the
dispute constitutes a negotiation of the play script; when one childs suggestion
regarding the state of play is acceptable to the other child, the pretend play may
continue.
Another de-escalation strategy put forward by Ditchburn (1988) is labelled
trial and error, where the dispute may unravel at various points through unrelated
discourse. Ditchburn also presents third-party tracking as a de-escalation strategy,
but the example used to illustrate this strategy fails to qualify as adversative
discourse, because the childs question does not constitute a challenge to the
previous speaker but rather a request for information. Negating the grounds
for dispute identifes a justifcation which is not challenged by the play partner.
Similarly, the category of role-related grounds appears designed to qualify a
particular dispute ending rather than a form of de-escalation produced as effective
on multiple occasions. Ditchburns (1988) categories are reported here to highlight
the diffculties associated with identifying properties of confict closings.
An undisputed feature of confict endings is that the conclusion is brought
about by the collaborative effort of the parties involved. The successful resolution,
dissipation or abandonment of confict depends on the acquiescence of both or all
parties. Vuchinich (1990) states that the end of a confict episode is dependent upon
the mutual participation of all participants. This is reached in one of two ways:
either one child achieves a dominant position (which necessitates the resignation
of the argumentative partner), or both parties negotiate an acceptable end to
the disputing. As Eisenberg and Garvey (1981: 168) point out, the successful
resolution of an adversative episode is a mutual endeavor: a child is more likely
to win if he considers his opponents intentions and more likely to concede if his
own desires are taken into account.
As the primary aim of Eisenberg and Garveys (1981) study was to determine
which verbal strategies were most likely to lead to confict resolution, some emphasis
Church Book.indb 27 13/01/2009 12:11:34
was placed on defning clear-cut outcomes. However, the number of resolved
disputes presented in their study must be interpreted in light of the method used to
elicit arguments. For example, the small sample of children observed by Genishi
and Di Paolo (1982) did not arrive at as many mutually acceptable conclusions
to disputes as put forward in other research. The authors ascribe the absence
of defnite resolution in many cases to the spontaneous nature of the data (cf.
Brenneis and Lein, 1977). Other differences in data collection procedure may also
explain this discrepancy. For example, as Eisenberg and Garveys (1981) episodes
were generated in pair-play situations in restricted space, a higher frequency of
resolution should be anticipated. That is, in the laboratory setting the children
had no other play partners to appeal to and nowhere else to go; resolution in this
instance becomes necessary if any type of cooperative play is to be sustained.
Attempting to isolate successful examples of confict resolution is further
complicated by the fact that in many childrens disputes a clear outcome does not
exist:
The majority of disputes, however, are terminated without any sharp indication
that either position has won or lost. In general, the end of an argument occurs
when one of the two disputing parties does not tie his talk to the topic of the prior
dispute, but instead produces an action that breaks the argument frame and
his adversary accepts this shift. Although compromise is seldom reached, nor
sought as a goal of the interaction, by shifting to noncompetitive talk (between
former disputants), parties cooperate in bringing about the closure of the
dispute. Despite the absence of a clear outcome, disputing allows participants
the opportunity to construct and display character, a process important in their
social organization (Goodwin, 1982: 87-88).
The negotiation of social roles is an important feature of confict, and not always
dependant on outcome. Eisenberg and Garvey (1981) claim that the objective of
the participants is to resolve the confict, yet do not allow for the situation where
the speakers aim may be to extend the confict. That is, the type of confict, or
the childs motivation for participating in the argument, will have bearing on the
urgency of resolution. While the participants goal may be to resolve a dispute
involving property rights, where attempting to assert status is a primary ambition,
a cooperative conclusion may not be a satisfactory outcome. Patterns of closing
sequences are also infuenced by cultural communicative styles (e.g. Adger, 1986).
Overall, the reason for the empirical lack of resolution in childrens disputes is that
a basic function of confict is to achieve a concrete, particular social organization
through the display of opposition and the construction of accountable alignment
structures. Such organisation is accomplished without resolution of a dispute
episode (Maynard, 1985b: 212).
Given the contention that resolution is not readily achieved in childrens
disputing, further investigation of confict outcomes is warranted. If children are
not always winning or losing arguments, how is it that arguments are brought
Church Book.indb 28 13/01/2009 12:11:34
to a close? And where disputes are resolved, how is this achieved? Other than
the termination sequences identifed above, what features of turn sequences are
implicated in outcomes?
Limitations of existing research
The body of existing research in childrens confict presents a thorough account of
what children argue about and the types of strategies children use during disputes.
Essentially, what children do in disputes is well established. But questions remain
as to how children co-construct confict. The data in this book do not contradict
the fndings of earlier research, but rather extend beyond the preoccupation with
types of moves produced by children, to investigation of how these moves may
be related to one another.
With the exception of the ethnomethodological studies of Majorie Harness
Goodwin, Charles Goodwin and William Corsaro, existing child confict research
has essentially been limited to an analytic emphasis on single utterances or a
discourse analytic approach,
3
largely overlooking the inherent properties of
connectedness in adversative discourse. Discourse analysis, although moving
beyond isolated speech acts, cannot adequately cope with the mechanics of how
one turn relates to the next (cf. Jackson and Jacobs, 1980; see also Woofftt,
2005). Analysis of sequences of strategies has been restricted by pre-emptive
nominations of strategies. In attempting to classify the structure of the discourse in
terms of sequences of single actions, ordering principles may be overlooked. That
is, the serial production of turns might not be organised according to the externally
allocated force of the utterance but through other properties of the discourse. The
purpose of this research is to approach the data from another perspective, with the
intention of uncovering universal properties of adversative discourse, specifcally
closing sequences, which are not limited by categories of actions imposed by the
analyst.
3 This denotes discourse analysis as conceived in linguistics, rather than the broader
conceptualisation employed in social psychology (see Forrester, 1996).
Church Book.indb 29 13/01/2009 12:11:34
Chapter 3
Conversation Analysis
Introduction
In the previous chapter, contemporary research in child confict was discussed in
terms of categories of analytic emphasis, underscoring the lack of attention given
to the sequences of turns in childrens arguments. Emphasis has rested on the force
of single utterances and the signifcance of these moves in a broader social context,
yet the interrelatedness of the turns themselves has been largely overlooked. The
premise here is that the method of conversation analysis is particularly suited to an
investigation of the sequences and, subsequently, the outcomes of disputes.
The purpose of this chapter, then, is to identify the relevant attributes of a
conversation analytic approach and demonstrate their applicability to the study
of child confict. Essentially this chapter sets out to (1) locate the current study in
the expanding feld of research in conversation analysis; (2) summarily identify
key concepts in conversation analysis for readers who may be unfamiliar with this
methodology; (3) present an argument for the effcacy of conversation analysis
as a tool for investigating young childrens peer interaction; and (4) discuss
properties preference organisation as a principle of sequential talk that is relevant
to adversative discourse.
In the late 1960s, Harvey Sacks deliberative approach to the order of social
interaction distinguished itself from the contemporary work of Harold Garfnkel
(1967, 1972) and Erving Goffman (1961, 1963, 1971). With his prolifc collaborators
Emanuel Schegloff and Gail J efferson, Sacks developed a rigorous model for the
study of spoken interaction, establishing conversation analysis (CA) as a distinct
feld in sociological research. Whilst the theory of CA did not emerge entirely
independently of Garfnkels pioneering work (departing from Parsonian theory)
in ethnomethodology (Heritage, 1984; Taylor and Cameron, 1987), Sacks early
work represented a critical shift in treating the inherent order of spoken language
uncovered through microanalysis as a vehicle of social organisation and
behaviour. Nor did conversation analysis rest on the platform of Goffmans ideas;
rather Goffmans work opened the path that Sacks and Schegloff, in particular,
would follow (Schegloff, 1988b).
A discussion of the organic history of conversation analysis within contemporary
sociological inquiry will not appear here. Not only does a thorough retrospective
introduction fall outside the boundary of immediate relevance, the ontology of
CA is comprehensively provided for elsewhere (e.g. Heritage, 1984; Schegloff,
1995; Psathas, 1995; ten Have, 2007; Hutchby and Woofftt, 2008). Similarly, the
present chapter does not pretend to serve as a review of collections of conversation
Church Book.indb 31 13/01/2009 12:11:34
analytic research (e.g. Sudnow, 1970; Schenkein, 1978; Atkinson and Heritage,
1984; Button and Lee, 1987; Psathas, 1979, 1990; Boden and Zimmerman, 1991;
Drew and Heritage, 1992; Watson and Seiler, 1992; Firth, 1995; ten Have and
Psathas, 1995; Ford, Fox and Thompson, 2002, Richards and Seedhouse, 2005;
McHoul 2008). The discussion here is not concerned with exploring the breadth of
studies in this feld, but rather in highlighting the fundamental concepts in CA that
serve as a basis for the investigation of disputes among preschool children.
Attempts are continually made to classify the varying approaches to analysing
spoken language (Coulthard, 1985; Schiffrin, 1994; Woofftt, 2005), however,
the borrowing and modifcation of methods suggests that the categorisation
and interpretation of existing discourse theory is often blurred (Pomerantz and
Fehr, 1997). Other models of discourse analysis are not discounted, but the
present discussion is concerned with describing the particular advantages of a
conversation analytic approach. Some commentary should be made, however, on
the limitations of speech act theory, as this type of analysis essentially dominates
earlier research in childrens adversative discourse. Even where not theoretically
framed as such, labelling strategies as particular types of actions as illustrated
in the previous chapter presents a classifcation of speech acts. Searle (1969,
1975a and b) developed this notion of speech act from Austins (1962) initial work
on performatives in language, identifying the locution, illocution and perlocution of
utterances. Whilst general accounts of speech act theory are provided for elsewhere
(e.g. Allan, 1994; Mey, 2001; Levinson, 1983) it is pertinent to briefy identify
weaknesses of speech act theory in its application to spoken (connected) discourse.
An obvious diffculty of identifying acts within utterances is due to the fact
that a single utterance may represent more than one speech act at any given time.
One serious weakness with speech act theory has been to pretend that each U
[utterance] has only one illocutionary point (Allan, 1994: 4132; see also Labov
and Fanshel, 1977). The notion of one-to-one mapping of a single act to each turn
does not allow for the common performance of more than one speech act within
an utterance (Levinson, 1981). Not only does this model fail to adequately account
for multiple actions achieved in single utterances, not all moves can be affliated
with the catalogue of speech acts. Speech act theory does not account for all
possible interpretations of utterances, be they direct or indirect, as demonstrated
by the misinterpretation or confusion of questions and pre-sequences (Schegloff,
1988a).
Another weakness in speech act theory concerns the opacity of speaker intention
(Allan, 1994: 4132), as the illocutionary force is not always clearly displayed. The
hearers response may not be consistent with the speakers original meaning. In
other words, the type of action an utterance realises can be considered dependent
upon the manner in which it is understood by the hearer. An utterance cannot,
therefore, be understood to represent a particular speech act in the absence of the
conversational context in which it occurs. Speech acts as hypothetical constructs
(Emihovich, 1986: 496) present conceptual problems, as the acts themselves are
only realised through actual conversation. Consequently, a limitation of speech
Church Book.indb 32 13/01/2009 12:11:34
Conversation Analysis 33
act theory lies in the secondary importance of the immediate context in which
conversation develops. Acknowledgment of context is essentially restricted to
broader semantic felds.
Recent research has also begun to reveal that participants pay very close
attention to their local environment, for example the exact words spoken in the
immediately prior talk, and use that knowledge to build appropriate subsequent
talk. Such phenomena become inaccessible to study when analysis takes as its
point of departure a gloss of a turns talk as an instance of a particular type of
speech act (Goodwin and Goodwin, 1990: 85).
Conversely, the CA perspective embodies a dynamic approach in which
context is treated as both the project and the product of the participants own
actions and therefore as inherently locally produced and transformable at any
moment (Drew and Heritage, 1992: 19). Conversation analysis is not only better
equipped to deal with the infuence of prior turns (local context), but to consider
multiple meanings inherent in any single utterance.
The merits of speech act theory are certainly not dismissed; nor is conversation
analysis upheld as an infallible or exhaustive tool for the study of connected
discourse. However, the focus on the sequence of turns in talk-in-interaction
promotes CA as an apposite tool for the analysis of young childrens adversative
discourse.
Methodological advantages of conversation analysis
The following summary illustrates procedural aspects of conversation analytic
methodology which are particularly suited to the study of childrens conversations.
Although multiple features may be shown to be pertinent to a process-focused
analysis of confict talk (Garvey and Shantz, 1995: 95), three signifcant
components will be discussed here. The frst of these is the insistence on naturally
occurring data which constitutes the empiricism of CA. Secondly, data-driven
analysis is found to be more fruitful than a pre-theorised approach to childrens
verbal interaction. Thirdly, CA is derived from the very rules of interaction that
the speakers themselves orient to and is therefore particularly relevant to a study
in which the researcher does not have member access to the group involved.
A fundamental interest in the sequential organisation of conversation is also
recognised as a dominant strength in CA and will be discussed further in this
chapter.
The recording of real interaction
In order to analyse the rules of conversation that speakers themselves orient
to, the issue becomes how these rules may be discovered; that is, what should
constitute the data. In this regard, the development of CA was aligned with existing
sociological practices rather than the contemporary methods in linguistics (namely
Church Book.indb 33 13/01/2009 12:11:34
the Chomskyan approach of constructing ideal phrases) given that emphasis is
placed on recording naturally occurring data.
[A] base for using close looking at the world for theorizing about it is that from
close looking at the world we can fnd things that we could not, by imagination,
assert were there (Sacks, 1984a: 25).
This method in conversation analysis is seen as preferable to other sources of
data: those being generated by interview; observations recorded through feldnotes
or preconceived categories; native intuitions (or inventions); and contrived
situations (Heritage, 1984). An additional advantage of reproducing naturally
occurring conversation for analysis is that the analysis itself is open to review and
the fndings may be called into question. Results cannot remain an idiosyncratic
set of observations because others could look at what I studied and make what
they could, if, for example, they wanted to be able to disagree with me (Sacks,
1984a: 26).
Authentic conversation is seen as preferable to an imagined series of turns
for a number of reasons. One of these is that a single phrase may be reasonably
designed by intuition, but the development of a sequence of turns cannot be
accurately predicted, and only unfolds authentically in talk-in-interaction. Indeed
the complexity of turn-taking itself with speaker shift, pause and overlap (see
discussion below) is a barrier to a fabricated account. Additionally, discourse
does not unfold in a contextual void, and it is the speakers themselves (through
their shared knowledge) who construct the framework of interaction. Specifcally
related to research in early childhood is the fact that the researcher is not a member
of the subject group, and is therefore unqualifed to assume what may or may not
be feasible in a conversation produced by four-year-olds; William Corsaro (1997)
makes a similar argument. Most obviously, only naturally occurring interaction
can illustrate the richness of authentic conversation. In order to study conversation,
therefore, the analyst should turn to naturally occurring data.
The use of interviews would also be inappropriate given the age of the
participants in the current study. It is arguable that preschool childrens stage of
development limits the metalinguistic ability necessary in deconstructing verbal
moves (cf. Becker, 1988). Yet regardless of the age of conversational partners,
understanding of processes in confict is best examined through actual events rather
than through secondary reporting. Experimental procedures are similarly viewed
to be insuffcient in CA tradition, as they may be considered unrepresentative of
natural behaviour. Although it could be argued that conversations recorded in
laboratory settings follow the same rules of discourse as those in spontaneous
exchange, the motivation of the speakers involved is inevitably altered.
Obviously inseparable from the recording of naturally recorded data is the
manner in which the interaction is transcribed. Transcription theory in CA allows
for analysis not only of talk but of paralinguistic features of interaction which may
be signifcant or meaningful to the participants. Consequently, transcripts used by
Church Book.indb 34 13/01/2009 12:11:34
conversation analysts mark every single utterance by each of conversationalists,
turn-taking and overlap, pauses, hesitations, stutters, inhalations and exhalations,
laughter, stress, intonation contour, pitch rate of speech, changes in volume
and nonverbal actions such as gestures, gaze, body posture etc. (a discussion
of transcription theory and procedure appears at the beginning of Chapter 4).
Importantly, the task of transcribing the recorded interaction is assumed by the
researcher her or himself, because repetitive review of the recorded data serves as a
preliminary form of analysis. Additionally, the recorded interaction constitutes the
data rather than the resulting transcript. The transcript serves as a representation
of the conversation rather than a fawless mirror of the conversation itself, given
the incompatibility of the written word and the many nuances of the spoken word
(Moerman, 1988).
Data-driven analysis
Another advantage of employing conversation analysis in the study of young
childrens arguments is the emphasis on data-driven analysis in favour of a pre-
categorised approach. This is particularly relevant given the purpose of this study,
namely to determine what it is that children are actually doing in constructing
adversative discourse. The concept of unmotivated looking used in CA provides
a theoretical route to discovering features of conversation, as opposed to features
the researcher has established prior to analysis. Although certain categories of
action may be generated as a result of the analysis, these are derived directly from
the unfolding talk.
An unwillingness to dismiss features of conversation as unrelated to the focus
of investigation constitutes a particular strength of conversation analytic research.
By allowing analysis to be directed by the data, CA distinguishes itself from other
methods of discourse analysis.
Rather than starting with a set of theoretical specifcations of structure or
action (cf. Parsons 1937) or with an a priori theoretical specifcation of
particular actions (for example, Searles [1969] speech act specifcations) or
with a theory of the motivation of action such as the theory of face (Goffman
1955, 1959, 1971; Brown and Levinson 1987), CA has avoided premature and
idealized theory construction in favor of the empirical identifcation of diverse
structures of practices (Heritage, 1995: 397).
This emphasis on empirical identifcation ensures that any feature of the interaction
may be considered as possibly signifcant in the development of conversation.
Although it can be argued that the researcher does not arrive at the data uninfuenced
by a particular theoretical orientation, at best the analysis is not constrained
by rigid boundaries of observation criteria. In other words, the order found in
conversational materials is not imposed by the analysts use of a priori conceptual
schemes or coding categories, but discovered (Zimmerman, 1988: 418). The
Church Book.indb 35 13/01/2009 12:11:34
data-driven nature of CA methodology not only enables a broader approach to
conversation (broad in the sense that any feature of conversation may be viewed as
signifcant) but ensures that the conversation is not removed from the very source
of its design. Rather than observing the aspects of conversation predetermined by a
hypothesis, the researcher is able to attend to the actual production of conversation;
that is, features of talk which are salient to the speakers themselves.
The emic perspective of CA
A fundamental issue in conversation analytic research, is a requisite preoccupation
with the features of conversation which are signifcant or meaningful to the
participants. This is related to the point made above that the analysis is data-
driven: the researchers observations must be drawn from the turns constructed
and organised by those involved in the interaction. This allows for fndings which
are based exclusively on the evidence which is open to, or indeed constituted by,
the participants. The fact that the participants understanding of the development
of the topic at hand is demonstrated on a turn-by-turn basis, means that this
understanding is also on display for the analyst (Atkinson and Heritage, 1984). In
other words:
while understandings of other turns talk are displayed to co-participants, they
are available as well to professional analysts, who are thereby afforded a proof
criterion (and a search procedure) for the analysis of what a turns talk is occupied
with. Since it is the parties understandings of prior turns talk that is relevant
to their construction of next turns, it is their understandings that are wanted for
analysis (Sacks, Schegloff and Jefferson, 1974: 729, emphasis in original).
This focus on the participants own orientation to the development of conversation
is of particular value to the study of childrens verbal interaction. CA provides
an approach to the discourse which is not removed from the childrens own
understanding of the relatedness of each utterance. Consequently, by attending
to the data in this manner, we are perhaps better able to identify those aspects
of argument which are salient to the children involved. As discussed in the frst
chapter, an aim of this research is to determine how children manage confict,
as opposed to how adults interpret this management. Importantly, if the children
themselves do not display an obvious orientation to the ideas and concepts that
the analyst thinks might be important, then it is hardly a tenable position to insist
that such constructs are critical or even important (Forrester, 1996: 95). As CA
insists that the categories used to describe participants, action and context must be
derived from orientations exhibited by the participants themselves (Goodwin and
Heritage, 1990: 295), this approach to spoken language is particularly suited to
discover the properties of verbal disputes which the children themselves respond
to as signifcant. It is therefore necessary in the analysis of the confict episodes (or,
Church Book.indb 36 13/01/2009 12:11:35
from a CA perspective, any conversation) to restrict observation to those functions
which are apparent to participants and investigator alike.
Sequential organisation of conversation
Having established the importance of attending to features of conversation which
participants themselves recognise as signifcant, it is necessary to clarify how these
features may be identifed. How can the analyst be confdent that she is attending
to features recognised by the participants? The answer lies in the sequential
organisation of turn-taking systems in conversation. The pioneering work by
Sacks, Schegloff and Jefferson (1974) established this fundamental notion in CA,
outlining the rules by which the turn-taking system operates. The order of turns in
conversation is such that each follows the last, where each new speaker attends to
the previous turn in a way that is deemed relevant by all members.
Conversation analytic research focuses on sequences of actions rather than single
utterances removed from conversation (Atkinson and Heritage, 1984). Attention is
given to the relationship between turns, rather than focusing solely on the function
of each turn (cf. earlier discussion of speech act theory). By restricting analysis to
single utterances, the interpretation of that utterance displayed by the next speaker
in their turn at talk is neglected. The following discussion of turn-taking, repair
and adjacency pairs outlines basic concepts established in conversation analysis
which serve to illustrate participant orientation to talk-in-interaction.
Turn-taking and repair
A fundamental concept used in conversation analysis, underlying the ordered
nature of social interaction, is the organisation of turn-taking. Although the features
or conditions of turn-taking in conversation were developed throughout Harvey
Sacks lectures in the 1960s and early 1970s, they are presented most succinctly
in the seminal publication A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-
taking in conversation (Sacks, Schegloff and Jefferson, 1974). In this paper, the
organisation of conversation is identifed as both context-free in that the rules of
turn-taking apply across any variety of social contexts, and context-sensitive in
that any situational restraints may be incorporated in the interaction.
By way of introducing their model for the organisation of conversation, Sacks,
Schegloff and Jefferson (1974: 700-701) make the following observations:
(1) Speaker change recurs, or at least occurs
(2) Overwhelmingly, one party talks at a time
(3) Occurrences of more than one speaker at a time are common, but brief
(4) Transitions (from one turn to a next) with no gap and no overlap are
common. Together with transitions characterized by slight gap or slight overlap,
they make up the vast majority of transitions
Church Book.indb 37 13/01/2009 12:11:35
(5) Turn order is not fxed, but varies
(6) Turn size is not fxed, but varies
(7) Length of conversation is not specifed in advance
(8) What parties say is not specifed in advance
(9) Relative distribution of turns is not specifed in advance
(10) Number of parties can vary
(11) Talk can be continuous or discontinuous
(12) Turn-allocation techniques are obviously used. A current speaker may
select a next speaker (as when he addresses a question to another party); or
parties may self-select in starting to talk
(13) Various turn-constructional units are employed; e.g. turns can be projectedly
one word long, or they can be sentential in length
(14) Repair mechanisms exist for dealing with turn-taking errors and violations;
e.g. if two parties fnd themselves talking at the same time, one of them will stop
prematurely, thus repairing the trouble.
Following these observations, Sacks, Schegloff and Jefferson (1974: 704)
propose that the turn-taking system for conversation can be exemplifed by a turn-
constructional component, a turn-allocation component, in the following set of
rules:
(1) For any turn, at the initial transition-relevance place of an initial turn-
constructional unit:
(a) If the turn-so-far is so constructed as to involve the use of a current
speaker selects next technique, then the party so selected has the right and is
obliged to take next turn to speak; no others have such rights or obligations,
and transfer occurs at that place.
(b) If the turn-so-far is so constructed as not to involve the use of a current
speaker selects next technique, then self-selection for next speakership may,
but need not, be instituted; frst starter acquires rights to a turn, and transfer
occurs at that place.
(c) If the turn-so-far is so constructed as to not involve the use of a current
speaker selects next technique, then the current speaker may, but need not
continue, unless another self-selects.
(2) If, at the initial transition-relevance place of an initial turn-constructional
unit, neither 1a nor 1b has operated, and, following the provision of 1c, current
speaker has continued, then the rule-set a-c re-applies at the next transition-
relevance place, and recursively at each next transition-relevance place, until
transfer is effected.
An important feature of the turn-taking system is that turns do not simply occur
one after the other, serially, but that each new turn refers to or builds upon the
preceding turn(s) sequentially (Hutchby and Woofftt, 2008: 38). This sequential
organisation, most importantly for the analyst, allows for a demonstration of the
Church Book.indb 38 13/01/2009 12:11:35
hearers explication of the previous turn at talk. In other words it is a systematic
consequence of the turn-taking organization of conversation that it obliges
its participants to display to each other, in a turns talk, their understanding of
other turns talk (Sacks, Schegloff and Jefferson, 1974: 728). As the participants
demonstrate their understanding of the previous utterance in their own turn at
talk, this understanding or synthesis is also on display for the analyst. Given that
an appraisal of an utterance (or an interpretation of the illocutionary force) is
produced by the hearer in their turn at talk, the speaker of the frst turn is able
to correct any misunderstanding of their own contribution made in the previous
turn. It is important to note that this continual opportunity to check and maintain
mutual comprehensibility exists precisely through the placement of turns, the next
positioned linkage (Heritage, 1984: 256), that each utterance is relevant (unless
overtly stated)
1
to the immediately preceding turn.
Indeed, where misunderstanding occurs, the opportunity for clarifcation
or correction is located in the contiguous turn. The term repair is used in
conversation analysis to denote discourse revisions, and this label is not restricted
to notable errors or replacement (Schegloff, Jefferson and Sacks, 1977; see also
Sidnell, 2005). It is the turn-taking system that allows for repair initiations to be
made throughout a conversation, where the inherent rule of relevancy ensures the
trouble source can be recognised as occurring in the previous turn.
The compatibility of the model of turn-taking with the facts of repair is thus of a
dual character: the turn-taking system lends itself to, and incorporates devices for,
repair of its troubles; and the turn-taking system is a basic organisational device
for the repair of any other troubles in conversation. The turn-taking system and
the organisation of repair are thus made for each other in a double sense (Sacks,
Schegloff and J efferson, 1974: 724).
It should be noted that a preference for self-repair exists in conversation
(Schegloff, Jefferson and Sacks, 1977). That is, repair structure lends itself to the
speaker correcting his or her own speech, primarily self-initiated or failing this
where the repair is initiated by a co-conversationalist. Previous trouble sources,
then, are only likely to be actively identifed and replaced by another speaker
when the original speaker forgoes the opportunity provided to correct his or her
own error. This preference for self-repair may be deliberately revoked in verbal
disputes, however, as other-initiated repair could be produced as a form of direct
opposition. Indeed, other-initiated repair (suggesting an error has been made) may
itself be treated as an antagonistic move. While it remains to be seen if overt repair
made by another speaker represents a form of opposition in childrens arguments
(cf. Maynard, 1986a), the organisation of turn-taking and repair indicates that
the place to look for repair performed as a challenge lies in each subsequent
utterance.
1 That speakers attend to the sequential nature of conversation is also evident where
the expectation to make following turns is not met, with prefaces such as by the way
acknowledging an accountable departure from the preceding talk (Schegloff, 1984: 37).
Church Book.indb 39 13/01/2009 12:11:35
Adjacency pairs
The concept of the adjacency pair is a particularly robust example of sequentially
ordered turns, in that it consists of two turns where the frst sets up an expectation
of a specifc second turn.
2
Examples of these basic sequential units (Schegloff,
1979: 210) include, greeting/greeting, question/answer, and invitation/acceptance.
Built into the structure of adjacency pairs is the notion of conditional relevance
3

(Schegloff, 1972) in that the frst pair part places certain constraints on the type of
utterance that is acceptable as a second pair part.
A basic rule of adjacency pair operation is: given the recognizable production of
a frst pair part, on its frst possible completion its speaker should stop and a next
speaker should start and produce a second pair part from the pair type of which
the frst is recognizably a member. A given sequence will thus be composed
of an utterance that is a frst pair part produced by one speaker directly followed
by the production by a different speaker of an utterance which is (a) a second
pair part, and (b) is from the same pair type as the frst utterance in the sequence
is a member of. Adjacency pair sequences, then, exhibit the further features (4)
relative ordering of parts (i.e., frst pair parts precede second pair parts) and (5)
discriminative relations (i.e., the pair type of which a frst pair part is a member
is relevant to the selection among second pair parts) (Schegloff and Sacks,
1973: 296).
The adjacency pair serves as a powerful demonstration of the hearers interpretation
of the previous turn. The position of the second pair part, namely occurring directly
after a frst pair part (with the exception of insertion sequences, discussed below),
directly addresses the previous turn.
What two utterances produced by different speakers can do that one utterance
cannot do is: by an adjacently positioned second, a speaker can show that he
understood what a prior aimed at, and that he is willing to go along with that.
Also, by virtue of the occurrence of an adjacently produced second, the doer of a
frst can see that what he intended was indeed understood, and that it was or was
not accepted (Schegloff and Sacks, 1973: 298).
2 Whilst most units consist of pairs, adjacency triples are found in conversation
and institutional talk, e.g. in the classroom question-answer-evaluation sequences are
common.
3 Schegloff acknowledges the compatibility of the notion of conditional relevance
(recognised in the constraints of summons-answer sequences (1968)), with the category
of utterance pairs (later adjacency pairs) put forward by Sacks, and use[s] these terms
interchangeably (1972: 77).
Church Book.indb 40 13/01/2009 12:11:35
Failure to acknowledge a frst pair part may be manifest by ignoring the other
speaker. That is, supplying a relevant second is not the only type of hearer
response; failing to respond is also heard as an accountable action. As the adjacency
organisation creates an expectation of second pair part, when this second turn is
not forthcoming it is heard as noticeably absent (Schegloff, 1968). A common
example of this can be found in the repetition of a greeting when the initial
greeting receives no response. If the hearers failure to respond to the greeting
cannot be attributed to inaudibility, the absence of a response is noticeable and
may be interpreted as evidence of rudeness. For any second pair part, its non-
occurrence is an event, upon which inferences can legitimately be based (by co-
conversationalists) (Schegloff, 1972: 77).
An alternative explanation for the absence of a second pair part arises when a
response is produced as another frst pair part. This exception, however, does not
indicate inattention to the adjacency pair structure, as the subsequent frst pair part
may simply be a manner of clarifying the original utterance in order to supply a
second pair part. Two related utterances introduced between an adjacency pair are
recognised as an insertion sequence:
Speaker A (Q1): Are you going to go see Jack?
Speaker B (Q2): What time are visiting hours?
Speaker A (A2): From three thirty till eight.
Speaker B (A1): Yeah, Ill go this afternoon.
Indeed, the inclusion of an insertion sequence does not represent a departure
from the inherent obligation of adjacency pairs but rather operates within these
boundaries. Given that a response to a frst pair part is constrained by an expectation
of relevance, another frst pair part is heard as addressing the initial utterance in
some way. In other words, since the insertion sequence is specifcally done and
heard as prefatory to the activity made conditionally relevant by the question,
attention to that activity and to the question is thereby exhibited (Schegloff, 1972:
114).
Consequently, adjacency pairs account for a highly structured organisation
of turn-taking, occurring throughout conversation. The rule that seems to obtain
is extremely neat: An adjacency pair frst part can go anywhere in conversation,
except directly after a frst pair part, unless the second frst pair part is the frst
pair part for an insertion sequence (Sacks, 1995b: 534). As Sacks (1995b: 536-
537) goes on to demonstrate, the observation that frst pair parts can occur at
any point has considerable implications for the hearer(s) as they may be called
on as the next speaker at any time and consequently must listen throughout the
conversation.
4
This obligation to listen is placed on the speaker also, as he/she
must be accountable for his/her own prior contribution.
4 Related to the notion of scorekeeping put forward by Lewis (1979).
Church Book.indb 41 13/01/2009 12:11:35
The observation that speakers must attend to the previous utterance highlights
the fundamental importance of sequencing in conversation. As Schegloff and Sacks
(1973) demonstrate, the accomplishment of any utterance (its locally determined
meaning) must be looked for in the placement of the utterance in the organisation
of conversation. Consequently, the basic unit of analysis (Heritage, 1984: 245) and
the primary focus of conversation analysis is the sequence of turns.
As the escalation or resolution (or indeed existence) of argument is dependent
upon the orientation of subsequent turns to the development of the dispute,
focusing on the sequential organisation of the discourse is pointedly appropriate.
As noted by Jacobs and Jackson (1982: 228) the characterization of argument in
terms of sequential expansion is theoretically important because it emphasizes the
collaborative work that goes into having and making arguments; collaborative
work which is on display for the analyst through the organisation of turn-taking.
Built into the notion of sequential turn-taking, particularly in adjacency pair
structure, is the concept of preference organisation, which we shall see features
signifcantly in young childrens arguments.
Preference organisation
The concept of preference employed in conversation analysis is one which accounts
for the fact that not all second pair parts are heard as having equal status. A ranking
of alternatives operates in conversation, and the ranking is determined by the local
context. As discussed in the previous chapter, the composition of adjacency pairs
is such that a frst pair part sets up an expectation of a relevant second pair part.
This relevance, however, extends beyond the type of action (e.g. answer) to the
selection within an action category (e.g. acceptance). In other words, the frst part
of an adjacency pair not only makes one of a set of type-ftted second parts relevant
in next turn, but typically displays a preference for one of them (Schegloff, 1979:
36; emphasis added).
Essentially preference organisation exists in the taxonomy of possible actions
and operates at varying levels in conversation, from referential identifcation
options for recipient design (Sacks, 1979) through to topic organisation. At all
levels, inferences may be drawn when a frst preference is not selected.
5
To illustrate
this point, Sacks (1995b: 368) uses the example of an invitation to dinner; serving
food is only a part of the evenings activities but preferred in the invitation itself,
given that Would you like to come over for a drink? suggests that dinner will
not be provided (as it should be mentioned in preference to other partial features
of the evening).
6
The idea of scaling alternative components operates not only
5 Inferences are also drawn where preferred (immediate) responses are produced, but
derive directly from the response itself rather than its absence.
6 From this example it becomes apparent that the concept of preference is related to
Grices maxims of conversation (1975, 1978), in this case the maxim of quantity (provide
Church Book.indb 42 13/01/2009 12:11:35
within utterances (regulating content) but governs the sequential organisation of
conversation. This organisation, the manifestation of preference in turn-by-turn
interaction, is explored throughout the frst part of this chapter.
Linguistic markedness
Typically, preferred responses are produced without delay or hesitation and the
action is stated directly or properly done, (Levinson, 1983: 333). Dispreferred
seconds are recognisable from the following features: (1) they are delayed by
pauses, and/or (2) they are introduced with prefaces (markers such as well, uh,
partial agreement/appreciations/apologies, or qualifcations); (3) they include
accounts (explanations for not providing preferred response) and (4) a declination
component which addresses the frst pair part. Thus the two essential features
of dispreferred actions are thus (a) they tend to occur in marked format, and (b)
they tend to be avoided (Levinson, 1983: 333). Consequently, markedness, or the
absence of these markers, is indicative of the preference status of the turn. Although
these features are not universally accepted as defning criteria of preference
(as discussed below) they are overwhelmingly recognised as characteristic of
preference in CA literature (e.g. Heritage, 1984; Atkinson and Heritage, 1984;
Goodwin and Heritage, 1990; Hutchby and Woofft, 2008).
An ubiquitous example of preference organisation is found in the following
pairs of invitation and acceptance/rejection sequences published in Atkinson and
Drew (1979: 58), where extract (i) provides a preferred second pair part and (ii) a
dispreferred response:
(i) B: Why dont you come up and see me some[times
A: [I would like to
(ii) B: Uh if youd care to come over and visit a little while this morning
Ill give you a cup of coffee.
A: hehh Well thats awfully sweet of you, I dont think I can make it
this morning .hh uhm Im running an ad in the paper and and uh I
have to stay near the phone.
B: Well all right
A: [And- uh
B: [Well sometime when you are free to give me a call because Im not
always home.
As illustrated in the examples above, the preferred response is produced immediately
and clearly, whereas in the dispreferred response the refusal is deferred until later in
adequate information to be understood). The common ground of preference, Gricean co-
operative principle, face-work (Goffman, 1967) and politeness theory (Brown and Levinson,
1987) will be discussed briefy in the fnal chapter.
Church Book.indb 43 13/01/2009 12:11:35
the turn and accompanied by an account (reason) for the rejection. The difference
in position or ordering of items in preferred and dispreferred turns was originally
noted by Sacks (1984b: 59):
insofar as disagreements are pushed into the back, then there is a variety of
things that go in front of them, that then can get treated as going in front
of disagreements, and that may have an import in signalling the future
forthcomingness of a disagreement. Components like well and/or I dont
know, for instance, as the beginning of an answer turn, characteristically
precede something less than agreement.
That is, a pause or hesitation frequently precedes the production of a dispreferred
second action, and in itself may be interpretable as indicative of a forthcoming
dispreferred response by the next speaker. Delays not only allow the prior speaker
to pre-empt a dispreferred response, but also provide an opportunity to modify
or revise the frst utterance to a more attractive or acceptable form, rather than
simply using it to formulate an anticipation of rejection (Heritage, 1984: 274). The
delay or pause may even be heard as the beginning of a failure to provide a second
pair part, a zero response, which is also heard as dispreferred, given that silence
is accountable. Similarly, such is the sensitivity of the immediacy of a preferred
response that when an acceptance is not done at this point, that is, immediately
after a possible sentence completion point and in overlap with any components
occurring after this point, that an inviter or offerer may take this absence of
acceptance at this point as being possibly rejection-implicative (Davidson, 1984:
116). The fnal components of a frst pair part, then, may be designed to preview
the preferred or dispreferred nature of the response.
As with delays or hesitations, preface markers (e.g. well, but)
7
are also
heard consistently as indicative of dispreference in conversation. In her study of
speaker interruptions, Ahrens (1997: 83) found that most interruptions occurred
after turn prefaces such as well, well then, okay but, yes but, but, yeah
no and so forth, and labelled these as interruption[s] of a potential rejection.
Given that markers serve as an indication of preference status, the hearer may
begin a subsequent version as soon as these items are performed. Consequently,
interlocutors orient the subsequent turn to the dispreferred shape of the previous
utterance (as demonstrated elsewhere, e.g. Davidson, 1984; Pomerantz 1975).
Fundamentally, pauses, hesitations, and preface markers serve to hold the illocution
of the turn until the end of the utterance. Contiguity, therefore, is incorporated
into the identity of preferred turns. For example, there is an apparent interaction
between the preference for contiguity and the preference for agreement, such that,
if an agreeing answer occurs, it pretty damn well occurs contiguously, whereas if
7 Belonging to the category of discourse markers detailed by Schiffrin (1987). See
also Sprott (1992).
Church Book.indb 44 13/01/2009 12:11:35
a disagreeing answer occurs, it may well be pushed rather deep in to the turn that
it occupies (Sacks, 1987: 58).
Another feature of dispreferred turns is that accounts or justifcations are usually
provided. Although accounts are identifed as characteristic of dispreferred turns,
description and discussion of this feature is scarce in comparison to analysis of
prefatory markers. Accounts have been seen as evidence for the dispreferred status
of certain second pair parts, such as rejections to invitations (Atkinson and Drew,
1979: 139).
8
Elsewhere (Toolan, 1989: 262), parallels have been drawn between
accountability as a defning feature of preference organisation and Grices (1975,
1978) maxims of conversation quality, quantity, relevance and manner which
are discussed below.
In sum, the dispreferred status of turns at talk are refected in the arrangement
of each turn. Levinson (1983: 333) notes that whilst preferred turns have little
in common other than their relative brevity, dispreferred turns share many
characteristics, although designed to respond to a wide range of frst pair parts.
Pomerantz (1984: 64) states that the preference status of actions can be located
in the turn shape: preferred actions are typifed by turns which are produced with
minimum gap and overtly stated function; dispreferred actions, on the other hand,
are produced in turns characterised by delay and nonexplicitly stated action
components.
Structural rather than psychological concept
It is the form of the utterance, not the wishes of the interactants that typically defnes
the linguistic (abstract) concept of preference. That is, the term preference refers
to the structural disposition, to the fact that conversational organization conspires
to make it easier to use the preferred type of turn, not to the participants wishes
(Brown and Levinson, 1987: 38).
Of course, the fact that speakers may attend to the preferred character of some
actions over others in the design of turns containing those actions should not be
taken as exhibiting, or as proof of, participants actual feelings or intentions
at the time. Thus the term preference in this context does not refer to a
speakers psychological predisposition: instead it describes the systematic
features of the design of turns in which certain alternative but non-equivalent
actions are taken, as well as sequential organisation of such actions (Atkinson
and Drew, 1979: 59).
8 Atkinson and Drew (1979) use the term defence to identify reasons which are
given in response to allegations, distinct from accounts in other contexts, as each form
of accounting serves different purposes (the former to avoid blame, the latter to reduce the
offence to the other speaker).
Church Book.indb 45 13/01/2009 12:11:36
This interpretation of the term preference distinguishes it from the normal lay
interpretation. The concept was originally used by Sacks to identify an abstract
principle operating in conversation:
If there is what we are talking about, namely, an abstract or formal preference for
agreement, then we have to see that the questioner is designing the question not
just to get a personal preference, but is designing the question with an orientation
to getting agreement. So the linkage of contiguity and agreement is oriented
to by both questioners and answerers, can operate to avoid a disagreement, and
is an aspect of a formal and anonymous apparatus for agreement/disagreement,
rather that being a matter of individual preferences (Sacks, 1987: 63, 65).
Preferred actions are ones which are sought out; dispreferred actions are not.
Sacks (1987: 64) notes that there is one sort of way that a questioner can be seen
to be orienting to getting agreement, i.e. they try to end up with a form that can be
agreed with. This orientation to elicit preferred responses is not only found within
adjacency pairs, but is also manifested in surrounding talk. Pre-sequences, for
example, constitute a further procedure through which speakers can collaborate in
forwarding preferred sequences or actions and avoiding (or aborting) dispreferred
ones (Heritage, 1984: 278). It has been shown that pre-sequences, particularly
to requests and invitations (Atkinson and Drew, 1979), are intended to avert the
possible production of a dispreferred response. Conversational devices for avoiding
dispreferred responses are not limited to pre-sequences. As Drew (1984: 146)
demonstrates in his study of speaker reportings in invitation sequences, through
just reporting, recipients not only manage to avoid outrightly or directly doing
a rejection; particularly, they also have speakers (co-participants) collaborate in
seeing that, objectively or reasonably, an acceptance is not possible. It is the
organisation of the turn itself, therefore, that creates the expectation of a particular
second action.
While a general tenet of preference is identifable, as presented above, this
does not equate to a uniform understanding of the theory, and as a result there is
a muddiness in inference and application. Given that the concept of preference
originates from Harvey Sacks lectures, and, due to his untimely death, the concept
was not expanded or developed as originally conceived, it has been construed in a
variety of mutually incompatible, and sometimes methodologically questionable,
ways (Bilmes, 1988: 161). The confusion in interpretation represents a fundamental
problem in applying preference theory, a problem we move on to consider.
Church Book.indb 46 13/01/2009 12:11:36
Problems with preference
9
Problems in applying preference theory arise from the disparity of interpretation,
specifcally in relation to the blurred distinction between linguistic and
psychological paradigms. The fact that the linguistic form and the wishes of the
participants overlap more often than not, causes considerable problems in sustaining
a homogenous defnition of preference that refutes psychological inferences.
The following discussion not only identifes the debate concerning the abstract
identity of preference, but also orients the interpretation of preference organisation
as a framework for the current study of childrens arguments. Furthermore, the
essential problem of categorising actions as either preferred or dispreferred will be
exemplifed in the conversational domain of arguments.
Disparity of interpretation
The features of preference described above have been challenged, specifcally
by Bilmes (1988) and Boyle (2000), for overextending the criteria of preference
and for overlooking the inherent property of accountability (see Boyle, 2000).
This constitutes a signifcant oversight given that the notion of accountability is a
principal concept underlying conversation analysis theory (Heritage, 1984: 291).
Specifcally, the speaker is accountable for failing to provide a preferred response
(accountability being tied to dispreferred responses, or silence).
In Bilmes review (1988: 176), Levinsons model is criticised for confusing
reluctance with dispreference and for classifying actions based on the proportion
in which they occur. Commentary on frequency of occurrence as a property of
preferred turns (Levinson, 1983; Heritage and Watson, 1979; Atkinson and Drew,
1979; Sacks and Schegloff, 1979; Schegloff, J efferson and Sacks, 1977) can be
challenged, as quantity does not serve as a criterion of preference. Whilst preferred
turns may be performed more often than dispreferred turns, the frequency itself
does not constitute preference status. Quantifcation, when broadly applied, as
in this instance, ignores the fundamental importance of local context. Although
supporting Levinson on certain points, Bilmes (1988) advocates returning to
the original concept of preference proposed by Harvey Sacks and subsequently
focuses on two aspects: the principle of ordering and that of relevant absence
(i.e. where a preferred action is not performed). Bilmes (1988) reiterates that the
concept of preference must be isolated from the motivation or expectations of the
speakers to avoid the assumption of psychological conditions.
Although Boyle (2000: 586) acknowledges that Levinsons account of preference
is well regarded, he also claims that Levinsons description of preference is not
fully coherent. Boyle recognises that markedness and frequency of occurrence
9 Different scholars using the term to describe different phenomena is the essential
problem. The fact that turns at talk are performed in distinctive ways is not in dispute
(Pomerantz, 2003).
Church Book.indb 47 13/01/2009 12:11:36
are aspects of preference organisation, but he argues that the concept can only
be adequately understood in terms of normative accountability and its role in
achieving intersubjective understanding (Boyle, 2000: 601). In response to the
confusion of defning preference, rather than castigating varying interpretations
of preference as misconstruals (see Bilmes, 1988), Boyle describes them as
aspects of Sacks original concept of preference.
However, even where the concept is most closely related to Sacks original
idea expectation indicated by interpretation of an absent response the
interpretation of preference is blurred. Pomerantz (1984: 81) for example, does
not use the term with any reference to social psychology, yet still opens the door to
possible misinterpretation by identifying certain preferred actions as natural, right
and/or desirable. Although the turn is not identifed as preferred because of these
qualities, using descriptions that invoke the speakers subjectivity obscures the line
between psychological preference and the more abstract, sequential (linguistic)
organisation operating in conversation. The supposed misapplication of the term
preference begs the question whether this line needs to be constantly redrawn.
Confusion and debate is prompted by inferring a lay defnition of the technical
label. As Mey (2001: 152) comments, markedness would serve as a more suitable
term. I would add that continual effort to drag the concept of preference into the
domain of abstractness is misdirected.
Certainly, preferred (or dispreferred) turns do not always mirror the
personal preferences of either the speaker or the hearer, but it does not follow
that conversational preference is therefore entirely extraneous to psychological
preference. Perhaps too much effort has been made to disassociate the concept
of linguistic preference from psychological inferences. Undoubtedly preference
organisation is identifed by specifc linguistic structures and does not necessarily
refect the motivations of the speaker. For example, a speaker may realise their
personal preference in a dispreferred turn shape, such as declining an invitation.
Yet, whilst linguistic preference may be identifed as distinct from psychological
preference it does not necessarily follow that the concept must wholly reject any
organic relationship between linguistic markedness and broader social expectations
of preferred actions. Why is it that preferred actions are, in fact, preferred?
Evidently this preference is set up by the prior turn, but why is it that this prior
turn orients to a particular type of response?
Most CA researchers are at pains to adhere to a defnition of preference that
does not encompass the speakers wishes, yet it would appear overly ideological
to insist that preference exists entirely independently from the participants
expectations. While preference is recognisable as an abstract concept operating
in conversation, that is, each turn can be shown to orient to the form of the
preceding turn, the idea that this concept is built upon underlying conventions
of social expectations (Lewis, 1969) should not be dismissed. In sum, while the
properties of preference (specifc turn shapes) can be identifed and distinguished
as functions of discourse organisation, it does not automatically follow that these
functions have no relationship with broader social expectations.
Church Book.indb 48 13/01/2009 12:11:36
Extending the observation that personal preference and linguistic preference
frequently overlap but are nevertheless distinguishable, Heritage (1984) suggests
that preference is closely related to the maintenance of face (Goffman, 1955; Brown
and Levinson, 1987) where the term face may be defned as the positive social
value a person effectively claims for himself by the line others assume he has taken
during a particular contact (Goffman, 1967: 5). Furthermore, if we acknowledge
that the concept of preference need not necessarily be stringently disassociated
from psychological preference, the relevance of facework and politeness theory
(Brown and Levinson, 1987) becomes apparent.
The question posed above, as to why certain actions take on preferred status,
could be answered in terms of concessions to face needs and, subsequently, forms
of politeness. That is, if an action is perceived as face threatening it is likely to be
performed in a mitigated, less direct, dispreferred format. Conversely, as preferred
actions are likely to be preferred because they do not threaten face, these actions
can be performed directly. It follows, then, that preference norms may be fouted
in performing intentionally face-threatening acts.
Indeed, in a defence of their politeness model, Brown and Levinson (1987: 38)
argue that face considerations are implicated in the preference status of actions; that
is, dispreferred actions are typically face threatening acts. Elsewhere it has been
less cautiously claimed (e.g. Holtgraves, 2000: 97) that dispreferred turns operate
as face-threatening actions. This suggests that markedness not only signifes the
expectation of a dispreferred response but that this response should be interpreted
as managing a probable face threatening move. This point, however, should be
challenged on the same platform as proclaiming particular categories of action as
preferred or dispreferred; whilst certain face-threatening turns may be marked as
dispreferred, dispreferred turns are not always face threatening, as illustrated in
adversative discourse.
Essential problem of categorising actions
Having considered the blurred interpretation of conversational preference, the
discussion now moves to the secondary problem of assigning fxed preference
status to classes of actions. As is apparent from the examples used to illustrate
features of preference above, preference organisation is often studied in specifc
sequential contexts, in invitation sequences, for example, or commenting on prior
assessments. As such there is a tendency to attribute preferred status to a particular
class of action, such as a preference for agreement (Sacks, 1987). However,
preference organization is not synonymous with the organization of agreement/
disagreement (Lerner, 1996: 305). Sweeping generalisations about classes of
action present a fawed characterisation of preference organisation.
Categorising types of action as preferred or dispreferred overlooks the fact
that the ranking of alternatives is determined locally, by the preceding turn, and
that preference organisation is not a hierarchical set that exists detached from
interaction. Atkinson and Drew (1979), for example, identify certain actions
Church Book.indb 49 13/01/2009 12:11:36
(denials, justifcations/excuses, counter-accusations) as preferred, rather than
acknowledging that it is the local context which assigns preference status. Again,
the overwhelming thrust of preference organisation is not that categories of actions
be heard as preferred or dispreferred, but that each action may be interpreted as
such given the expectations arising from the immediately prior turn.
10
Perhaps the
majority of denials following accusations can be shown to be preferred, but this
frequency does not characterise the action as invariably preferred. Identifying turns
as dispreferred or preferred without taking into account the immediate, sequential
context in which they are produced (e.g. Kakav, 2003) overlooks the very context
that determines preference status.
The misrepresentation of preference organisation is therefore found where
types of turns are identifed categorically as preferred or dispreferred. Attributing
preferred or dispreferred status to a particular class of action (cf. Pomerantz,
1978, 1984; Ahrens, 1997) disregards the context-sensitivity of preference
organisation. Essentially it is the manner in which an action is performed as
expected or otherwise which is indicative of preference rather than the type of
action performed in the turn. If emphasis remains on the turn shape (i.e. absence
or presence of markedness, such as delay and accounts) rather than turn action,
all-encompassing (and subsequently false) categorisation of preference may be
avoided. For example, agreement is not universally preferred, but rather, more
often than not, agreement is performed in an utterance which has a preferred turn
shape (i.e. immediate and overt).
To list categories of actions as preferred or dispreferred:
glosses over the fact that all language is indexical (Garfnkel, 1967: 4-7) and
that preference can only be determined in the circumstances in which action
is constituted. Thus, as Coulter (1983: 362-363) points out, there might be a
generalised preference in society for agreement, but there are clearly situations
where disagreement is preferred, as for example, in responses to self-deprecations
(Pomerantz, 1984: 83-95) or in argument sequences (Kotthoff, 1993) (Boyle,
2000: 587).
Indeed, argument sequences serve as the most striking example of types of actions
being performed as preferred or dispreferred depending upon the local context
(Bilmes, 1991: 464). Kotthoffs (1993) study of preference organisation in adult
disputes demonstrated that there is not a ubiquitous preference for agreement in
conversation. Kotthoff noted that in her examples of university students arguing
with professors, the pattern of preference changes throughout the interaction,
stating that a dispute is performed by a change in preference structure (1993:
196). This change, however, is not due to a change in markedness per se, but simply
underscores the fact that the assumption of agreement as preferred second pair part
10 Clayman and Heritage (2002: 307) give the example of political news interviews
where a question may invite disagreement.
Church Book.indb 50 13/01/2009 12:11:36
does not operate in this conversational domain. In other words, while disagreement
may occur in dispreferred turn format at the beginning of the conversation, each
subsequent objection becomes less marked until overt action of disagreement
appears in preferred turn format. Once the argument is collaboratively recognised
as such, it is no longer preferred to agree. On the contrary, it seems to be very
important to contradict quickly and in a coherent manner (Kotthoff, 1993: 203).
This idea of inference drawn from failure to immediately oppose the prior speaker
is taken up by Bilmes (1991: 466): Once in a state of argument, disagreement is
preferred in that if one does not explicitly disagree, it may be presumed that one
has not found grounds to disagree and that (however reluctantly) one agrees.
The performance of disagreement as preferred appears to occur at the onset of
childrens arguments, rather than gradually over a series of turns. It has been noted
that childrens arguments are typifed by opposition occurring in a preferred turn
shape:
rather than being preceded by delays, turns containing opposition are produced
immediately. Moreover, such turns frequently contain a preface that announces
right at the beginning of the turn, characteristically in the frst word said, that
opposition is being done (Goodwin and Goodwin, 1987: 207).
It follows that one cannot claim that agreement is a preferred action and
disagreement a dispreferred action, as the local context determines the expectation
set up by the prior turn. If preference cannot be assigned to categories of actions,
we need clarify how the preference status of a second pair part is assigned. As
demonstrated in this chapter, preference status refers to an organising principle
operating in the local context of contiguous turns at talk regardless of the degree
to which underlying social expectations are recognised or dismissed.
Essentially, the preferred or dispreferred nature of any action is performed by
the speaker and consequently recognisable to the hearer (who performed the frst
pair part). Preference organisation is not, therefore, something to be guessed at,
but rather is conspicuous to all participants. The place to look for preference status,
then, is in the organisation of turns, in the construction or shape of each utterance.
The turn shape remains a constant indicator of preference, with direct responses
produced without delay indicative of a preferred response, while turns prefaced
with delay and/or hesitation (reluctance) markers are characterised as dispreferred.
Although Bilmes (1988) and Boyle (2000) argue that pauses, hesitation markers
and accounts are not criteria of preference, they do not adequately discount these
markers as indicators of preference. Turns are not preferred or dispreferred because
of the absence or presence of these markers; rather these markers serve as an index
of the preference status of the turn in which they appear.
Church Book.indb 51 13/01/2009 12:11:36
Applicability of conversation analysis
Preliminary review of the data suggests that oppositional second pair parts are
usually performed in one of two turn shapes, which points to the relevancy of
preference organisation. As discussed above, the concept of preference organisation
has become blurred due to variations in interpretation and accompanying
application of the theory. It has been argued here that attention should be re-
focused on linguistic markedness as evidence or manifestation of preference.
Essentially, the confusion outlined above could be addressed by using a more
neutral term than preference to describe the phenomena of unequal second pair
parts. It remains to be seen, however, what label may serve as a suitable replacement.
Presumably preference organisation operates in childrens adversative discourse
by regulating the responses to possible forms opposition. Indeed, in the analysis
of childrens arguments presented throughout the remaining chapters, turn shapes
will be identifed as sustaining or non-sustaining in terms of confict outcome. It is
premature, however, to propose a substitute term for preference at this stage, prior
to uncovering the role of preference organisation in the sequential organisation of
childrens arguments. For this reason, turn shapes are referred to as preferred
or dispreferred throughout the next chapters, specifcally to denote opposition
which is immediate and direct (preferred turn shape) and opposition which is
delayed, either by pauses or makers, and incorporates accounts (dispreferred
turn shape). The constancy of these features elucidates preference organisation in
young childrens adversative discourse.
Church Book.indb 52 13/01/2009 12:11:36
Chapter 4
Peer Disputes
An introduction to the data
The previous chapter outlined fundamental principles of conversation analysis and
presented this approach as ideally suited to the study of young childrens talk-in-
interaction. Preference organisation in particular was considered as an organising
principle of talk, as the prevalence of preference features in the childrens disputes
will become evident in this and the subsequent two chapters. This chapter is
concerned with providing the reader with a background to the data in this research,
before systematically analysing the turn shapes of utterances in the childrens
disputes.
Children attending two long daycare centres in inner Melbourne participated in
the main study. Children, parents, teachers and each centre director consented to be
involved in the research, which effectively allowed observations (video and audio
recorded) of the childrens spontaneous peer interactions each morning for a period
of two months. All children participating in this study were aged between 3;11 and
5;3 at the time of recording, and all but one of these children (the youngest) would
be entering formal schooling in the following year. Some children attended the
centre fve days a week, but all children were enrolled at least three days per week.
A total of 36 children participated in the study; 15 girls and 21 boys. As identifed
by socioeconomic rating of residential suburb, children were from middle class
families and English was the dominant language; the few children whose frst
language was not English had developed near-native profciency.
A pilot study (undertaken with the four-year-old group in a long daycare
centre near a university campus which is frequently involved in research projects)
resolved issues of age of participants (three-year-olds resorted to physical confict
in many cases, so the four-year-old group was selected to allow focus on verbal
processes); viability of naturalistic observation of confict (spontaneous disputes
were observable, recordable, without compromising ethical responsibility); and
activity type as observation context (recording to be undertaken indoors for
audibility; and video camera to remain stationary as moving equipment proved
distracting to the children).
Observations were recorded over a period of six weeks in each centre (two
weeks were spent in the centre prior to recording observations, to allow children
the opportunity of familiarity with the researchers and video and audio equipment).
Recording usually took place in the mornings as this time of day proved optimal
for peer interactions in free play situations. Acknowledging the observers paradox
(Labov, 1972a) and particular limitations of recording in preschool environments
Church Book.indb 53 13/01/2009 12:11:36
(e.g. Graue and Walsh, 1998; Fine and Sandstrom, 1988), the data was collected
with seemingly minimal disruption to the childrens environment (see also Corsaro,
1985).
The transcripts
The data are not only infuenced by collection procedure, but also by the manner
in which the verbal dialogue is represented for analysis, deserving some further
discussion here. A primary concern is the extent to which the fnal transcript is
representative of the recorded interaction. Transcription is universally recognised
to be constrained by the perspective of the researcher and the purpose of the
research. Consequently, the shift of recorded data from oral to written form is
inherently theory bound. As noted by Ochs (1979: 43, emphasis in original text),
the problems of selective observation are not eliminated with the use of recording
equipment. They are simply delayed until the moment at which the researcher sits
down to transcribe the material from the audio- or videotape.
Central to the concern of valid interpretation of data, then, is the manner in which
it is transcribed. Features of transcription which provoke theoretical discussion
include spatial representation of text
1
(Ochs, 1979; Edwards, 1993), segmentation
of text (Gumperz and Berenz, 1983; Lampert and Ervin-Tripp, 1993; Bloom,
1993; Johansson, 1995) and appropriacy of transcription conventions (Du Bois,
1991; Edwards, 1993; Du Bois, Schuetze-Coburn, Cumming and Paolino, 1993).
Given that no transcript is completely theory-neutral or without bias (Edwards,
1993: 3), considerable effort should be made to validate the written organisation
of verbal data. The transcript should also be recognised not only as theory bound,
but also as theory shaping, because inclusion or exclusion of particular features
promote specifc recognition (Du Bois, 1991).
A particular concern in generating a written record of talk-in-interaction
is the representation of turns at talk. Obviously, a new speaker signifes a new
turn, but subsequent utterances produced by the same speaker are not so clearly
distinguishable. Establishing what constitutes a new utterance proves diffcult
to tie down, given that transcribers frequently work from an intuitive basis and
attempt to construct a retrospective justifcation or defnition of the turn as a unit.
Essentially new turns by the same speaker are distinguished by a combination of
intonational contour and pause length (Edwards, 1993: 20). In other words, the
turn can be defned as a rhythmically bounded, prosodically defned chunk, a
1 Ochs (1979) argues that the researcher must consider the conceptual underpinnings
(p.51) of a transcript and evaluate the bias associated with spatial alignment and
organisation of speakers. Although she advocates participant columns and justifcation of
speaker assignment, it should be noted that this recommendation is particularly relevant
to adult/child discourse, and not compatible with many software programs designed for
transcription of speech.
Church Book.indb 54 13/01/2009 12:11:37
Peer Disputes 55
lexical string that falls under a single intonational contour (Gumperz and Berenz,
1993: 95). This working defnition is employed in the current study, to distinguish
between intra- and inter- turn pauses.
As research presented in this monograph adopts a conversation analytic (CA)
framework for the study of childrens arguments (see Chapter 3), the method of
transcription adheres to the model generated by Gail Jefferson (Sacks, Schegloff
and J efferson, 1974: 731-734; see Appendix A). In conversation analytic research
the transcripts serve as an account of the features of the discourse identifable as
pertinent for analysis (Psathas and Anderson, 1990). While a list of transcription
conventions is given at the beginning of Appendix A, a brief account of the most
frequent features in the transcripts follows. Given the interest in turn-taking in CA,
attention is given to transition relevance places: terminal contours are marked (e.g.
rising or half-rising) and overlap or pauses between turns are recorded. Emphasis
within utterances is recorded in a number of ways. Emphatic stress is recorded by
underlining letters or syllables and lengthening of syllables is demonstrated by
the use of a colon. Changes in pitch are marked within the transcript with arrows,
2
changes in volume are noted with capital letters (louder) or degree signs (softer).
A convention not employed universally in CA (although certainly recognised), but
used in this study, is the dollar symbol ($) to indicate smile talk (where the child
is on the verge of laughing).
Elsewhere, overlapping speech is marked on the page at the point of overlap (i.e.
indented in the text so the phrase occurs directly below the point at which it overlaps
the prior utterance). Throughout the text and in Appendix A, however, overlaps in
the data are simply marked with square brackets [overlapping utterance] and are
kept fush left on the page to avoid formatting problems. For clarity, double square
brackets are used [[overlapping utterance]] in instances of multiple overlap. Where
single utterances are provided as examples in the discussion (particularly in Chapter
4), brackets are retained despite the non-inclusion or reproduction of overlapping
talk. The brackets could be omitted where the turn is discussed in isolation, but it
is important to remember that these examples are taken from extended sequences
of talk where overlap does occur. Due to background noise in all of the recordings,
inbreaths (.hhh) and outbreaths (hhh) were marked only where audible. Likewise
only exaggerated emphasis is underlined in the transcripts. Where speech is
unintelligible the letter x represents a syllable. Features of signifcance noted in
the analysis/discussion are marked in bold. Information provided in the headers
for each episode was abbreviated for inclusion in Appendix A.
In the transcripts presented in later chapters, there is little deviation from
standard orthography, and the exceptions represent an atypical production made by
the speaker. Although a CA approach advocates conveying the closest approximate
description of the word production, readability of the transcripts (particularly in
2 Although Gail J efferson continued to expand the range of suprasegmental features
recorded in CA transcription (see Gardner, 2001 for a succinct discussion of shifts in pitch),
only exaggerated shifts were marked in the present study.
Church Book.indb 55 13/01/2009 12:11:37
the case of child speech) is a competing issue. Although the manner in which
the spoken word is reproduced (other than standard spelling) can be shown to
be analytically signifcant (Jefferson, 1996), in the current study conventional
orthography is for the most part appropriate (as idiosyncratic pronunciation did
not prove to be particularly signifcant in dispute outcomes). The most common
exception to this is abbreviations used by the children (e.g. the appearance of coz
as a shortening of because).
3
Most importantly, conversation analytic tradition underscores the necessity of
referring to the original audio or video recording as the data and fundamental
substance for analysis. The analysis is concerned with what occurs in the
conversation rather than what appears in the reporting of the conversation. The
transcripts should be seen as providing those not present with an opportunity to
review the interaction in a secondary form. It is important to recall, therefore, that
throughout the following chapters, although the transcripts are used to illustrate
specifc features of the adversative discourse, the analysis itself is based on
continual review of the audio and video recordings.
Additionally, the transcripts serve a more signifcant function than simply
providing the outsider with an image of the discourse under observation. As
the CA tradition calls for the researcher to transcribe his or her own data, the
transcription itself serves as a form of analysis. The process of transcribing ones
own material allows the researcher to become aware of salient features of the
interaction. Through constant repetition and review of the audio recordings,
notable phenomena begin to appear.
A total of 60 verbal disputes were recorded in two preschool centres and
transcribed (35 arguments recorded in Observation 1 and 25 arguments in
Observation 2; full transcripts are provided for all episodes in Appendix A). The
discrepancy in the number of arguments between the two groups is not necessarily
representative of a higher incidence of confict in the frst observation environment
for a number of reasons. The most conspicuous of these is a difference in
audibility; the second observation playroom was noisier, making childrens voices
indistinguishable at times. Any discussion of the differences in the arguments
recorded in the two preschools must therefore be made cautiously. The intention to
record in similar play contexts, for example, was not always realised, as inaudibility
in the second observation environment precluded the inclusion of a number of
episodes, and the movement of children to outside play or to other activities meant
fxed recording in the block corner was not always feasible. Neither does the
number of arguments recorded defnitively refect the proportion of arguing in the
childrens play, as the observer was located in a fxed position in the playroom and
witnessed only those disputes occurring between children within the proximity of
recording equipment.
3 For the purpose of establishing the reliability and accuracy in transcribing the
childrens arguments, the transcripts were submitted to a panel review of researchers
experienced in CA methodology.
Church Book.indb 56 13/01/2009 12:11:37
Peer Disputes 57
Although not all recorded disputes occurred in block corner, the inclusion of
dramatic play and other activities (e.g. fshing with magnets) did not secure an
equal distribution of girls and boys disputes as hoped for. Indeed, half of the 60
disputes included in the data were between boys. Whilst this study does not set out
to compare frequency of disputes or differences which are specifcally attributed
to gender, the disproportion of the data set is acknowledged. However, given that
a almost a third of the disputes involved only girls, and the remaining episodes
were generated by both girls and boys, some degree of representativeness has been
maintained.
Comparison of frequencies or distribution of disputes in the two child care
centres should also be made warily due to age differences between the two groups.
Given the difference in time of observation, the children in the second observation
environment were (on average) fve months older than those in Observation 1. A
discrepancy in ability to manage confict may be looked for here. Differences in
pedagogic style (see discussion below) can also be acknowledged as a probable
infuence on confict in the playroom the teacher in the second observation
environment was not heard to intervene in the disputes recorded. Furthermore,
differences may also be attributed to the higher proportion of children in
Observation 1. Conditions which can, however, be more defnitively tied to
frequency of adversative episodes in this study are discussed in the next section.
This preliminary discussion of the data evidently does not account for all social
features which infuence the manifestation of peer confict, but rather introduces
the data by way of features identifed in existing research in child confict (see
Chapter 2).
Frequency and types of confict
A measurable condition infuencing the frequency of confict can be attributed
to the physical play area and available resources. This type of constraint can be
defned as both micro-local (related to the particular play scenario) and macro-local
(the physical space of the playroom). An example of the frst condition is found
where access to play equipment is restricted. For example, numerous arguments
in the frst observation environment developed during the magnet fshing game,
because there were only two fshing rods available for the children to play with
(Episodes Ob1.6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11; transcripts provided in Appendix A).
The second condition (physical play space)
4
also appears to infuence the
frequency of confict, specifcally according to the number of children in a certain
area. In the frst child care centre, there were fewer arguments directly after nap-
time, for example, because the resumption of play was staggered, with children
4 Although more children were enrolled in Ob2, the proportion of space and number
of children playing inside was relatively stable across the two observation environments.
Church Book.indb 57 13/01/2009 12:11:37
waking and returning to the playroom at different times.
5
In the second preschool,
where children were free to move from inside to outside play areas, the greatest
number of disputes (Ob2.8, 9, 10, 11, 12) were recorded on a very wet morning
when all children were forced to play inside. Consequently, a greater demand on
resources (micro- and macro-local constraints) suggests a higher incidence of
disputes.
In order to discuss the frequency of particular types of disputes a temporary
classifcation needs to be made. The following classes of types of disputes refer
back to the categories discussed at the beginning of chapter two. Although it could
justifably be argued that rigorous defnition of these categories should be provided
(as the proportion of occurrence is wholly infuenced by the categorisation itself)
the following labels are not intended to quantify types of argument precisely, but
simply to facilitate a general description of and introduction to the types of
arguments recorded. In other words, these categories do not directly inform the
current analysis, but rather serve as a preliminary review of the data in line with
fndings from existing studies.
To this end, four major classes of disputes were identifed in the audio/
video recordings: object/ownership (cf. Phinney, 1986); play script (elsewhere
categorised as nature of play see Corsaro and Rizzo, 1990); local rules (cf.
Malloy and McMurray, 1996); and truth (cf. Genishi and Di Paolo, 1982). It
should be noted that categories overlap due to shifts of focus within disputes. For
example, a dispute may initially be recognised as an object dispute (rights to a
cardboard box) but could also be labelled as a negotiation of the play script (the
application or use of the cardboard box) e.g. Ob1.24. For the purpose of this
discussion, episodes were categorised according to the nature of the opening of
the dispute.
Object/ownership disputes were common in both groups, arising in situations
where children would argue over rights to an object, or claim prior ownership
(e.g. Ob2.2). Occasionally the access rights under dispute pertain to non-concrete
entities (e.g. a song in Ob1.4). Arguments about the organisation of play (play
script) were dominant in Observation 1 (13 of 35) but were least frequent in
Observation 2 (2 of 25). Typically this type of dispute focused on negotiating the
function or role of objects in the play context (e.g. Ob1.31). Local rule disputes
arise from challenges to behaviour deemed acceptable within the playroom
(again, more frequent in Observation 1). This encompasses both broader social
expectations (e.g. Ob1.23) and rules proscribed by the teacher (e.g. Ob2.21). The
fnal category (truth) refers to challenges of knowledge or factual accuracy (e.g.
Ob2.3), the majority occurring in the second observation environment.
6

A notable difference between the two groups lies in the proportion of the
varying types of disputes. While ownership disputes are relatively common in
5 On two occasions, observation sessions were held in the afternoon in Ob1 due to
morning activities scheduled for the four-year-old group.
6 A summary of dispute types is given in Appendix A.
Church Book.indb 58 13/01/2009 12:11:37
Peer Disputes 59
both preschools (28.6 per cent in Observation 1 and 56 per cent in Observation
2), the remaining three categories show an inverse proportion: play script (Ob1
37.1 per cent, Ob2 8 per cent), local rules (Ob1 25.7 per cent, Ob2 8 per
cent), and truth (Ob1 8.6 per cent, Ob2 28 per cent). However, if ownership/
object disputes and arguments over the play script are recognised as intrinsic to
the development of play, and local rules and truth disputes are grouped as not
organically derived (i.e. monitoring behaviour rather than imbedded in the play
scenario), the proportion of disputes in both preschools is strikingly similar (65.7
per cent: 34.3 per cent in Ob1 and 64 per cent: 36 per cent in Ob2).
However, any discussion of the ratio of disputes must be made cautiously. Not
only is the categorisation of childrens disputes inherently subjective (despite best
efforts to defne objectively), the number of participants and length of observation
in the current study prevents grand, sweeping commentary on defnitive
classifcation of preschool disputes (not to mention criticisms of quantitative
analysis with a limited sample). Furthermore, given that existing studies use
idiosyncratic categorisation of types of disputes, it is diffcult to compare fndings.
The prevalence of object disputes, however, is reported universally (Shantz, 1987;
Hay and Ross, 1982; Eisenberg and Garvey, 1981; Genishi and Di Paolo, 1982)
and the frequency of play script disputes was also reported to be high in non-
laboratory settings (Corsaro and Rizzo, 1990).
Additionally, no frm conclusions can be drawn from the correlation existing
between gender and frequency of disputing. Although a greater number of
arguments recorded in the transcripts involve boys, this may indicate manner
rather than prevalence of confict. That is, boys arguments are typically more
overt and subsequently more likely to attract the observers attention due to a
greater incidence of raised voices and overtly physical play. Activity type has also
been acknowledged as infuencing the proportion of disputes according to gender,
even though both boys and girls played in block corner, and nearby activities are
included in the data. Omitting analysis of gender and frequency of disputes does
not suggest that no correlation exists, but rather that the procedure of the data
collection in this study precludes sustainable conclusions.
Whilst confict patterns can be considered as gendered (Aronsson and Thorell,
1999), the purpose of this research is to identify patterns which are intrinsic to
adversative discourse, to identify turn shapes which are produced by both girls
and boys. That is, this research seeks to identify common disputing practices as
a prelim to looking for variation within these practices. What is proposed here is
further exploration of generic linguistic practices in childrens disputes with the
intent of uncovering patterns of discourse which are related to outcome; patterns
attributable to both girls and boys. From this platform, differences in childrens
gender, age and friendship groups may be looked for. The primary consideration
remains to better understand governing principles of how children go about
resolving disputes.
Church Book.indb 59 13/01/2009 12:11:37
Teacher attitudes to confict intervention
As discussed in earlier chapters, external (non-linguistic) infuences on childrens
arguments, although not focused upon in this monograph, should be acknowledged.
While the relative social status (power relationships) among children has been
recognised elsewhere (see Chapter 1), as has the link between friendship and the
frequency of arguments (see Chapter 2), the role of the teacher in establishing and
monitoring group dynamics may also be infuential in the prevalence of confict in
the preschool playroom. Although this feature is not directly incorporated in the
analysis presented here, it is prudent to note that the expectation of appropriate
behaviour of preschool children is infuenced by the teacher. To ascertain staff
attitudes to assisting children to manage peer confict, informal interviews were
held with teachers at the completion of each observation round. While both teachers
reported similar theoretical approaches, their practical intervention strategies
were performed in markedly different ways, a difference which may have been
informed by pedagogic experience; the teacher in Observation 1 was younger and
comparatively new to the profession.
The teacher in the frst observation centre stated that she was inclined to let the
children negotiate their own disputes and would intervene only when the children
were crying (see Danby and Baker, 1998), shouting or otherwise visibly upset
or angry, or if the confict escalated to physical exchanges such as hitting. She
reported that once involved she would ask each child to tell their own version
of events, thereby creating an opportunity for each child to listen to the other, as
well as establishing for herself the nature of the problem. If the children were not
able to propose a viable solution she would impose one. The childrens individual
abilities to manage confict were noted by the teacher, with reference to childrens
varying needs of staff support to negotiate with peers. In response to questions
about the instructional phrase use your words the teacher indicated that children
were coached to express how the others behaviour made them feel, encouraging
children to recognise the emotions of others.
In relation to the frequency of disputes in the playroom, the teacher in Ob1
commented that there was a greater proportion of adversative discourse at the
beginning of the year and that as time progressed the children were arguing less.
She attributed this to familiarisation with the new playroom, teacher and increased
challenges, and children recognising certain limitations, specifcally sharing toys.
The teacher also noted that the children were more likely to work out a dispute
if they were friends (as discussed in Chapter 2). She added that the motivation to
argue was not always driven by the play context, but sometimes by the mood of
the children, who were more likely to argue for the sake of it or be easily annoyed
when they were tired.
The teacher in the second observation environment saw her role as clarifying
the perspective or intention of each child for his or her playmate(s). She believed
in talking through the problem because one (or both) participant(s) may not have
the resources to explain their internal state. She noted that it was important to
Church Book.indb 60 13/01/2009 12:11:37
Peer Disputes 61
clarify each childs motivation before moving on to consider what action could be
taken to resolve the problem. The teacher spoke of the importance of not assigning
blame in these situations, as most offences are not made intentionally. The teacher
insisted that the self-esteem of the children involved in a dispute remain a priority,
perceiving her responsibility being to assess which childs needs appeared greater,
recognising that it is not always the child who has been wronged who is in greater
need of support.
As far as suggesting strategies for children to manage confict, the teacher in
Ob2 noted that the advice would vary for each individual child, given their specifc
needs. It was her intention to provide the children with strategies for them to cope
independently rather than focus on solving the immediate problem. As a general
strategy, the teacher referred to the common theme of identifying internal states,
in other words tell the other child how you feel. In relation to the instruction use
your words the teacher emphasised the importance of following this through by
monitoring the response. She expanded this point by underscoring the fact that most
children of this four-year-old age group are able to express their dissatisfaction (I
dont like it when you do that), therefore attention should be given to the other
childs ability or willingness to listen. The teacher also acknowledged a relationship
between language skills and ability to manage confict situations; that children
with less fuency were unable to articulate their position and consequently were
more likely to become more frustrated and resort to physical confrontation. She
emphasised the fundamental importance of communication skills for a successful
future.
Types and sequences of strategies
Whilst acknowledging the infuence teachers may have on childrens peer
interaction, the purpose of this study is to determine how children manage disputes
without the direct support of an adult. In earlier research (see discussion in Chapter
2) attention was given to the types of strategies young children used in arguments
(Eisenberg and Garvey, 1981; Genishi and Di Paolo, 1982; Brenneis and Lein,
1977; Boggs, 1978). Whilst previously established categories of strategies (e.g.
insistence, modifcation, reasons, counter assertions, conditional directives,
compromise, denial, requesting evidence, and insults) were evident in my data,
quantitative evidence is not reported here as it does not contradict earlier fndings
and is not the primary focus of the analysis. Relevant to this research however,
are existing claims relating to possible or probable sequences of these verbal
strategies.
Elsewhere it has been noted that one utterance prompts a particular type of
response, and that semantic continuity is a distinguishing feature of adversative
discourse (Brenneis and Lein, 1977). This continuity, however, has been looked
for within categories of strategic actions mentioned above. Whilst sequences of
strategies may follow particular patterns (Boggs, 1978), given that the strategies
are an imposed categorisation, the sequence is also externally imposed. These
Church Book.indb 61 13/01/2009 12:11:37
sequences may indeed operate probabilistically, yet the task at hand is to establish
if an organising principle is evident to the participants themselves. As hearers, the
children involved in disputes may not recognise prior utterances as a particular
type of strategy, but may attend to other features of the discourse. Of particular
interest is the absence or presence of pauses, hesitation or direct opposition markers
and the plausibility of accounts. Consequently (as with outcomes of disputes) a
thorough discussion of sequences of disputes appears in the following chapters.
We now turn our attention to the organisation within the disputes that become
apparent when viewed from a different perspective an alternate methodology.
As detailed in Chapter 3, conversation analysis is proposed as eminently useful
in uncovering signifcant features of childrens arguments. Existing research and
preliminary review of the data suggests that preference organisation is pertinent
to the sequences of turns in these disputes. So this Chapter progresses to consider
features of turn shapes in the childrens adversative discourse.
During the process of transcribing the 60 disputes recorded with both groups
of four-year-old children, preference features emerged as overwhelmingly
present. That is, utterances in these naturally-occurring arguments appeared
to be consistently performed in either preferred or dispreferred turn shape.
Although the data presented here may appear to apply preference organisation as
an analytic framework, it is important to emphasise that these patterns emerged
from the data. Unmotivated looking while repeatedly transcribing the childrens
disputes uncovered particular and regular types of turn in the dispute. The reader
is reminded that analysis presented here is reported after the fact: the data, and
particular features of the data, came frst.
Preference features in the childrens utterances
If a principle for agreement operates in conversation (Sacks, 1987), then it stands
that this principle is revoked in confict situations. That is, if speakers do not
disagree with one another, adversative discourse is not sustainable. A purpose of
the analysis, therefore, is to determine if the performance of preference organisation
in disputes (i.e. linguistic markedness) mirrors this reversal of conversational
preference. The purpose of this and subsequent chapters is to illustrate typical
features of preference, and to demonstrate how these features are signifcant in
childrens disputes by infuencing the outcome of disputes. If we continue on
the assumption (see discussion in Chapter 3) that disagreement is preferred in
order for adversative discourse to be sustained, it remains to be seen if the turn
shape (preferred or dispreferred) of the opposition infuences the subsequent
turn(s). Before establishing a possible interdependence between preference and
the progression and conclusion of disputes, however, features of the turn shapes
in the childrens arguments need to be examined. This chapter exemplifes the
prevalence of the following turn components: immediate responses, short turn
Church Book.indb 62 13/01/2009 12:11:37
Peer Disputes 63
length, direct action (preferred turn shape), pauses, delay markers, and deferred
statement of intent (dispreferred turn shape).
Preferred turn shape
As discussed in Chapter 3, preferred turns are typically produced without delay,
the turn length is usually short and the action (locution) is overt and direct.
These elements (immediate response, turn length and directness) were identifed
throughout the arguments recorded in both observation environments. The data
recorded are presented below by identifying each characteristic of preferred turn
shape in turn: immediacy; brevity of utterance and explicitness of action being
done.
Immediate responses
Turns are identifed as occurring immediately or contiguously where less than
0.2 seconds elapsed, marked as a zero time lapse (appearing in the transcripts
abutting the prior turn). Where the inter-turn pause is timed under 0.2 seconds,
the gap is not noticeably hearable as a signifcant pause. Pauses of less than 0.2
seconds made by the speaker within an utterance were heard as noticeable, and
are subsequently recorded as (.) in the transcripts. This type of preferred format
(produced without delay) is seen throughout dispute episodes, in initial opposition
moves, in utterances during the argument and in later turns once the argument is
well established. The notable fnding here, then, is that immediate responses are
not limited to the opening of adversative discourse.
Ob2. 4
1 J AK: oh ( t hen t he t wo of us can) do i t t oday?
2 LOU: no i can do i t
Immediate responses are not limited to simple contradiction of the prior utterance
(although frequently used in this type of inversion) because counter-challenges are
also made without delay, as are criticisms of the prior speaker.
Ob2. 22
7 PAU: i wrecked my thing (0.2) and it wasnt yours
8 NIG: yeah and i put those things up there
Ob1. 7
12 JON: not till you (0.2) say sorry Sam.
(0.4)
13 TES: ((silly voice)) sorry Sam deedee:huh.
14 SAM: no: (.) properly.
Church Book.indb 63 13/01/2009 12:11:38
Responses are also considered to be produced without substantial delay where
there is less than a 0.3 second delay between turns. Whilst a 0.2 second pause
between utterances is marked in the transcripts, the gap (as with delays of less
than 0.2 seconds) is not heard as signifcant. The brevity of this time lapse is
not noticeably hearable as a pause, whereas a 0.3 second or greater silence or
absence of nonverbal behaviour is distinguishable as a gap or delay between turns.
Consequently, when turns are produced with less than (0.3) seconds delay, this is
considered to be an almost immediate response. Contiguous responses, then, are
identifed where there is no delay (latched utterances) or following a pause of less
than 0.3 seconds.
Ob2. 1
8 MIR: gimme one of them.
(0.2)
9 CAZ: i am not going to.
Ob2. 7
2 ELI: thats not a girl thats a bo::y.
(0.2)
3 CAZ: girls wear pants.
Immediate utterances constitute varying types of responses. Usually, preferred turn
shapes are tied in semantic content and syntactic structure to the previous turn,
often with minimal addition of novel information an example of format-tying
(Goodwin, 1990; see Chapter 2).When turns are repeated or partially repeated
(adding to prior content) the previous turn, in most cases there is no signifcant
delay.
Ob2. 4
(0.2)
3 J AK: NO: I WANNA Do i t .
Often this type of repeat is used to contradict the prior speaker, with the repeat
produced as an inversion of the previous utterance. These simple inversions are
labelled elsewhere as contrastively-matched counters (Coulter 1990: 196).
Ob2. 19
6 SIM: my partys befo:re you:rs
7 GAR: no MY partys before yours.=
Church Book.indb 64 13/01/2009 12:11:38
Peer Disputes 65
Ob1. 4
3 HIL: its my so:ng
4 TES: its my song too: and its not your song.
. . .
12 HIL: it is my song too:.
13 TES: its not your song too::
There is also evidence of no signifcant delay when the speakers objection is a
repeat of his/her own earlier opposition:
Ob1. 28
14 JON: no dont break it!
(0.2)
15 FEL: i wi l l [ br eak i t ] ?
16 JON: [otherwise] ill tell the teacher.
(0.5)
17 FEL: i wi l l br eak i t J ohn.
18 JON: DONT BREAK it OTHERWISE I WILL TELL [THE TEACHERS
on you] .
Although Felicitys turn in line 17 in Ob1.28 is also a repeat of her earlier
utterance, this turn does not serve as a direct opposition to the prior turn (line
16), but rather a re-initiation and repeat of an earlier threat intended to provoke
John. This interpretation is signifcant given that Felicitys turn is preceded by a
short pause. It should also be noted that whilst the content of J ohns utterance was
repeated, the turn is aggravated through increased volume (see Brenneis and Lein,
1977 and Boggs, 1978 for discussion of paralinguistic features as demonstrative
of escalation in disputing).
From the examples presented here, it becomes apparent that turns made
without delay usually present little new information. In some cases, each speaker
continues to repeat the form of earlier utterances, providing no novel content to
promote their position.
Ob1. 25
3 KOY: i was us[ing it-],
4 SAM: [BUT I] thought you werent using i:t,=
5 KOY: =Im using it (0.3) i wanna- (.) tha[ts
( mi ne) ] .
6 SAM: [i thought you] werent using i::t.=
7 KOY: =i wanna (.) but (.) i was- that was mi:ne.
8 SAM: but i thought you werent using i:t.
Church Book.indb 65 13/01/2009 12:11:38
Throughout the episodes we also see examples where opposition pre-empts the
close of the previous utterance (the transition-relevant place), where the beginning
of the challenge overlaps the prior turn.
Ob1. 1
3 NOR: lets [go to the jetty].
4 MIN: [no (.) no (0.3)] no no (0.4) no (we) dont want
those (0.4) big anim[als x-],
and later in the same episode:
14 CHE: were [going through it].
15 LI A: [uh uh].((expresses objection))
Turns are also produced with zero delay, where no discernible lapse between one
utterance and the next is heard. The following examples identify turns which are
latched to the prior utterance.
Ob2. 4
5 LOU: no:w (.) i know which day (0.2) and i can do
it=
6 J AK: =i can do it too.
Ob2. 19
8 SIM: =not bef[ore mine].
9 GAR: [but mine is] (0.3) yours- (0.6) my: mum said
your s i s i n Febr uar y.
Ob1. 22
5 KOY: no (.) youre not packing=
6 ADM: =YES I AM.
Turns are also considered to be produced immediately (without delay) if the
utterance overlaps or occurs contiguously to a nonverbal action by another party.
Ob2. 1
6 MIR: (if you dont) then ill just take it then.
%act: reaches to grab plastic lid.
7 CAZ: STO::P!
Church Book.indb 66 13/01/2009 12:11:38
Peer Disputes 67
Ob1.10
2 TES: 0 ((%act: attempts to take JONSs fshing rod
which he has put on the ground to pick up a
fsh))
3 JON: ((rising pitch throughout)) no no no no no.
Ob1. 13
1 ADM: 0 ((%act: drives duplo car towards garage))
2 KOY: no big cars!
Ob1. 16
6 ADM: that (.) that can be (0.5) umm,
( 2. 5)
%act: pulls down a block that SAM has placed upright
7 SAM: no: (0.4) that is UP.
Ob2. 16
1 PAU: 0 ((%act: turns volume control to another
headset ) )
2 FRE: he[::y].
Ob1. 22
1 KOY: 0 ((%act: knocks block off shelf))
2 ADM: ((whines)) NO:: (.) YOURE BREAKING IT.
Ob2. 22
1 PAU: 0 ((%act: knocks over tower of blocks))
2 NI G: you WRECKER.
Ob2. 25
6 JIM: 0 ((%act: pushes the ramps together))
7 PAU: hey youre making it differe::nt.
Turns can similarly be made contiguously to the prior utterance and its
accompanying nonverbal action.
Ob1. 13
13 ADM: [i have to stay out] of the gargage (0.2) (get
ou:t),=
%act: puts his car next to the blocks
14 KOY: =STO::P!
Church Book.indb 67 13/01/2009 12:11:38
Turn length
Not only are preferred turn shapes characterised as produced contiguously to
the prior utterance, the length of the turn is also indicative of preference status:
preferred turns are typically short. Whilst the content of preferred turns may
demonstrate little homogeneity (Levinson, 1983), the brevity of utterances is a
uniform feature. As seen in the following examples, immediate opposition is often
made in short utterances, the shortest being one-word objections.
Ob1. 1
31 NOR: up here [im] up here.
32 LI A: [no].
Ob2. 17
5 SIM: Gary: (1.0) can i have a little play of yours?
(0.2)
6 GAR: no.
( 1. 3)
7 SIM: can i?
8 GAR: no.
Ob1. 35
1 ADM: now (0.2) (im gonna put that there).
2 PET: HE::Y.
Ob1. 18
34 TES: NO I DIDNT DO IT did i Nancy (0.5) Koyo did
it=
35 KOY: =no.
These shortest preferred turn shapes (one-word objections) follow nonverbal
actions as well as verbal turns.
Ob2. 2
%act: girls attempt to enter the spaceship
1 J AK: no!
Ob2. 25
9 PAU: 0 ((%act: pulls blocks apart)) (2.3)
10 JIM: o::y:.
Ob1. 32
8 KOY: 0 ((%act:tries to shut faps))
9 SAM: no:.
Church Book.indb 68 13/01/2009 12:11:38
Peer Disputes 69
10 KOY: the show (.) is (.) fnished (.) [(now)].
11 SAM: [no]:. ((whines))
Brief utterances (preferred turn shapes) need not necessarily denote one-word
objections: the turn may also be considered short where it contains more than one
item. A short turn, then, typically consists of a single clause.
Ob2.20
3 GAR: its just a little one
(0.2)
4 ROB: hey dont!
Ob1.20
5 LUK: 0 ((%act: pushes PETs hand away))
6 PET: ( ( whi nes) ) dont draw mi::ne.
Ob2. 23
1 LUK: look Sam (0.3) ow ow.=
2 SAM: =dont do that (.) thats-,
Ob1. 7
1 TES: ((silly voice)) these are mine (.) thats mine
(.) thats mine (.) tha- my yeeiyeei [yeiyei],
%act: grabbing boxes
2 JON: [hey (.) hey,]=
3 SAM: = hey sto:p (0.5) TE::S[S]::!
Ob1. 22
Ob2. 1
(0.2)
Preferred turn shapes are also evident in sequences where short turns are made in
succession, often in overlap.
Ob2. 8
2 PAU: give it to me!
3 WI N: i [ f ound i t ] .
4 PAU: [no i-](.) no i had i:t.
5 WI N: i f ound i t
Church Book.indb 69 13/01/2009 12:11:38
The repetition of short turns was evident elsewhere in the data:
Ob1. 11
14 FEL: mmm.
15 NAN: dont say mmm.
( 1. 1)
16 FEL: mmm.
17 NAN: dont (0.3) dont say THAT!
(0.2)
18 FEL: mmm.
(0.4)
19 NAN: DONT SAY THAT!
Ob1. 26
16 ADM: you [have to say] doggie doggie whos got the
bone.
17 CHE: [go away].
18 CHE: GO away from us!
19 ADM: dont you know doggie [doggie whos got]-,
20 TES: [we dont] ca:re dont we?=
21 CHE: =go away from us!
Ob1. 31
5 ADM: no we dont need to put corks in.=
. . .
7 SAM: [no] theyre food (0.7) they[re] carro[ts.]
8 ADM: [no],
. . .
10 ADM: no theyre not.
(0.2)
11 SAM: theyre carrots!
A common type of short preferred turn shape in argumentative discourse occurs
when an utterance is a simple contradiction of the prior term (often inversion of
previous turn).
Ob2. 8
8 PAU: i had it a while ago.=
9 WI N: =no you did[nt].
Ob2. 14
7 DON: [one] oclo:ck (0.4) yea::h (.) its one oclock.
(0.2)
8 TOM: no its not.
Church Book.indb 70 13/01/2009 12:11:38
Peer Disputes 71
Ob1. 17
1 ADM: im gonna build xxxx.
(0.2)
2 PET: oh no youre not.
(0.2)
3 ADM: yes i am.
(0.2)
4 PET: no.
Ob1. 23
7 SAM: dont you like your mummy.
8 LUK: yes i do.
Ob1. 28
26 JON: well dont break my house (0.8) coz (0.2) its
(0.3) very
speci al [ what i made] .
27 CHE: [is not]?
Ob1. 34
3 PET: no Im not
(0.2)
4 ADM: yes you are
Ob2. 24
3 BRI: yours is yuck (.) Gary
4 GAR: no it isnt
Criticism of the previous speaker was also made in one-word utterances with little
or no pause.
Ob1. 14
4 SAM: =i was trying to bal[ance it].
5 LUK: [tst oh] oh [oh oh no: ]. ((whining))
6 SAM: [i was trying to balance] i:t=
7 LUK: =NAUGHTY!
Opposition stated directly
As demonstrated in the examples above, preferred turn shape can be identifed by
both brevity of response and absence of delay. A third feature of preferred status
is found in the directness of the utterance, as the turns purpose is stated overtly
(essentially achieved through contiguity and brevity). In argumentative sequences,
then, clarity of intention can be identifed where the opposition is not only stated
Church Book.indb 71 13/01/2009 12:11:38
clearly, but specifcally at the beginning of the turn (given that the illocutionary
intent in dispreferred turns is typically delayed).
The most striking examples of direct and overt opposition being performed at
the beginning of the turn are found when the adversative response is a single-word
utterance.
Ob1. 6
2 TES: [no: i need r]e:d (0.3) coz i like that colour
as wel l .
3 J ON: NO:
4 SAM: no:.
Ob2. 18
3 SIM: plea:se can i have it.
(0.2)
4 GAR: n:o:.
Ob2. 9
5 PAU: 0 ((%act: continues to touch blocks))
6 LOU: do:nt!
Ob2. 12
3 LOU: 0 ((%act: knocks another set of blocks))
4 WI N: DO:NT!
Ob2. 15
1 MIR: i cant hea:r it.
%act: fddles with buttons
(0.2)
2 PAU: hey.
Ob2. 21
4 NIG: youre not allowed to go outside,
5 SIM: yea:h
These single word items used to challenge the prior turn serve as opposition
markers, because they function as immediate and overt indicators of challenge to
the prior speaker. Not only are these opposition markers heard as demonstrably
argumentative, their placement must also be considered. In relation to the directness
of opposition, the signifcance of the initial position in the utterance should be
emphasised. Evidently, if the frst word of a turn is an opposition marker (such as
no) the turn is immediately recognisable as one of dissension.
Church Book.indb 72 13/01/2009 12:11:39
Peer Disputes 73
Ob1. 9
2 TES: take everything (out),=
3 JON: =not the-,
4 TES: 0 ((%act: continues packing up the boats))
5 SAM: NO (0.5) leave it here!
Ob1. 18
9 KOY: [see (.) $yo:u] did it$.
(0.2)
10 TES: NO:: I DIDN:T.
Ob1. 21
1 PET: 0 ((%act: picks up a few blocks which are on the
ground near CHE))
2 CHE: dont br eak our s Pet er ?
Ob2. 24
4 GAR: no it isnt
Ob1.30
15 LUK: J ohn di d i t .
16 J O2: no t he [ t abl e done i t ] .
The attention-getting device hey (McTear, 1979) also functions as an opposition
marker:
Ob2. 25
On one occasion in the data, however, the item hey served as an indicator or
marker of compromise (the distinction made by different intonation). When Paul
proposed an alternative solution to circumvent opposition from another speaker, it
was prefaced with hey.
Ob2. 25
13 PAU: hey t hat can be bot h of ou: r s.
(0.3)
14 JIM: yeah.
Elsewhere, although an opposition marker does not appear in utterance-initial
position, the opposition is clearly exhibited. In the next-turn positioning, the
speaker explicitly rejects the prior turn.
Church Book.indb 73 13/01/2009 12:11:39
Ob2. 3
11 TOM: youre (.) youre (0.3) youre tricking me:.
(0.2)
12 GAR: i am not!
Ob1. 12
18 ADM: [yes they do:].
(0.2)
19 LUK: ((sing song voice)) the:y do: no:t.
Ob1. 18
%act: blocks knocked (acidentally) off shelf by KOY
1 SAM: o:hh[h huh huh huh] [[huh huh,]]
2 KOY: [hah hah hah,]
3 TES: [[THATS]] (.) VERY NAUGHty.
. . .
40 ADM: you Miss Mu:shroom?
41 TES: IM NOT A MISS [MUSHROOM] IM [TE::SS].
Ob1. 27
6 CHE: no i didnt.
7 FEL: yes i did i hear you.
In each of the examples above, features of preferred utterances have been identifed
in the childrens arguments, specifcally brief and direct turns being produced
without delay, that is, contiguously to the prior action or utterance. These turns
shaped were heard persistently and consistently throughout the disputes. Each of
these features is typifed in the following sequence of preferred turn shapes:
Ob1.30
8 JON: it wasnt (0.2) it was that John.
9 JO2: i wa- i didnt do that.
10 FEL: yes you did.
11 JO2: no [i didnt].
12 LUK: [you did] so:!
13 J O2: di d no: t .
Preferred turn shapes, then, are omnipresent in adversative discourse in preschool
peer interaction. Having identifed the prevalence of preferred features, it needs to
be established if these features are performed consistently throughout the data.
Church Book.indb 74 13/01/2009 12:11:39
Peer Disputes 75
Atypical preferred turn shapes?
As discussed and exemplifed throughout this chapter so far, preferred turn-shape
is refected in the immediacy (no inter-turn delay), brevity and directness of the
utterance. Although these features are recognised as a taxonomy of preference, they
are not always produced cohesively or uniformly in the childrens argumentative
episodes. Or rather, preference organisation in these disputes does not entirely
emulate preference features in adult speech. The audio recordings reveal otherwise
preferred turn shapes (brief, direct opposition) occurring after pauses. Similarly,
turns may be made without delay, but demonstrate otherwise dispreferred features
(as discussed below).
Pauses appear between some adjacency pairs, in similar contexts to sequences
of preferred turns (i.e. those produced without signifcant delay) noted in the
examples above. One of these contexts is delay which prefaces repeats or partial
repeats of the prior speakers turn.
Ob2. 7
11 CAZ: no thats mine (i got mi:ne) mine!
(0.4)
12 ELI: its mine.
Ob2. 9
8 LOU: ((to WIN)) Pauls spoiling- (0.3) ((to PAU)) we
were here f:rst.
(0.5)
9 PAU: we were here frst.
Ob2.20
9 GAR: then (you cant) come to my party.
( 2. 7)
10 ROB: i >dont wanna come to your< party.
Pauses were also found to occasionally preface repeats of the speakers own earlier
utterance.
Ob1. 17
(0.2)
(0.2)
3 ADM: yes i am.
(0.2)
Church Book.indb 75 13/01/2009 12:11:39
4 PET: no.
(0.8)
5 ADM: i am.
Ob1. 4
4 TES: its my song too: and its not your song.
(0.2)
5 HIL: it is my song.
(0.5)
6 TES: NOT YOUR: SONG.
Ob2. 24
4 GAR: no it isnt
(0.4)
5 BRI: yes it is.
(1.0)
6 GAR: NO IT ISNT.
Of primary interest here is the considerable shift in volume after the delay. It could
be suggested that a marked change in prosody signifes novel content, perhaps
accounting for the slight delay, yet no pause occurs prior to the shouted turn in line
18 in Ob1.28 (presented earlier in this chapter). The data also revealed examples of
delay occurring before otherwise preferred format turns which overtly contradicted
the prior speaker, providing no new content to support the contradiction.
Ob2. 3
6 GAR: im going befo:re lunch.
(1.0)
7 TOM: no you are::nt.
Ob1. 4
13 TES: its not you:r song too::
(0.2)
14 HI L: i t i s.
(0.4)
15 TES: no:.
Ob2. 5
2 LOU: you di d i t .
(0.4)
3 ELI: no i didnt?=
Church Book.indb 76 13/01/2009 12:11:39
Peer Disputes 77
Ob2.10
23 PAU: i didnt i didnt even make a building.
(0.5)
24 JIM: yes you di:d
Ob1. 12
6 ADM: you HAFta SHARE.
(0.6)
7 LUK: NO: ?
(0.6)
8 ADM: yeah but the teacher says (0.4) share.
(0.5)
9 LUK: NO: ?
Ob1. 17
13 ADM: yeah BUT YOU HAVE TO.
(0.8)
14 PET: no.
(0.3)
15 ADM: .hh NO BUT YOU HAVE TO SHARE.
( 1. 1)
16 KOY: NO.
Ob1. 18
22 TES: [i i] i didnt do it did i Nancy?
( 1. 1)
23 KOY: yeah you did it i did[nt].
Ob2. 19
( 1. 3)
10 SIM: no it isnt.
Ob1. 22
(0.2)
3 KOY: BECAUSE YOURE NOT PACKING UP.
(0.6)
4 ADM: yes i am.
Church Book.indb 77 13/01/2009 12:11:39
The relative frequency of atypical turn shapes, however, is of less interest to
us here, as although these turns are prefaced by a pause, the turns are explicitly
oppositional because the objection of the speaker is clearly on display. Of
most relevance to establishing the role of preference organisation in childrens
verbal disputes is the relationship between confict outcomes and the sequential
organisation of the talk-in-interaction. The turns above are perhaps atypical
only in comparison with preference features noted in adult speech. Indeed, it may
turn out that prefatory delays are not infuential in the preference organisation
of childrens disputes. The sequential positioning of these turn shapes will be
considered further in Chapter 6.
Multi-party disputes
Before moving on to illustrating dispreferred turn shapes heard in the childrens
disputes, some comment needs to be made regarding the number of speakers
involved in the examples provided thus far. Not all disputes are restricted to two
parties, and the infuence of more than two participants on the structure of confict
episodes is acknowledged. It has been argued (Maynard, 1986a) that multi-party
disputes should not be represented as two-party disputes with additional speakers,
as new speakers may align themselves with an original speaker by introducing a
novel contention.
Whilst it is recognised that a third speaker may attempt to add his/her own
agenda, in the present data the addition is usually aligned with one existing position
or another. So while more than two speakers may present more than two points of
contention, these points are typically directed to one of the two opposing positions.
In the sequential organisation of multi-party disputes then, there are essentially
two sides. Whilst the individual form of opposition may vary (multiple speakers
on the same side) it is nevertheless unilateral opposition to the other (antipathetic)
position. Furthermore, there is little room for peer mediators in disputes between
four-year-olds.
7
Typically, external participants either align themselves with either
opposing party or remain neutral and therefore outside the dispute.
In Ob1.17 below, for example, Peter solicits support from Sam and Koyo
(who are also playing with the blocks, and are overhearers up until this point).
Koyos response (line 10) is not only collaborative, it is content-tied to Peters
earlier taunt. Koyos subsequent turn (line 12) is a faithful repeat of Peters prior
opposition (line 11).
Ob1. 17
6 PET: im gonna get all of these (0.4) little blocks,=
%act: PET starts removing blocks from shelf.
7 There are exceptions in specifc cultural settings, e.g. the ritualised role of a third
party in resolving standoffs (brogez) between Israeli children (Katriel, 1985).
Church Book.indb 78 13/01/2009 12:11:39
Peer Disputes 79
7 ADM: =yeah but YOU HAVE TO SHARE.
( 1. 5)
8 PET: but were not gonna share with our toys [are we]
%com: PET is addressing SAM and KOY.
9 ADM: [yeah but] you [HAVE to].
10 KOY: [>we dont want to share] with [you<.]
11 PET: [ NO. ]
(0.2)
12 KOY: no.
In relation to the earlier sections of this chapter, the interpretation of inter-turn
pauses becomes more complex in multi-party disputes. For example, in Ob1.11
below, Cheries contradiction (line 12) may be considered an atypical preferred
turn shape due to the length of the pause preceding this short, direct rebuttal.
However, up until this point, it was Felicity who had been opposing Nancys
attempts to appropriate a fshing rod.
Ob1. 11
4 NAN: [i wan] i wanna tu:rn (0.7) i wanna turn of that.
(0.4)
5 FEL: well we (0.3) got here f:rst?
(0.3)
6 NAN: we have to share (0.6) have to [share].
7 CHE: ((sings quietly to herself)) [get the] little
fshies out
(0.2) in the little box.
8 CHE: ( ( t o FEL) ) ( t hese [ ar e your s] ) .
9 FEL: ([fshes]),
(0.5)
10 CHE: you put them in.
( 2. 6)
11 NAN: you have to sha:re (.) dont get away.
(1.2)
12 CHE: we (.) a:re.
(0.6)
13 NAN: no youre not sharing (.) youre (0.4) taking
a long time.
( 3. 4)
The delay in this example is not necessarily heard as directly attributed to Cheries
turn, as the nominated speaker at the turn transition relevance place could be
assumed by Felicity in the frst instance, as she had been the only vocal opposer to
Nancy up until this point. Pauses in prefatory positions of preferred format turns
(in multi-party disputes) may therefore be explained by obscured speaker rights
Church Book.indb 79 13/01/2009 12:11:39
to the next turn. Where more than two children are engaged in verbal confict, the
position of next speaker is not automatically selected (given multiple hearers).
In two-party disputes, inter-turn pauses may be heard as delayed, whereas when
more than two children are engaged in the dispute the gap may indicate hesitation
of speaker selection. Inter-turn pauses, then, can be considered in light of multi-
party confguration of disputes.
Dispreferred turn shape
Having identifed preferred turn shapes in the childrens arguments, the next
stage of analysis is designed to illustrate features of dispreferred turns heard in
the audio (and video) recordings. Specifcally, the features noted in the childrens
disputes were pauses between turns, hesitation or delay markers and accounts for
opposition all identifable as characteristic of dispreferred turn shape. Although
it is the synthesis of these features that points to dispreferred turn shape, for the
purpose of analysis, each will be discussed in turn.
Delay: Pauses
As discussed in Chapter 3, the saliency of pauses occurring before dispreferred
turns signifes the delay itself as accountable or meaningful to the hearer (i.e.
something other than a preferred response may be forthcoming). However, before
attempting to interpret the signifcance of prefatory pauses in childrens disputes,
their occurrence in the data must be established. The numerous examples below,
point to the prevalence of pauses delaying turns (turns which also demonstrate
other dispreferred features).
Ob1. 8
3 JON: no (0.3) no you got my blue one.
(0.4)
4 TES: but we (0.3) but (0.5) but we are just sharing.
Ob1.10
6 JON: so dont (.) take (0.2) this (0.2) fshing rod
of f me.
(0.6)
7 TES: well Milly (0.5) Milly wants to have a turn
(0.2) ((then to MIL)) do[nt you].
8
8 It has been noted elsewhere that using address forms (stating another childs name
in the utterance) serves to align or disalign with other speakers (Aronsson and Thorell,
1999).
Church Book.indb 80 13/01/2009 12:11:39
Peer Disputes 81
Ob2. 13
2 LOU: i want to u:se (.) i was using that car.
(0.4)
3 WIN: no you were using that car.
Ob2. 2
%act : pushes CAZ as she t r i es t o ent er .
9 TOM: its a rocket ship (.) you guys.
(1.1)
10 CAZ: were playing we were playing in there f:rst
Ob1. 4
8 YYY: [Tess] are you okay?
( 1. 3)
9 TES: Hilary just said the song is hers and its not
its mi:ne.
(0.9)
10 HIL: well it is mine too:.
. . .
(0.2)
14 HI L: i t i s.
(0.4)
15 TES: no:.
(2.5)
16 HI L: i hear d i t on t he r adi o.
Ob1. 2
3 ADM: [no no no] (.) no [no] this one hasnt got any le:gs.
4 JON: [but-],
(0.9)
5 JON: but (0.3) but (0.3) but (0.2) but this one (0.3)
its not rea- the space- (.) this (0.2) were
just not ready yet.
Ob1. 6
4 SAM: no:.
(1.0)
5 TES: no i like that colour as we:ll
(0.8)
6 SAM: drop (0.2) (Johns got those) (0.7) you got those
ones Johns got these ones.
(0.9)
Church Book.indb 81 13/01/2009 12:11:40
7 TES: but (0.3) i got three coz i need (1.3) that many.
(1.6)
8 SAM: but then (0.4) John will have three (0.3) and
you dont like pink do you John.
Ob2. 7
(0.2)
(0.9)
4 ELI: well (0.5) thats- i know thats a boy.
Ob2. 9
6 LOU: do:nt!
(1.1)
7 PAU: you can still (.) fx it
Ob2.10
16 FRE: DONT (.) WRECK i:t!
(0.2)
17 PAU: i wanna make something (.) and you werent even
using it.
(1.0)
18 FRE: but i (.) i will use it later.
Ob2. 15
4 PAU: he:y dont youll break it like tha:t.
(1.2)
5 MIR: but i cant hea:r.
Ob2. 17
12 SIM: >Gary do you wanna come< to my party?
(0.8)
13 GAR: if you- (0.3) if you dont give those (0.4)
those things to me (.) you wont come to my par:ty.
Ob2.20
2 ROB: hey thats mine Gary:.
(1.2)
Church Book.indb 82 13/01/2009 12:11:40
Peer Disputes 83
Ob2. 22
4 PAU: t hat was my one i made.
(0.6)
5 NIG: well (0.2) do you know what you did to it?
Ob1. 11
(0.4)
Ob1. 12
7 LUK: NO: ?
(0.6)
Ob1. 13
2 KOY: no big cars!
(2.4)
3 ADM: yeah but Luke said i can come in.
Ob1. 16
4 SAM: no.
(1.3)
5 ADM: yeah but we have to.
Ob1. 18
(0.9)
11 SAM: Te:ss (.) too: lou:d.
Ob1. 21
2 CHE: dont break ours Peter?
(1.2)
3 PET: but we need l ot s of ( t hese) .
(1.6)
4 CHE: but but dont take o:urs.
(0.5)
5 PET: no we wont.
Ob1. 23
3 SAM: dont do that Luke.
4 LUK: i want t o cr ack i t .
(2.2)
Church Book.indb 83 13/01/2009 12:11:40
5 SAM: if you crack heads youll die: (0.3) do you
want to die:: (0.3) and then your mummy will
cr y: ?
In each of the examples above, the turn shape following (incorporating) the pause
is performed as dispreferred. Inter-turn pauses, however, are not universally
indicative of preference status. There are pauses heard in the childrens arguments
which are not necessarily attributed to dispreferred turn shape. In some instances,
for example, the speaker is not responding to the immediately prior turn, but rather
reinitiates a contention, challenge or provocation.
Ob1. 1
9 LIA: ((to the girls, teasing voice)) you cant go on
(0.4) we: ma:de i:t.
( 1. 1)
10 MIN: but cept but cept [they can go] on (.) they ca:n.
11 CHE: [but were new].
( 1. 4)
12 CHE: going.
%com: pr oduced as st at ement of i nt ent
( 1. 7)
13 FEL: me as wel l .
( 1. 5)
Ob1. 29
3 J ON: yes ( . ) she ( . ) di d.
( 1. 2)
4 J ON: Fel i ci t y di d.
( 1. 4)
5 CHE: Felicity didnt.
(0.4)
6 JON: Felicitys (0.2) shoe did it.
( 2. 6)
7 J ON: i know t hat ( 1. 6) r eal l y.
Ob1. 34
2 ADM: youre having a long turn.
(0.3)
3 PET: no im not
(0.2)
4 ADM: yes you are
( 1. 4)
5 FEL: Peters having a long turn.
Church Book.indb 84 13/01/2009 12:11:40
Peer Disputes 85
In other words, some pauses heard in the disputes are of such length as to suggest
that the prefaced utterance is not a response to the prior turn but instead a re-
initiation of the topic/confict.
Ob2. 7
(0.4)
12 ELI: its mine.
( 1. 1)
13 CAZ: then ill have these.
(3.3)
14 ELI : i wanna have (.) a gir:l (0.4) i wanna have a one
girl.
. . .
18 ELI: but i dont like that girl.
(6.8)
19 ELI : you cant have two girls. ( ( pet ul ant t one) )
Ob1. 27
8 CHE: no: i didnt say your name.
9 FEL: i know: [because you- (.) i heared].
10 LUK: [youre going to beat Che]rie arent you.
(2.2)
11 LUK: ( ( t o CHE) ) last is you.
Delay: Markers
Another delaying feature of dispreferred turns (which may or may not also be
prefaced by a pause) is markers that defer the opposition in the utterance. The
marker well appears in the data as a typical preface to or turn-initial item in
dispreferred turn shapes. Whilst in childrens arguments the marker appears in
similar position to dispreferred turn shapes recorded elsewhere (e.g. Pomerantz,
1984) and serves to render the opposition less direct, the marker does not
necessarily serve to mitigate the disagreement. In adult disagreement the marker
well can genuinely be identifed as a delay or hesitation, but this dispreference
marker is not necessarily used hesitantly in the childrens disputes.
Although there are differences noted in the use of markers in childrens
adversative discourse, they nevertheless signify dispreferred turn shape. Each turn
prefaced with a marker such as well (and indeed but as evidenced below) also
demonstrates accountability and is frequently delayed by a pause. Importantly,
turn-initial markers, do not appear in the data in short, overtly oppositional,
immediately produced and unaccounted for utterances (preferred turn shapes).
Church Book.indb 85 13/01/2009 12:11:40
Ob1. 4
1 TES: everybody can sing it (0.5) not just you.
( 4. 6)
2 HI L: well i sing my song if i want.
Ob1. 11
(0.4)
Ob1. 27
1 LUK: look (0.7) look (0.5) ((singsong voice)) i: beat
you (.) didnt I:.
(0.4)
2 CHE: well im still doing mine so (you cant xxxx).
Ob2. 7
(0.2)
(0.9)
4 ELI : well (0.5) thats- i know thats a boy.
In the following examples, each marked utterance began as a seemingly dispreferred
turn shape (given the utterance-initial marker) but was abandoned.
Ob1. 34
8 ADM: =i wanna have a turn.
9 PET: but i:m not fn(.)ished ye::t.=
10 FEL: =yeah:
(0.6)
11 PET: well .hh,
Ob2. 18
6 GAR: no (0.2) you will be- (0.3) you will (0.4) be (.)
be here (0.2) but i wont.
7 SIM: well-,
( 4. 7)
8 SIM: what time are you going ho:me?
In other utterances, the use of well serves as an introduction to a statement of
intention or statement of fact, the declaration of which serves as inherent account
for opposition.
Church Book.indb 86 13/01/2009 12:11:40
Peer Disputes 87
O1. 28
22 JON: dont break my house (.) like that!
( 1. 1)
23 CHE: [i (break) my things].
24 LUK: [how about making] (0.2) tram [tracks xxxx],
25 GGG: [this can be Winne] the Poohs house.
(0.7)
26 J ON: well dont break my house (0.8) coz (0.2) its
(0.3) very special [what i made].
Ob2. 8
9 WIN: =no you did[nt].
10 PAU: [well] im telling on you.
Ob2. 12
1 WIN: do:nt youre wrecking everything.
2 LOU: well im trying to go round.
Ob2. 16
5 PAU: i cant hear anything.
( 1. 1)
6 FRE: well i can hear i t .
Ob2. 22
9 PAU: well it doesnt need them.
Although the item well would not be labelled a hesitation marker in the
examples above (the children are not hesitant in challenging the prior speaker),
it consistently prefaces turns which demonstrate other dispreferred features,
specifcally justifcation of the speakers position (see discussion below). This
suggests that well and other markers do not always denote hesitation, but rather
that they preface qualifed opposition. Whilst dispreference markers may be
produced as a form of delay, they most signifcantly function as an indicator that
the utterance will contain some form of support for the speakers opposition. In
other discourse contexts the turn-initiator well may give little indication of what
is to follow (Schiffrin, 1985), but in childrens argumentative utterances well
performs invariably as a preface to justifed objection.
The item well also appears in childrens disputes as a preface to questions
which are not strictly argumentative, i.e. requests for clarifcation or permission.
In the frst instance, when requesting further information, the marker well is
typically produced with a degree of indignation (Ob1.30, Ob2.10, Ob2.22).
Church Book.indb 87 13/01/2009 12:11:40
Ob1.30
13 J O2: di d no: t .
(0.7)
14 J ON: well who di d t hat .
Ob2.10
3 JIM: yes he i:s.
(0.2)
4 PAU: well then (1.2) then how come youre not using it
Ob2. 22
(0.6)
5 NI G: well (0.2) do you know what you did to it?
Otherwise, well serves to mark the speakers disregard for the content of the
prior turn (e.g. Ob2.17 heard as well, you may think no, but can I break it
anyway?).
Ob2. 17
1 SIM: can i break this?
(0.5)
2 GAR: n:o.
3 SIM: well >can i have a-< can i (break this) .hhh=
In similar contexts to the item well, the marker but was also used by the children,
typically to introduce support for their opposition. The function of but has been
noted elsewhere as a boundary marker in verbal challenges. But is operating
on the action level because it marks an adversative relation between speech acts
rather than a contrast in propositions (Kyratzis and Ervin-Tripp, 1999). Similar
observations are made of the marker well.
Ob1. 1
( 1. 1)
10 MIN: but cept but cept [they can go] on (.) they ca:n.
11 CHE: [ but were new].
Church Book.indb 88 13/01/2009 12:11:40
Peer Disputes 89
Ob1. 2
3 ADM: [no no no] (.) no [no] this one hasnt got any
le:gs.
4 J ON: [but-],
(0.9)
5 J ON: but (0.3) but (0.3) but (0.2) but this one (0.3)
just not ready yet.
( 3. 6)
Ob1. 7
5 SAM: Tess (0.4) dont SNA:tch!
6 TES: but (0.3) i am doing fshing.
Ob1. 8
(0.4)
Ob1. 9
(1.0)
6 TES: b[ut we (.) we-,]
7 SAM: [leave (.) all] of them here.
Ob1.20
3 LUK: no: youre drawing on the moo::n.=
4 PET: =but t hi s i s wher e t he sun i s.
Ob1. 21
( 1. 2)
( 1. 6)
(0.5)
5 PET: no we wont.
Ob1. 25
2 KOY: its mi::ne.
(0.9)
4 SAM: [BUT i] thought you werent using i:t,=
Church Book.indb 89 13/01/2009 12:11:41
Ob1. 35
2 PET: HE::Y.
3 ADM: >yeah but< you left it here?
( 1. 3)
4 PET: but i:- (0.6) leave it there where i put it.
Ob2. 2
5 CAZ: no: we still havent fnished.
6 JAK: well [we have-],
7 MIR: [but t hat ] was our f ai r y [ spaceshi p] .
Ob2. 15
( 1. 2)
Similar to earlier examples of the item well, the marker but occasionally
prefaces requests which are not necessarily challenges to the prior speaker. In
the example below, the marker but performs slightly differently to the illocution
carried by well. A repeated request prefaced with well suggests a discounting or
disregard of the prior speakers objection (e.g. Ob2.17 above). The prefatory but,
on the other hand, suggests acknowledgement of the prior speakers opposition in
the repeated request.
Ob1. 15
4 ADM: [i got] another one of the special car?
(0.3)
5 PET: but [but can i have] this one?
The data were further analysed to determine the distribution of well and but
in the disputes, to see if children would repeat the marker used previously in the
episode by another speaker, or indeed produce the same marker themselves.
Ob1. 6
6 SAM: drop (0.2) (Johns got those) (0.7) you got those
ones Johns got these ones.
(0.9)
( 1. 6)
Whilst it was most common for the same marker to reoccur in a dispute episode, there
were examples of different turn-initial items performed later in an argument.
Church Book.indb 90 13/01/2009 12:11:41
Peer Disputes 91
Ob1.20
4 PET: =but t hi s i s wher e t he sun i s.
( 1. 9)
. . .
10 ADM: i wanna have (.) i wanna have (the) petrol truck.
11 PET: yes.
12 LUK: ((to PET)) wha- (.) well not i f you do not ( . )
not if youre gonna go on (.) on mine. ((ie. draw
on LUKs part of the paper))
(0.3)
13 PET: i wo:nt.
Ob2. 7
18 ELI : but i dont like that girl.
. . .
20 ELI: well thats the boy and i hate boys.
A fnal, striking use of the marker but was frequently produced by one of the
boys in the frst observation environment. Adam usually produced the marker
but prefaced with yeah, with no produced on one occasion. In the recorded
interaction, this particular turn opening was produced idiosyncratically by this
child (with the exception of Peter in Ob1.15, line 12 who is responding to Adam).
Although essentially limited to Adam in the present study, this yes, but preface
has been recorded in preschool dispute data elsewhere (e.g. Sheldon, 1996: 65).
Ob1. 12
Ob1. 13
Ob1. 15
10 ADM: [yeah but] but ah (0.2) coz i dont have a- but
i dont have a trai:ler.
. . .
12 PET: [ no but i : ] but i : want ( . ) one of t hose.
( 1. 2)
13 ADM: yeah but i (.) but i dont have any more.
Ob1. 16
3 ADM: yeah but (0.6) we need those (.) .hhh coz (0.2)
.hh this is- (0.2) how bout we make creche Sam
. . .
Church Book.indb 91 13/01/2009 12:11:41
. . .
12 ADM: =yeah but (0.2) but thats the river you remember
that (.) .hhh thats the river.
Ob1. 17
(0.8)
14 PET: no.
(0.3)
Ob1. 26
10 ADM: [yeah but i] but i just have to show you because-,
Ob1. 35
The context and content of each of the turns above indicate that yeah but
essentially has the same function as the marker well in each dispute. That is, the
turn-initial phrase indicates that the content of the prior content was heard but is
about to be contradicted (cf. the acknowledgement implied by the marker but on
its own).
Opposition delayed and justifed
In summary, delays (pauses and/or markers) at the beginning of responses serve
to push oppositional content further into the turn. Earlier in this chapter, it was
demonstrated that in preferred turn shapes, the opposition is usually made overtly
at the beginning of the turn. In contrast, dispreferred turn shapes illustrate the
deferral of opposition in the utterance through the inclusion of prefatory delays.
Ob1. 2
(0.9)
just not ready yet.
Ob1.20
( 1. 3)
8 LUK: then im - (0.5) well then (.) i wont let you
have a turn on (0.2) the petrol truck.
Church Book.indb 92 13/01/2009 12:11:41
Peer Disputes 93
Ob1. 35
( 1. 3)
Ob2. 17
(0.8)
Atypical dispreferred turn shapes?
It has been established that in the childrens disputes, dispreferred turn shapes are
characterised by delay (pauses and markers) and action pushed to latter part of turn.
The data were analysed further to determine if these turn shapes were produced
consistently (i.e. uniformly displaying these features). This process demonstrated
that accounts (discussed in detail below) are occasionally produced immediately
as a form of opposition.
Ob1. 19
3 LUK: i saw you: put one away=
4 SAM: =that doesnt matter cause it wasnt a block it
was a cyl i nder .
%com: LUK makes no f ur t her comment .
Ob1. 34
14 ADM: [tha]ts a long tu:rn.
(0.2)
15 PET: ive got four more minutes (left).
Ob2. 1
3 CAZ: no: (0.3) (Ive got these).
4 MIR: then give one to me Caroline because youve got
l ot s t her e.
Ob2. 3
12 GAR: i am not!
13 TOM: you you you are so youve got a smile on your face.
In contrast to preferred turn shapes, dispreferred turn shapes are more constant in
the adversative discourse. Whilst in some cases the opposition may not be pushed
deeper into the turn (may even begin with an opposition marker such as no), the
turn shape, with hesitation, restarts, and, most signifcantly, accounts provided, is
identifable as dispreferred rather than preferred (exemplifed in episodes Ob1.15,
Church Book.indb 93 13/01/2009 12:11:41
2.18, 1.33, Ob2.5, and Ob2.7 below). That is, dispreferred utterances seek to
resolve rather than continue the dispute.
Ob1. 15
6 ADM: [that that-],
(0.2)
7 ADM: no coz that ones little tiny and (.) its got
.hhh little pieces (0.3) .hhh and you might
choke on them (0.4) .hhh [and] its (0.2) and
theres a sharp thing up the back.
Ob2. 18
5 SIM: =and then this afternoon you can make it agai:n.
Ob1. 33
3 PET: ye:s its [xx],
4 CHE: [no] (0.2) coz (0.2) frst we need to do it again
(0.3) at the start.
Ob2. 5
3 ELI: no i didnt?=
LOU: =coz you were- (0.4) you were putting (0.3) your
( . ) h: ands on i t .
Ob2. 7
(0.2)
5 CAZ: coz shes wearing pants (0.3) shes a girl?
%act: pointing to the observer
Threats in childrens arguments are also performed in atypical dispreferred
turn shape, distinguishable primarily by absence of turn-initial pauses or delay
markers. This type of utterance has a unique function in the discourse as each
threat imposes conditionality on hearers reaction. Importantly, threats share no
characteristics of preferred turn shapes discussed earlier in this chapter; they are
neither brief nor produced contiguously to the prior turn. Although not performed
in standard dispreferred turn shape, the promise of unwanted outcomes in threats
could be considered in the position of accounts.
Church Book.indb 94 13/01/2009 12:11:41
Peer Disputes 95
Accounts in dispreferred turn shapes
The examples above illustrate that pauses and markers are not only precursors
to delayed opposition, they may be readily and noticeably heard as dispreferred
features. Perhaps the most striking feature of dispreferred turn shapes, however,
is the accompanying account for opposition. A universal feature of utterances
beginning with a delaying marker, is the justifcation which is provided in the turn.
Typically, accounts serve to support the position, authority or rights of the speaker;
they provide reasons for the opposition.
In adult discourse, particularly in non-confict situations, accounts serve to
explain the absence of a preferred response. In the childrens arguments, however,
the dispreferred turn shape constitutes a mitigating move in the confict episode.
Essentially, accounts are recognisable as mitigation given that each represents
an attempt by the speaker to make the request to the hearer [or, in this case,
opposition] more palatable (Fraser, 1980: 346). The inclusion of an account or
justifcation proves of particular signifcance in the childrens disputes. Before
considering their infuence, however, the types of accounts must be identifed. The
purpose of this section, then, is to describe the variety of accounts produced as
justifcations for opposition.
Not surprisingly, the categories of accounts generated in the analysis share
features with the taxonomy of types of arguments discussed at the beginning of
this chapter. Parallels can be seen with possession (objects) as a dispute topic and
ownership rights as a form of justifcation. Accounts which invoke expectations of
appropriate behaviour mirror argument topics provoked by supposed infractions
of local rules. Similarly, the theme of disputes regarding truth values is replicated
in the category of accounts where justifcations are based on factual information.
Elsewhere, accounts are produced as epistemological or factual claims, or based on
the personal wishes of the speaker. It should be noted that the categories proposed
below are designed to facilitate description of accounts heard in the data rather
than provide rigid classifcation boundaries.
Volition, necessity and personal preference
This category incorporates accounts which overtly state the personal wants and
needs of the speaker. The justifcation for opposition may be realised through
stating volition (I want), necessity (I need) or personal likes and dislikes. Each
of these types of accounts may represent the position of the individual (I), or
the speaker may claim to speak for the desires or wishes of his or her playmates
(we). These types of accounts are inherently subjective, as the speakers own
wishes serve as the basis for opposition.
Accounts which are based on personal volition promote the wants of the
speaker as a justifcation for opposition.
Church Book.indb 95 13/01/2009 12:11:41
Ob1.10
8 SAM: [well i:] want to have a turn?
Ob2. 4
Ob1. 15
12 PET: [ no but i : ] but i: want ( . ) one of t hose.
Ob1. 23
This type of account may also be expressed as a negative by identifying the prior
actions of the hearer as antipathetic to the wishes of the speaker.
Ob2. 17
10 GAR: [i dont want] those jets (going) off.
The speaker may claim to represent the wishes of those children aligned with her/
his position in the dispute. In the following examples the intent is realised through
verb negation, as in the utterance above, and employing a plural subject pronoun.
Ob1. 17
Ob1. 26
12 TES: we dont want to hear the doggie doggie.
On one occasion in the data, the speaker claims to represent the wishes of
another child, and uses this attributed desire as an account for her own opposition
(attempting to gain possession of the other fshing rod).
Ob1.10
The second type of account included in this category is based on claims of
necessity. As with accounts of volition, the need may be stated as belonging to the
individual or to the party with shared interests in the disputes.
Ob1. 6
7 TES: but (0.3) i got three coz i need ( 1. 3) t hat many.
Church Book.indb 96 13/01/2009 12:11:41
Peer Disputes 97
Ob2. 25
8 PAU: youre cheati:ng i need o:ne. ((whining))
Reference to necessity was, however, more frequently attributed to more than one
child (i.e. the speaker and aligned participants).
Ob1. 16
Ob1. 24
2 RON: [no tha-] (0.3) we need t ha: t
Ob1. 33
(0.3) at the start.
Ob1. 21
The necessity claim may also be negated (as observed in the category of personal
volition) to form an account.
Ob1. 31
Ob2. 11
5 FRE: we dont need them do we?
Ob2. 22
9 PAU: wel l it doesnt need t hem.
In Ob2.22, the speaker attributes the need to the object (a tower the topic of the
dispute), which does not require Nigels additions, according to Paul. On one other
occasion (Ob1.12) the need is attributed to a second party, in this case to the hearer
himself. There is evidence, then, that an appeal to necessity is used in attempts to
persuade the other participant(s) to construct the play in a way which conforms to
the wishes of the speaker.
Ob1. 12
2 ADM: no you need to make a hu:ge house.
Church Book.indb 97 13/01/2009 12:11:41
The third type of account in which the personal wishes of the speaker are overtly
stated refers to personal preference. To avoid confusion with the theoretical
concept of preference employed in the analysis, this reference to personal choice
is identifed as likes/dislikes. Only one utterance was heard in the data where the
speaker stated a partiality as a justifcation for her objectionable actions. In this
instance, the personal like is stated as an account for needing the red fsh.
Ob1. 6
2 TES: [no: i need r]e:d (0.3) coz i like t hat col our
as wel l .
It was more common for children to claim an antipathy as an account for their
opposition. Indeed in response to the previous example, to secure possession of
three boxes, Sam points to the dissatisfaction of his play partner.
Ob1. 6
you dont like pi nk do you J ohn.
Elsewhere this negative construction was performed in the frst person to express
displeasure.
Ob1. 11
25 NAN: D[O::NT (.)((whimpers)) i dont] like i t .
Ob1. 31
23 SAM: [i (.) dont](.) like that=
It should be noted that this represents a typical response when a child is
encouraged to use your words by a teacher. Children are instructed to express
their disapproval of another childs behaviour if it bothers them (I dont like
it when you ). The offending child is instructed to listen to their playmate,
thereby recognising their own behaviour as an infraction of sorts. They may be so
instructed, but whether this is effective in being acknowledged by the offending
party remains to be seen.
Additionally, an expression of dislike produced as an account for opposition
may be upgraded.
Ob2. 7
18 ELI : but i dont like that girl.
. . .
Church Book.indb 98 13/01/2009 12:11:42
Peer Disputes 99
Ob2. 11
3 FRE: i hate this helmet.=
One feature of expressing likes/dislikes as a type of account is that no example was
found using the frst person plural subject. In other words, the children were not
heard to say we like or we dont like. In this way, liking performs differently
from the other inculcations of personal motivation (i.e. volition, necessity),
where the speaker may make claims on behalf of other children (e.g. we need).
Although in one of the examples above (Ob1.6) a child claims to speak on behalf
of his friend, there was no evidence that personal likes/dislikes are claimed by
more than one speaker. The strength or effectiveness of claims when speaking as
an individual or on behalf of other members will be considered in Chapter 6.
Ownership rights
To support an oppositional utterance, children may claim prior ownership of an
object under dispute, or invoke prior rights to the play space. As with the personal
accounts discussed above, ownership rights are attributed to the speaker, or the
speaker and his/her playmates. These accounts, whilst justifying the objection,
are sometimes produced in relatively short utterances. The length of turn is not
equated to preferred turn shape, however, as the turn accomplishes more than
simple opposition, through provision of an account.
Ob2.20
2 ROB: hey thats mine Gar y: .
Ob2. 7
An assertion of prior claim might be made by stating the ownership through a verb
phrase instead of a personal possessive pronoun.
Ob2. 8
Ob2. 16
4 FRE: ive got t hi s o: ne.
Rights to an object may also be stated by identifying how the object came to be in
the speakers possession.
Ob2. 8
Church Book.indb 99 13/01/2009 12:11:42
In the example above, the speaker asserts her own actions as suffcient to claim
ownership. External conferment of object rights is also produced as authoritative.
Ob2. 8
13 PAU: um Caroline gave it to me.
In the next utterance, Louise begins with an objection based on personal volition
(I want) but restarts with a prior claim to the object.
Ob2. 13
2 LOU: i want t o u: se ( . ) i was using t hat car .
Prior claim to ownership may be extended to assume rights to future exclusive use
of the object or space.
Ob2.10
Ownership rights can also be invoked according to equitable opportunity for
parties involved in the play.
Ob1. 6
6 SAM: drop (0.2) (Johns got those) (0.7) you got
those ones Johns got these ones.
As mentioned above, ownership rights are not inherently restricted to individual
children; speakers frequently account for their opposition by stating that the object
of the dispute belongs to their particular play group (plural possessive pronoun).
Ob1. 21
Ob2. 2
7 MIR: [but that] was our f ai r y [ spaceshi p] .
Typically, his type of multiple ownership is claimed when referring to access
rights to a particular play space. Unsurprisingly, multiple ownership is invoked
when the play space was shared by children who subsequently, collectively (even
if only one child is vocal in opposition) challenge attempts by outsiders to access
the space. Primary rights to the play space are usually based on having occupied
the area prior to the entry (intrusion!) of other children.
Ob1. 11
Church Book.indb 100 13/01/2009 12:11:42
Peer Disputes 101
Ob2. 9
8 LOU: ((to WIN)) Pauls spoiling- (0.3) ((to PAU)) we
wer e her e f:rst.
Ob2. 2
2 MIR: Jack <we were playing in tha:[:t>]. ((whines))
. . .
This prior claim (Ob2.2) to the play space is further accounted for in Carolines
subsequent turn (11), as she provides an explanation for their absence (an absence
which, in her opinion, does not forgo access rights to the play space).
Ob2. 2
11 CAZ: and then were just next to there (0.3) and we
got some fr:st [and we] just went to get
mar r i ed.
Accounting for opposition by stating ownership rights is also realised in the
childrens disputes by the speaker identifying him/herself as architect. In other
words, rights to an object may be assumed if the speaker was involved in the
construction of the object in dispute.
Ob1. 1
Ob1. 16
9 SAM: but its my bui:ldi:ng (.) i: did this bridge.
Ob2. 17
4 GAR: =NO NO: (0.3) (no i built it) dont!
Ob2. 22
Accounts are not limited to invoking personal or group rights to objects or play
space. Challenges may also be justifed by negating the opposing partys ownership
rights.
Ob1. 17
18 ADM: THEY ARE NOT YOU:R BLOCKS.
Church Book.indb 101 13/01/2009 12:11:42
Ob1. 31
24 ADM: =NO THATS YYYs. ((YYY is the teacher))
Ob1. 35
Properties of objects, play space and play script
Opposition is made by children in both observation environments by producing
accounts which refer to properties of objects, space and the state of play. Each
of these sub-categories will be defned in turn through examples heard in the
data. The frst type of property account or justifcation is one based on identifying
features of the object, which challenges the authority of the other speaker, or at
least the validity of their perception of the object under dispute.
Ob1. 2
l e:gs.
Ob1. 3
6 ADM: no thats a- thats got ehhm no only jets and
rockets.
Ob2. 7
In the following example, Adam provides an elaborate account for his refusal of
Peters request. The refusal is based on the unsuitability of the car for Peters use
(as he may choke on the little pieces).
Ob1. 15
Clarifying or re-defning the properties of the object also serves as an account for
opposition.
Ob1. 19
was a cyl i nder .
Church Book.indb 102 13/01/2009 12:11:42
Peer Disputes 103
Properties may also be incorporated into accounts where they refer to the play
space or the play script. In other words, children may justify their opposition
by stating criteria or constraints imposed by the local play context. The content
and force of these types of accounts is varied. In the following two examples,
properties of the play space (restricted play space in Ob1.3 and identity of play
space in Ob1.28) are used as reasons for exclusion.
Ob1. 3
8 ADM: no: cause (0.3) rockets are not allowed to come
in (.) only (0.4) a rocket and a jet (0.4) cause
theres no space in t her e.
Ob1. 28
12 JON: no it doesnt (.) its a different sort of house.
The following utterance depicts a property of the play script itself which serves as
an account for the speakers challenge.
Ob1. 33
2 CHE: [no] (0.3) theres no baby in this one.
The third type of property account groups together utterances which incorporate
justifcations based on the state of play. These include accounts which state the
time constraints of the play.
Ob1. 34
Ob1. 2
just not ready yet.
In Johns account (Ob1.2, line 5), he hesitates to organise his own supporting
evidence, and eventually settles with were just not ready yet. The point to be
emphasised here is that J ohn makes a revision of the spaceship not being ready,
and attributes that unreadiness to both himself and Adam.
In the following accounts which refer to the state of play (emphasis on
temporal limitations), the speaker alludes to a reasonable point of conclusion of
play (reasonable according to the promotion of his or her own interests!). This
type of account recurs in the data.
Church Book.indb 103 13/01/2009 12:11:42
Ob1. 32
4 KOY: the show is fnished (0.4) Sam the (.) .hhh show
is fnished Sam you cant - (0.2) [now you],
Ob1. 34
Ob2. 2
The play state is also monitored by identifying roles and actions assumed by
participants in the course of play as accounts for behaviour. Most of these accounts
serve as a justifcation (clarifcation) of the activity itself.
Ob1. 6
Ob1. 26
2 CHE: no we are not singing that song,=
Ob2. 5
5 ELI: no .hh coz i was helping with Hilary.
Ob2. 12
. . .
5 LOU: well im trying to get through and you put so
many things here.
In the next example, Sam accounts for his objection by clarifying the mode of the
play situation (were just pretending).
Ob1. 9
9 SAM: leave- (1.5) i know that (0.4) but were just
pretending (.) and leave (0.3) the boats (0.4)
out (0.4) you can put the fshes in (0.2) but
(0.3) uh (0.4) not the boats.
Behavioural obligations
The accounts identifed in this category contain references to behavioural constraints
or obligations to support opposition. Each challenge is essentially based on
criticising the appropriateness of the others actions. These accounts may be seen as
underscoring a breaking of rules, rules which relate to expectation of behaviour.
Church Book.indb 104 13/01/2009 12:11:42
Peer Disputes 105
Ob2.20
7 ROB: [[you cant take it FROM SOMEONE ELSE]]!
Ob2. 15
Ob2. 5
4 LOU: =coz you were- (0.4) you were putting (0.3) your
Ob1. 7
9 SAM: but (0.5) she did it f:rst.
The previous example (Ob1.7) refers to an infringement made by the other speaker.
That is, if Sams behaviour is deemed unacceptable, so too must the actions (taking
boxes) of Tess.
Other types of accounts which appear in this category denote broader social
expectations or behavioural constraints. In Ob1.5 a challenge is made to Tess
maturity, as her behaviour is criticised as ill-mannered (rude) and inappropriate
for her age. In Ob1.23 the opposition is accounted for by identifying the
consequences of Lukes actions (hitting his own head with a block).
Ob1. 5
4 SAM: ((serious tone)) Tess: (0.3) [its rude].
. . .
7 SAM: babies say that sort of thing?
Ob1. 23
want to die:: (0.3) and then your mummy will cry:?
Children may also employ local rules to support their position or challenge to
the prior speaker. In the following example, Koyo accounts for his objection by
referring to rules established by the teacher (i.e. pack-up time).
Ob1. 22
Similarly, the rules imposed by the teacher which comprise the routine of the
preschool environment feature in the following example.
Church Book.indb 105 13/01/2009 12:11:42
Ob2. 21
2 NIG: no youre not allowed to
(1.0)
3 SIM: wha:t?
(0.3)
Ob1. 19
2 SAM: leave them there (0.3) Adams (.) Adams in
charge of putting them away (0.3) Luke?
The most common type of account which challenges forms of acceptable behaviour,
invokes the rule of sharing. Common expectation both within and outside the
preschool dictates that children are obliged to share resources, typically toys, with
other children. This type of account was prevalent in dispreferred turn shapes
produced by children in the frst observation environment.
Ob1. 17
Ob1. 8
2 TES: no: we are sharing John?
. . .
Note the use of the mitigating just in Tess second (successful) attempt. This item
is used in Ob1.2 with similar effect.
In the example below (Ob1.11), in response to the previous turn which
claimed prior ownership, Nancy negates the claim by invoking the common rule
of sharing
Ob1. 11
(0.3)
As found with justifcations based on ownership, occasionally an account
constitutes the entire turn.
Ob1. 12
The sharing rule is upgraded discussed further in Chapter 6 where the obligation
is underscored by reference to teacher instructions.
Church Book.indb 106 13/01/2009 12:11:42
Peer Disputes 107
Ob1. 12
A sharing rule may even be invoked where the rule is not overtly stated but implied
by drawing attention to another childs excessive property.
Ob2. 1
l ot s t her e.
Ob2. 7
19 ELI: you cant have two girls. ((petulant tone))
Epistemological accounts
This description of accounts produced by children in the disputes may appear
to serve as an other category, an amalgamation of justifcations which do not
share features of the accounts identifed in the previous four categories. Closer
attention, however, delineates each of the utterances below as referring to claims to
understanding, or facts or truths which may be verifed. Challenges to the previous
speaker, then, may be accounted for by supplying factual information.
Ob2. 14
10 TOM: its not thats ten oclock.
Ob1.20
4 PET: =but this is where the sun is.
While the previous two examples refer to stable facts to justify their opposition,
the following utterances report others behaviour as factual evidence.
Ob2. 23
9 NIG: yeah i did (0.2) >you didnt< see us
Ob2. 3
13 TOM: you you you are so youve got a smile on your face.
The speakers own knowledge of events is also invoked as an account for opposition.
Ob2. 18
be here(0.2) but i wont.
Church Book.indb 107 13/01/2009 12:11:42
Occasionally, accounts refer to external authority for the opposition, challenging
the claim of the prior speaker.
Ob1. 4
The authority need not be an extraneous (non-present) third party as in the previous
utterance, but can be localised to the preschool where the agent is another child
or the teacher.
Ob1. 13
Ob2. 4
4 JAK: the the teacher said i will do it.
In the following turns, the speaker invokes knowledge as a form of justifcation
for their opposition. These types of epistemological expressions (I know but)
have been reported elsewhere as mitigating devices in confict situations (Walton,
2000).
Ob2. 4
5 LOU: no:w (.) i know which day (0.2) and i can do it=
Ob2. 7
A variety of accounts with disparate referents, then, have been identifed in the
data. A constant feature of dispreferred turn shapes, accounts have been grouped
here as stating personal wishes, claiming ownership rights, referring to object
properties, invoking behavioural obligations or making epistemological or factual
claims. Whilst dispreferred turns are not always prefaced with delay markers or
pauses, a justifcation is always provided and distinguishes a dispreferred from
a preferred turn shape. As accounts are the most salient (and probably most
persuasive) feature of dispreferred turns, they will be considered further, in the
extended sequential context of the disputes, throughout Chapter 6.
Prevalence of preference features
The summary of analysis in this chapter has demonstrated the prominence of
preference features in the childrens disputes. Preference features described
in existing conversation analytic research (e.g. Pomerantz, 1984) have been
identifed throughout the data confrming the validity of investigating preference
Church Book.indb 108 13/01/2009 12:11:43
Peer Disputes 109
organisation in verbal confict. Typically, opposition is made in the childrens
disputes in one of two ways: (1) overtly in short turns or (2) in longer turns which
are often delayed and always accompanied by a reason for opposition. It remains
to be seen how these features are treated by the hearer. If there is an overriding
discourse preference for confict to continue, turn shapes must be considered in
light of dispute outcomes (as defned in Chapter 5).
A particular fnding reported in this chapter is the inconsistency of pauses as
dispreference markers. Turns which demonstrate preferred features are occasionally
prefaced by this form of delay (not only in multi-party disputes), and, in some
instances, dispreferred turns are produced contiguously to the prior utterance. The
disparity of inter-turn pauses in otherwise preferred and dispreferred turn shapes
suggests that this feature is not necessarily indicative of preference organisation in
young childrens disputes. Whilst the signifcance of pauses has been demonstrated
in adult speech, the present analysis indicates that this type of delay is not
consistently indicative of a specifc turn shape in childrens adversative discourse.
If inter-turn pauses, then, are not necessarily attributed to preference organisation
in childrens arguments, the signifcant features, those that infuence the sequential
or serial development of disputes, need to be identifed. The primary analysis
presented in this chapter suggests that it is accounts or justifcations accompanying
opposition which will prove to be of fundamental import.
Church Book.indb 109 13/01/2009 12:11:43
Chapter 5
Dispute Outcomes
Introduction
The previous chapter identifed features of preference repeatedly produced
throughout the childrens disputes. In particular, the provision of accounts in
particular types of opposition turns was noted. We shall come to see (Chapter 6)
that these accounts are implicated in the resolution of disputes, but before
considering the persuasiveness of accounts in dispreferred turn shapes produced
by the children, properties of what constitutes a win in child peer confict needs
to be established. Persuasiveness is inextricably tied to the outcome of the dispute,
the manner in which the argument is brought to a close. If a child is successful in
resolving a dispute, more often than not they have been successful in persuading
(or defeating) the opposing party. But it remains to be seen how this success
realised in the data, and how resolution may be co-constructed.
It stands to reason that once an argument has begun there are only two possible
outcomes: continuation or dissipation. Once children have engaged in verbal
confict the only alternatives are to sustain the dispute or to arrive at some sort
of ending. It is the closing of disputes, then, that is of particular interest because
the continuation of confict is defned purely by the absence of a conclusion.
Throughout this chapter the analysis of the closings of the disputes is documented,
namely by distinguishing three possible closings: resolution; abandonment; and
teacher intervention. Threats as a particular type of dispute closing are discussed
in the fnal section of this chapter.
In Chapter 2, it was noted that Vuchinich (1990) identifed confict closings
as being achieved through mutual orientation, where both participants essentially
agree to move to a new topic. This agreement may be one of mutual satisfaction
or be prompted by the subordination of one partys wishes. This idea of mutual
acceptance of confict endings (distinct from mutual satisfaction) is worthy of
further consideration, particularly to distinguish types of dispute closings. Mutual
acceptance implies that some sort of resolution has been achieved, that the confict
is recognised by the involved parties as concluded (even where one party may
be dissatisfed with the outcome). However, disputes may also come to an end
without overt acknowledgement by either party a cessation of disputing despite
any clear conclusion. I describe acceptance of the outcome as resolved, and
unacknowledged dissipation as abandoned. The differentiation between these two
outcomes will become apparent in the following discussion of dispute endings.
The fundamental distinction between resolution and abandonment of disputes
lies in the maintenance of established play partnerships. That is, children continue
Church Book.indb 111 13/01/2009 12:11:43
to play together once a dispute is resolved but do not when a dispute is abandoned.
Alternatively, where the children are unable to orchestrate some sort of conclusion
themselves, one may be imposed through teacher intervention. One purpose of
this chapter is to defne each of these three dispute outcomes. The other purpose
is to identify turn shapes at the closing of disputes. When defning the outcome
of disputes (as resolved, abandoned or intervened), the turn shapes of the fnal
utterances will be considered.
Resolution
Close attention to the endings of disputes reveals a set of outcomes which can be
described as resolved. In resolved episodes, a clear conclusion of the argument is
arrived at, one which is mutually acceptable to all participants. As almost half of
the disputes recorded in both observation environments were heard as resolved,
outright resolution appears more common than has been suggested by existing
research (e.g. Goodwin, 1982). Difference in age of participants and categorisation
of outcomes, however, may infuence the proportion of recognisably resolved
disputes in other studies.
Essentially, three types of resolution have been identifed in the childrens
arguments. The frst is characterised by the overt success of one party, imposed
upon the other party (compatible with Vuchinichs (1990) category of submission).
The second type of resolution is brought about where an alternative proposal is
accepted or a conditional agreement is made (identifed by Vuchinich (1990) as
compromise). The third type of resolution is marked by an absence of response,
realised through silence, and making no further opposition but continuing with
co-operative play. The only resolved outcome in the data which does not belong
to one of these three types was heard where a technical solution to the problem
existed see Ob2.15 below.
Ob2. 15
6 PAU: 0 ((%act: turns the control button for MIRs
headset ) ) ( 1. 6)
7 PAU: now you can hear
Win/loss outcome
A form of resolution identifed as a distinct win/loss outcome arises when one
child is successful in imposing his or her wishes on another party.
Church Book.indb 112 13/01/2009 12:11:43
Dispute Outcomes 113
Ob1. 7
11 JON: its not nasty to hit (1.4) Tess now you (0.2)
cant (0.4) come (0.2) to any (0.4) birthdays.
( 1. 1)
(0.4)
(0.3)
15 TES: s[orry] Sam.
16 JON: [prop-],
%com: pl ay r esumes
Ob1.20
12 LUK: ( ( to PET)) wha- (.) well not if you do not (.)
(0.3)
13 PET: i wo:nt.
( 1. 1)
14 LUK: there you can go there. ((on the paper) )
Ob2. 17
15 GAR: you can- (0.4) leave it for me (0.3) leave it you
cant come to my par:ty.
%act : SIM places object on ground and r et ur ns t o basket
t o l ook f or ot her pl ast i c connect or pi eces.
Ob1. 23
9 SAM: then dont (0.3) then dont die yourself.
%act : LUK stops hitting his head wi t h t he bl ock.
Where the outcome of a dispute renders one party victorious, their success is
arrived at through imposing their wishes on the other, understood either in the
nonverbal acquiescence of the other party, or through vocal acceptance. Peculiar
to these episodes is the content of the utterances that precede the submission
of the opposing party. All four episodes above which close with this type of
resolution (Ob1.7, Ob1.20, Ob1.17, Ob2.23), incorporate a conditional, implied
or overt threat. In Ob1.7 J ohn denies Tess access to any birthday parties until she
apologises, properly, for hitting Sam. She complies. In Ob1.20 Luke refuses
Peter access to his petrol truck (a toy he has brought from home) unless he desists
drawing on Lukes side of the paper. Peter complies. The third example of a threat
used to resolve a dispute (Ob2.17) is less conditional, and on this occasion is only
successful as a repeat.
Church Book.indb 113 13/01/2009 12:11:43
Ob2. 17
(0.2)
14 SIM: (now) do you wanna come to my party?
(0.3)
%act: SIM places object on ground and returns to basket
t o l ook f or pi eces.
In the fourth dispute resolved by implied threat (Ob1.23), Luke stops hitting
himself on the head once Sam states that his mother will cry if he hurts himself.
Although the implied threat would be accomplished indirectly (consequence of
Lukes actions to affect a third, non-present, party) it fts the criteria of undesirable
consequence. In this and the previous example (Ob2.17), the boys comply with the
other partys wishes by acquiescing nonverbally (halting the behaviour which was
objected to by the opposer).
Resolution is also achieved in a more face-saving manner when a child agrees
with the proposal made by the prior speaker. This agreement promotes the speaker
to the role of collaborator, although it should be noted that it is the preceding
turn which creates the opportunity for collaboration. Typically, this type of
acknowledgment of the opposing position is performed with an agreement token
(e.g. yeah).
Ob1. 8
(0.4)
(0.8)
5 TES: that one goes in there [John].
6 J ON: [ yeah] oh yeah coz-,
Although an overt acceptance of Tess position is made by J ohn in line 6,
preliminary acquiescence is made to Tess claim in line 4, through an absence of
further opposition. Given that Tess goes on to make a directive in line 5, however,
the dispute is effectively resolved through Johns acceptance (line 6) of Tess
prior utterances and his decision not to restate opposition to the immediately prior
turn.
In the closing utterance of Ob1.21 the agreement token is performed as no
given the prohibition in the prior turn.
Church Book.indb 114 13/01/2009 12:11:43
Ob1. 21
( 1. 2)
( 1. 6)
(0.5)
5 PET: no we wont.
In the two episodes above, each dispute is clearly resolved through the verbal
acceptance made by the opposing party. In both episodes the objection which
is subsequently accepted is prefaced with the dispreference marker but. These
prefaced objections are based on an account of the equal or prior claim of the
speaker (see discussion of accounts relating to ownership rights, and expectation
of behaviour, in Chapter 4). Notably, the acceptance which brings about resolution
in the previous two examples is preceded by a turn that demonstrates dispreferred
features.
Modifed acceptance/compromise
The second type of resolved dispute closing incorporates a modifed acceptance
of the opposing position or introduces an alternative proposal. The frst of these
(modifed acceptance) is similar to the outcome of the previous two examples,
in that one partys position supersedes another. In this instance, however, the
acquiescing party incorporates some condition of their own. That is, disputes are
resolved where the acceptance of the others position is implied rather than overtly
stated. In these cases the child is essentially accepting the position of the other party
but imposing some of her/his own conditions. The distinction here is pertinent to
considerations of face in argumentative interaction; one child essentially submits
to anothers wishes but maintains status through her or his own contribution to the
outcome of the dispute.
An example of this modifed acceptance leading to resolution is found in
Ob2.1, where Caroline accepts Mirandas prior proposal to cooperate.
Ob2. 1
11 MIR: lets just be nice and understand okay?
( 1. 9)
12 CAZ: but we have to just type into the computer.
%com: MIR takes up this suggestion and both girls
return to playing with the keyboards in the
spaceshi p.
The dispute is essentially resolved by Mirandas non-verbal acceptance of
Carolines modifed acquiescence (line 12); that is, Mirandas assent is carried
Church Book.indb 115 13/01/2009 12:11:43
by typing on the computer keyboard. Characteristic of the utterances preceding
acquiescence in this type of resolved dispute (see also Ob1.16 and Ob1.34, see
below) is a dispreferred turn shape.
Ob1. 16
11 SAM: and these (0.3) these go over like that=
(0.3)
13 SAM: thats the river going (0.9) going u:nder it.
(0.4)
14 ADM: yes.
( 2. 7)
%com: cooperative play continues.
Ob1. 34
(0.4)
16 ADM: ((to FEL)) no i think hes got four more minutes
A dispute may also be resolved by the acceptance of a compromise. Earlier studies
have pointed to the effectiveness of compromise as a verbal strategy in disputes
(e.g. Eisenberg and Garvey, 1981), a fnding replicated in the present data. In each
instance where a compromise or alternative solution was produced, this type of
digression from confict is accepted by the other party.
Ob1. 24
1 LUK: we ca-(.) they have to join (under [there]).
2 RON: [no tha-] (0.3) we need tha:t
(0.6)
3 RON: we need that.
(0.4)
4 LUK: how about we can put it in the mi:ddle:=
5 RON: =yeah:.
Ob2. 25
10 JIM: o::y:.
(0.2)
11 PAU: l ook see: ?
(0.4)
12 PAU: no youre a chea:ter:.
(0.3)
Church Book.indb 116 13/01/2009 12:11:43
(0.3)
14 JIM: yeah.
Compromise is a successful strategy (i.e. leads to resolution) in disputes because
it is not strictly a form of opposition. By providing an alternative solution, the
speaker drops his original opposing position. Furthermore, as compromises do not
directly challenge the opposing party, an acceptance of a compromise can be made
with minimal affront to face. A shift is made from maintaining disagreement, to
proposing a novel position which may prove acceptable to all parties.
In the following two episodes (Ob1.30 and Ob2.6) the dispute is resolved
through an alternative proposal performed by a third party to the dispute.
Importantly the suggestion made by the third party is designed to address the
dispute topic directly (i.e. not a topic shift). In Ob1.30, the suggestion made by
Bill in line 30, which functions as a compromise by shifting blame from one of the
participants to an imaginative other, prompts a series of suggestions, one of which
(line 33) is acceptable to all the participants.
Ob1.30
19 JO2: the table (0.6) the table done it.
(0.7)
20 FEL: did not?
(0.5)
21 J O2: [ di d t oo: ] .
22 LUK: [did not i] s-,
23 J O2: t he t abl e [ done i t and t hen] i t st epped on
itself,=
24 LUK: [ i sa: w i t . ]
25 LUK: =i saw what happened.
( 1. 1)
26 LUK: um how did- who did it?
(0.7)
27 FEL: um [Bill who did it].
28 JON: [i dont know] who did it.
(0.5)
29 JO2: we [dont know].
30 BIL: [ma:ybe:] (0.5) maybe somebody did it xxxx[x.]
31 LUK: [it might] have been a (boy that had [xx).]
32 FEL: [ i know] who di d i t l i on di d.
( 1. 2)
33 BIL: may:be a bear came.
(1.0)
34 JON: yeah (0.3) well done.
Church Book.indb 117 13/01/2009 12:11:44
In Ob2.6, Elinor provides an alternative suggestion which removes blame from
Hilary, thereby side-stepping personal culpability for placing blocks on the foor.
Ob2. 6
6 LOU: $why di d you do t hat $.
( 2. 2)
7 HIL: im not telling you why.
(0.9)
8 ELI: maybe coz she was (0.6) (making a foor).
( 1. 5)
9 LOU: oh >shall we make a< foor?
(0.3)
10 ELI: yes (0.2) >of course we< can.
The suggestion made by a third party in Ob1.28 below, however, does not secure
resolution of the dispute (although the episode is brought to a close), as the alternate
proposal is not designed as a compromise, but rather functions as a topic shift. That
is, Lukes suggestion (line 29) does not propose a solution to the prior dispute; it
provides a novel position which is subsequently picked up by John (abandoning
the dispute by not responding to Cheries continued opposition in line 30).
Ob1. 28
27 CHE: [ i s not ] ?
(0.5)
28 JON: it is so=
29 LUK: =how bou[t i can] join my tram (0.2) rail round
t o your house.
30 CHE: [it is not].
31 JON: yes (0.5) eh (0.4) (yes good) idea.
%act: JON now becomes involved in the building with LUK.
Unlike topic shifts, compromises are tied to the prior content of the dispute and are
actively designed to bring the dispute to a close by introducing a novel but topic-
tied proposition which satisfes both parties.
Whilst each of these compromises which prompted dissolution of the
argument was prefaced by a pause and incorporated an explanation of sorts,
they do not represent typical dispreferred turn shapes because the novel content
does not function as an account. However, as preference in this context relates to
organisation of opposition, compromises could be considered as operating beyond
oppositional constraints within adversative discourse: these utterances do not
function as opposition moves because they do not challenge the prior turns, nor
the prior speaker, in the dispute.
Church Book.indb 118 13/01/2009 12:11:44
Notably, these utterances serve to redirect the focus of the dispute (not a topic
shift as a compromise is topic-tied), by proposing a position which addresses the
wishes of both parties. The acceptability of this new position within the dispute
brings about its conclusion.
Failure to respond
The third type of resolution is distinguished by an absence of response, achieved
through silence and resumption of collaborative interaction with no further
opposition. In other words, disputes may be seen to be resolved where no further
challenge is made to the prior speaker. The absence of a vocal opposition implies
silent acquiescence to whoever produces the fnal turn. A defning feature of
resolution in these episodes is that the children continue to play together after the
zero response.
Ob1. 2
just not ready yet.
( 3. 6)
Ob1. 6
(0.9)
9 JON: hmm (0.3) no.
( 4. 4)
%act: TES makes no further attempt at topic.
Ob1. 19
was a cyl i nder .
Ob1. 27
15 FEL: i didnt mean you i meant Luke:.
%com: three children continue to play together with no
further reference to this exchange.
Church Book.indb 119 13/01/2009 12:11:44
Ob2. 4
9 LOU: i know but im very gentle.
%act : put s ar r ow on Fr i day
%act: both children return to collaborative play with
connect or pi eces.
Ob2. 5
%act: LOU and ELI start rebuilding.
Ob2. 12
many things here.
%com: WI N makes no f ur t her comment .
Ob2. 13
5 WIN: that car that youve got already
%com: Lou makes no r esponse
Ob2. 14
%act: ALI then draws DONs attention back to the
spaceshi p pl ay.
Ob1. 33
7 PET: no:: weve already been (near) the start.
%com: Cher i e makes no r esponse. Par al l el pl ay cont i nues.
Ob2. 23
7 NIG: we already had morning tea:?
(0.6)
8 ROB: did not Nigel.
%act: ROB walks off to have morning tea.
As leaving the play area denotes abandonment (exemplifed in the next section
of this chapter), the local context of Ob2.23 (which determines the dispute as
resolved) should be clarifed. In this episode, Rob is trying to persuade Nigel to
have morning tea with him; as he leaves unaccompanied by Nigel, it is assumed
that Rob was unsuccessful in his attempts to secure a partner for morning tea.
Importantly, he was not playing with Nigel and Simon prior to the episode, so
resuming cooperative play does not in fact involve Rob. The argument was
effectively won by Simon, rather than characterised by the dissipation of
abandoned disputes. Consequently, the dispute was heard as resolved.
Church Book.indb 120 13/01/2009 12:11:44
The most signifcant observation to be made regarding the sequential
organisation of this type of resolved dispute ending concerns the turn shape of the
utterance which precedes the zero response. In each of the 11 episodes identifed
with this type of ending, the fnal utterance is performed in a dispreferred turn
shape. Importantly, this consistent production of dispreferred turn shape in fnal
utterances of resolved disputes occurs in both preschools. Although some of these
turns are prefaced by a pause (Ob1.2, Ob1.6, Ob2.13, Ob1.33), and some with the
marker well or but (Ob1.2, Ob1.6, Ob2.12), every fnal utterance incorporates
some type of account. As discussed in Chapter 4, it is the presence of an account or
justifcation for opposition which consistently performs as a feature of dispreferred
turn shape in childrens arguments. Dispreferred turn shapes may be prefaced by
delay, but are always accompanied by accounts.
Given that the accounts provided in the fnal turns of the episodes listed above
are met with silence (zero response) it can be inferred that either this justifcation
is accepted by the opposing party or they are unable to better the prior account.
Ob1. 19
was a cyl i nder .
Prior to this excerpt from Ob1.19, Sam has admonished Luke for putting blocks
back on the shelf (a responsibility delegated to Adam on this occasion). Luke
counters (line 3) with an accusation that Sam himself has committed the same
offence. Sams response accounts for his own actions as entirely defensible, given
that he was not interfering with the re-shelving of blocks (he returned a cylinder
to the shelf). As Luke makes no further challenge, his zero response is heard as
acceptance of Sams entitlement to replace cylindrical objects on the shelf.
Similarly, in Ob2.5 below, Elinor is successful in defending herself from
Louises censure by providing an account for her actions at the time of the event
for which she is being blamed (blocks falling down). As Louise makes no further
objection, this account is presumably heard as satisfactory.
Ob2. 5
%act : a st ack of bl ocks f al l down of t hei r own accor d.
1 ELI: Loui:se,
(0.7)
(0.4)
3 ELI: no i didnt?=
(0.3)
Church Book.indb 121 13/01/2009 12:11:44
5 ELI : no .hh coz i was helping with Hilary.
Resolution may also be achieved indirectly, effectively accommodating the claims
of the other party in the next turn without overtly acknowledging them. A child
may ignore the prior speakers contribution, yet if he/she does not actively reject
the content of this contribution, the dispute is resolved. A common feature of these
varieties of closings is that one party decides not to continue the dispute.
Ob1. 3
7 KOY: im a rocket too.
(0.5)
theres no space in there.
(0.2)
9 KOY: im a jet.
(0.8)
10 ADM: now this is gonna have a big-,
%act: KOY joins ADM and JON at the table.
Ob1. 13
14 KOY: =STO::P!
15 ADM: NO i have to stay out of the garage (0.3) (o)kay
(0.3) coz its fat.
(0.9)
16 ADM: see?
17 ADM: its got this- (0.2) its got (0.3) hard job to do.
( 2. 6)
18 LUK: ( ( to ADM)) im making one for you.
%com: Play continues and ADM is now part of the group.
In both episodes (Ob1.3, Ob1.13), each child is trying to enter an established
activity, and provides an account which qualifes him as suitable to join the play.
In Ob1.13, for example, Koyo makes no further objection to Adam parking his car
next to the garage, and appears to be reassured that Adam is not actually intending
to drive his car inside the garage. Consequently, Adam is tacitly accepted (no
continued rejections) as a member of the garage-making group.
In all three types of resolved dispute endings, the single most important
defning feature is the resumption of collaborative (or at least parallel) play. In
each of the episodes identifed as resolved, the children were able to continue
playing together once the dispute had closed. Whilst the outcome might not have
been gratifying to all involved, it was acceptable to each party, evident in resumed
shared activity. This outcome is therefore distinct from abandoned disputes where
Church Book.indb 122 13/01/2009 12:11:44
one of the participants typically left the play area or at least refrained from any
further interaction with the opposing party.
Abandonment
As discussed earlier, disputes must be resolved if conversation or interaction is
to continue. Without active resolution of a dispute, collaborative play cannot be
resumed. An outcome described here as abandonment denotes the interruption
of cooperative interaction. When an argument is not resolved by the children
themselves, or through the teacher as an arbitrator (as discussed below), the
abandonment of the argument results in the breakdown of shared activity.
Essentially, regardless of mutual satisfaction, disputes were seen to be resolved
where the outcome is mutually acceptable, that is, when the children involved in
the confict continue to play together. Where disputes were abandoned, however,
collaborative or parallel play is not resumed.
Failure to respond
Previously, failure to respond was seen as a fnal move in resolved disputes, where
a zero response (i.e. no further challenge) functioned as tacit acceptance of the
other partys position. Yet, in abandoned disputes, zero responses also mark the
end of the episode. Unlike resolved episodes, however, an absence of further
opposition in abandoned disputes precedes a breakdown in collaborative play.
Where zero responses were implicated in resolution, the participants continued
to play together. In abandoned disputes, on the other hand, one party made no
further challenge and no further attempt to engage the other party in any activity
(cf. Vuchinichs (1990) withdrawal format).
Ob1.10
9 JON: well (0.9) WELL (0.7) NObody can have (.) my
fshing rod.
(2.0)
10 TES: ((to MIL)) Mil- (.) im gonna share my: fshing rod.
(0.8)
11 JON: well (0.4) im going to share mine with Sam.
( 1. 6)
12 J ON: ( ( to girls) ) not you.
( 3. 1)
%com: Neither TES nor JON actually pass on the rods to
MIL or SAM. Eventually the teacher steps in to
allot turns to SAM and MIL who have not yet
pl ayed.
Church Book.indb 123 13/01/2009 12:11:44
Ob2. 22
%act: rebuilding (3.0)
10 PAU: dont need >all of em<.
%com: NI G does not r espond.
In both Ob1.10 and Ob2.22 the dispute is abandoned not only through a zero
response from the opposing party (i.e. Tess in Ob1.10 and Nigel in Ob2.22), but
ultimately dissipates due to no subsequent challenge from the prior speaker. In both
episodes, the fnal speaker makes a second attempt (lines 12 and 10 respectively)
to provoke the opposing party, but gives up when no response is made. Noteworthy
here is the turn shape of the fnal utterance; although preceded in each instance by
a lengthy pause, both turns are short and direct (preferred). Whilst Pauls turn in
Line 10 is based on a necessity account, it does not constitute novel content as it is
a partial repeat of his earlier utterance.
In Ob1.12 below, the abandonment of the dispute is essentially self-selected,
as Adam cuts short his own challenge in line 20 (preferred turn shape) and does
not attempt to restate his opposition. Abandonment in this instance is performed
as giving up the dispute, as Adam is not successful in establishing himself as an
acknowledged member of the garage-building group (i.e. his contribution at the
opening of the episode which prompted that dispute was consistently rejected).
Ob1. 12
(0.2)
19 LUK: ( ( sing song voice) ) t he: y do: no: t .
(0.2)
20 ADM: yes they (.) say-,
%com: LUK becomes busy constructing the garage with
other boys. ADM abandons this entry attempt.
In some cases where one party makes no further opposition (abandoning attempts
to engage in cooperative play), the prior speaker may actively state their intention
to seek play partners elsewhere.
Ob1. 15
18 PET: oka:y i will make with (0.2) Sam then ((to
ADM)) i wont be your friend anymore
(0.4)
19 PET: ( ( to SAM)) now can i have that one?
(0.9)
20 SAM: here you go ((gives car to PET) ) .
Church Book.indb 124 13/01/2009 12:11:44
The use of threats, such as used by Peter (I wont be your friend), have been
observed in the latter part of argumentative sequences in the previous section.
It was demonstrated above that threats are performed in fnal turn position of
some resolved disputes. However, threats also appear as the fnal turn in some
abandoned disputes.
Ob2.10
27 PAU: yeah (0.3) and ill break your head off.
%com: JIM and FRE ignore PAU and continue imaginative
pl ay i n t he spaceshi p.
Ob2.20
11 ROB: i dont want to come to your party anyway.
12 SIM: i dont wanna come to your party anyway either.
%com: no f ur t her r esponse.
It was also noted earlier that threats are not performed in typical opposition turn
shapes. Given the apparent absence of uniformity in form and function of threats in
dispute episodes, these turns will be discussed further at the end of this chapter.
A failure to respond resulting in abandonment of the dispute may also be
accompanied by one party physically removing themselves from the shared play
space.
Ob1. 11
16 FEL: mmm.
(0.2)
18 FEL: mmm.
(0.4)
20 CHE: put the [little fshies],
21 NAN: [you dont have] to sa:y tha:t.
(0.6)
22 NAN: you dont have to sa:y that (0.7) anyway.
( 2. 3)
23 NAN: dont say that to me (0.3) [anyway].
(0.4)
24 FEL: [MMM].
(0.5)
25 NAN: D[O::NT (.)((whimpers)) i dont] like it.
26 CHE: [fshes (0.2) theyre your fshes]
%act: CHE and FEL move with their fshing rods to the
ot her si de of t he r oom. NAN hesi t at es t hen f ol l ows.
Church Book.indb 125 13/01/2009 12:11:44
In Ob1.11 Felicity does not respond to Nancys repeated opposition (lines 19, 21,
22, and 23) until line 24. The zero response which prompts the abandonment of
the dispute, however, follows Nancys complaint in line 25. In Line 26, Cherie is
not responding to Nancy but talking (half singing) to herself. A failure to respond
leads to the abandonment of the episode on this occasion because it is accompanied
by the physical relocation of Felicity and Cherie; Felicity (and her play partner
Cherie) eventually ignore Nancys continuing objection.
Abandonment brought about by a failure to respond (ignoring) and moving
away from the opposing party may be achieved in a number of ways. Physical
removal from the shared play space can be initiated either by the fnal speaker or
the opposing party. In Ob2.11 and Ob2.21, the fnal speaker abandons his attempts
to engage or convince the other party, giving up in the frst example and defying
the challenge of the other party in the second.
Ob2. 11
6 PAU: then why dont you need them.
%com: FRE does not respond, PAU moves away.
Ob2. 21
6 NIG: no youre not,
7 SIM: i a::m?
%act: SIM opens door and goes outside.
The turn function of the fnal utterance preceding the zero response in these
abandoned utterances varies from an interrogative (Ob2.11), contradiction (Ob1.29)
to direct chastisement (Ob2.9), examples below. Yet, while the force and content
of these utterances may differ, none of these turns is performed in dispreferred turn
shape (the detailed challenge made by John in line16 in Ob1.29 does not function
as an account). Each of these fnal turn shapes is essentially preferred, in that the
opposition is direct and not accounted for, and usually performed in short turns
with no delay. Even Johns objection (line 16) in Ob1.29 below, although longer
than other fnal turns presented in this section, is produced immediately with an
opposition marker (no) occurring in word-initial position.
Ob1. 29
16 JON: no (0.2) uh (0.6) yes thats the shoe that
knocked my sp- (0.5) my wing.
%act: FEL moves away to join CHE.
Ob1. 7
23 ELI: okay (.) im getting out of here.
24 CAZ: alright?
( 1. 1)
25 CAZ: t her e you ar e?
Church Book.indb 126 13/01/2009 12:11:45
%act: throws the boy/disliked girl doll out to ELI
%com: ELI moves away from play area.
Ob2. 9
13 LOU: youre wrecking everything.
%act: PAU moves away from block area.
In sum, the difference between zero responses in resolved and abandoned disputes
lies in a distinction between unspoken acceptance (resulting in resolution) and
ignoring the opposition (abandonment). Differences are also evident in the turn
shapes of fnal utterances in these two outcomes, further discussion of which
appears in Chapter 6.
Topic shift
Dispute abandonment can also be instigated by a topic shift made by the speaker
who abandons her/his previous opposition (identifed by Vuchinich (1990) as a
standoff). In Ob1.9, for example, Sam cuts off his objection to Tess packing up
the fshing boxes, and introduces a new complaint (topic shift) after a considerable
pause.
Ob1. 9
1 TES: put the boats in there c- cause we are packing
up (.) cause the sharks coming.
(0.7)
3 JON: =not the-,
(1.0)
(0.5)
8 TES: the sharks coming.
( 1. 2)
10 SAM: cause [see (.) if people want to play with them
(0.7) they wont be ready] for them (0.2) so-,
11 JON: [look at this Sam: (0.3) look at this Sam].
( 1. 2)
Church Book.indb 127 13/01/2009 12:11:45
12 JON: $oh: you got my one (0.6) oh you got my one:$.
(1.0)
13 JON: i [got] my green one.
14 SAM: [no-],
(0.5)
15 SAM: no they all in the-,
( 3. 5)
16 SAM: and i:m waiting to have (0.2) a go:? and youre
taking (.) so (0.3) l:o:ng.
%com: JON offers one of the rods to SAM.
Abandonment and introduction of a new topic made by the same speaker (self-
selection) is also seen in the following example:
Ob2. 18
7 SIM: well-, (4.7)
%com: dialogue between the two boys shifts to
conversation about when lunchtime falls relative
to GARs departure.
In Ob2.18, the new topic (establishing what time Gary is going home) is introduced
by the same speaker (Simon) who abandoned his prior objection (line 7). Typically,
the new topic is introduced as an interrogative and the argument is abandoned
when this topic shift is taken up by another party. In other words, the topic shift
is successful when the question (new topic) is responded to by the other party.
In Ob2.19 below, for example, Gary initiates a move away from the argument
with his question in line 11. The shift is secured (and the argument subsequently
abandoned), however, through Simons tied response (line 14) to Garys repeated
question (line 13).
Ob2. 19
( 1. 3)
10 SIM: no it isnt.
(0.4)
11 GAR: when i:s it.
( 1. 4)
Church Book.indb 128 13/01/2009 12:11:45
12 SIM: Ga:ry if you- (0.7) if you let me have that one xx.
(0.3)
13 GAR: what birthday is in your- (0.4) <is in>- (0.3)
i s your s?
14 SIM: my brothers in Febru[ary].
15 GAR: [my] brother is si:x
%com: conversation topic now focuses on ages of siblings.
A suggestion produced in the form of an interrogative may also bring about
dissolution of the dispute when produced by a third party who is not directly
involved in the argument. In the next episode, J ohn picks up Lukes suggestion,
ignoring Cheries continued attempts to sustain the argument.
Ob1. 28
27 CHE: [ i s not ] ?
(0.5)
28 JON: it is so=
t o your house.
Before considering the turn shapes at the conclusion of this type of dispute, some
mention should be made as to why topic shifts are not identifed in this study as
leading to resolution. Primarily, topic shifts are not semantically tied to the content
of the dispute, and constitute a deviation from argument rather than active resolution
(cf. compromises). A topic shift does not function as a form of opposition, and, as
such, is not produced as an argumentative turn. Rather, by introducing novel, non-
oppositional content, topic shifting is a distinct non-continuation of confict. These
utterances do not directly address the topic of the dispute; neither do they directly
resolve the dispute. The argument is let go, abandoned, rather than decided in one
partys favour.
The distinction is made due to an absence of overt consensus that the dispute will
not be sustained. Where disputes are resolved, a fnite conclusion is acknowledged
either verbally or through no further opposition (the absence of reply in resolved
disputes is followed by resumption of play). Where a dispute is dropped due to a
topic shift, however, no conclusion of the dispute is reached prior to assuming the
new topic. Whilst a topic shift may be successful in closing a dispute, this does not
satisfy the criteria of resolution (as presented above). Therefore, the dissipation of
the argument through topic shift is classifed in this research as abandoned.
Church Book.indb 129 13/01/2009 12:11:45
Increasing volume
Disputes are also abandoned where an immediate rather than reciprocated escalation
in volume prompts the withdrawal of the other party. As with the episodes discussed
above, it is the physical relocation of one party that distinguishes the outcome as
abandoned rather than resolved.
Ob1. 22
6 ADM: =YES I AM.
%act: KOY walks away to collect more blocks.
Ob2. 24
5 BRI: yes it is.
(1.0)
6 GAR: NO IT ISNT.
(0.5)
7 SIM: dont worry about it Brian.
%act: BRI returns to making his own construction.
In both these episodes, the shouting which prompts the abandonment of the
dispute is delivered in a preferred turn shape. Although Garys turn in Ob2.24 is
produced after a pause (1.0), the turn itself demonstrates the preferred features
of brevity and directness. Notably, it is only one party in the dispute who uses
increased volume in his challenge to the prior speaker. In disputes where both
parties engage in trading opposition in a sequence of turns marked by escalating
volume, the dispute typically results in teacher intervention (see below). In these
two episodes (Ob1.22 and Ob2.24), however, the opposing party does not respond
to the shouted challenge of the other party, and the dispute is abandoned.
Intervention
In the previous sections, the closings described as resolved or abandoned have
been brought about by the dispute participants. The third possible dispute closing,
however, is reached through external intervention. The intervention may be
sought by the children themselves or initiated by the teacher. In the episodes
where intervention was sought by one of the participants, children appealed to the
teacher as a fgure of authority to support their own position (see Maynard, 1985a).
Notably, teacher interventions are generally seen as an avoidance rather than way
a valid strategy to resolve confict (Newman, Murray and Lussier, 2001: 398). To
this end, appeals to the teacher, and even teacher-initiated intervention, were not
heard in the beginnings of the disputes, but instead were produced when other
attempts to persuade had failed.
Church Book.indb 130 13/01/2009 12:11:45
In one dispute (Ob1.1), Cherie sought staff intervention and incorporated a
threat into her statement of intent.
Ob1. 1
33 CHE: ill go and tell the teacher.
Elsewhere, children reported their own perspective of the infringement to the
teacher.
Ob1. 31
13 SAM: ((to teacher)) theyre not [xxx].
14 J ON: AHH: HA.
15 YYY: whoopsie (you) dropped the food.
( 1. 4)
16 SAM: ((to teacher)) <hes not letting me put->,
Ob1. 32
11 SAM: [no]:. ((whines) )
%yyy: t eacher appr oaches ( 1. 6)
12 KOY: ((to teacher)) the show is fnished.
(0.2)
13 YYY: well i dont think Sam is fnished.
14 KOY: the show is fnished YYY.
A notable feature of the turns preceding these appeals for adult arbitration was their
preferred shape. The sequences of turns prior to calls for assistance are characterised
by brief, repetitive, unjustifed opposition. In Ob1.32 above, for example, Koyo
continues to repeat his position (the show is fnished) and Sams response is a
single no (or approximation) throughout the dispute. This pattern of failing to
moderate or mitigate opposition (most commonly realised through dispreferred
turn shape) was also heard in Ob1.31 and to a lesser degree in Ob1.1.
A different type of approach to the teacher was used by the children in
Observation 2, as they made a request for attention before detailing the infringement
of their playmate(s).
Ob2. 2
14 CAZ: ( ( to Teacher)) excu:se [me:].
Ob2. 8
14 WIN: excuse me [YYY].
Importantly, however, the turns preceding line 14 in Ob2.8 demonstrated similar
shapes to those noted in Observation 1. The dispute featured repetition of turns as
Church Book.indb 131 13/01/2009 12:11:45
each speaker restated their objection without any signifcant modifcation of the
turn. In this exchange of repeated objections with little novel content, making an
appeal to external authority imposes an endpoint for an otherwise interminable
cycle. Resorting to staff intervention therefore represents a stalemate among the
disputants.
Ob2. 8
1 WIN: ive got a great idea what we can do with this
( 2. 5)
6 PAU: no i had it a while ag[o]?
7 WI N: [ no] .
(0.5)
(0.7)
12 PAU: [no],
%com: Car ol i ne i s not pr esent i n t he pl ay
(0.5)
15 PAU: [Caroline] gave it to me.
%yyy: teacher intervenes but response is inaudible.
Ob2.2 (below), however, does not feature this repetition of preferred turn shapes.
Caroline and Miranda produce a number of dispreferred turn shapes in an attempt
to convince J ack and Tom that they had prior rights to the space ship as a play
space. The opposition made by the girls is accounted for, primarily by establishing
the basis of prior rights. An alternate suggestion made by Tom (line 9) is not taken
up by the other participants, and J ack does not acknowledge the girls claim to the
area. The resulting stalemate is consequently different to the outcome in Ob2.8;
external intervention is sought not due to circularity and immovability of opposition
but a failure to infuence despite providing accounts for opposition. Nevertheless,
resorting to teacher intervention constitutes a stalemate in both episodes.
Ob2. 2
1 JAK: no!
(0.2)
Church Book.indb 132 13/01/2009 12:11:45
2 MIR: Jack <we were playing in tha:[:t>]. ((whines) )
3 CAZ: [(hey] were playing with) that.
(0.3)
4 JAK: no: (.) you were over there.
7 MIR: [but that] was our fairy [spaceship].
8 JAK: [no::]!
%act : pushes CAZ as she t r i es t o ent er .
( 1. 1)
got some fr:st [and we] just went to get married.
12 JAK: [POW]!
( 2. 3)
13 J AK: ( ( to TOM)) come on!
%act: CAZ starts moving towards teacher.
15 JAK: [HEY WAIT]!
%act: JAK follows CAZ to teacher to argue his case.
In the two other instances of child-initiated intervention in Observation 2, a child
seeks confrmation from the teacher as to the validity of an assertion made by his
playmate (Ob2.3) and assistance with faulty audio headphones (Ob2.16). Neither
of these closings (appeals to teacher) represented a continuation of the dispute but
rather a supplication to an adult for verifcation and for technical assistance, which
are distinct from the complaints made in Ob2.2 and Ob2.8 above. Further attention
to dispute closings in Observation 2 highlights the complete absence (at least in
the episodes recorded) of teacher-initiated intervention in the childrens disputes.
This is not to say that intervention did not take place, but rather was not noticeably
done nor audible in audio/video data.
A marked contrast in this type of dispute closing (intervention) was observed
in Observation 1, as the teacher interrupted eight of the recorded arguments. In
one of these arguments (Ob1.31) adult support was initially sought by the child,
but at the conclusion of the dispute the intervention was instigated by the teacher.
The proportion of teacher intervention (cf. Observation 2) may be considered in
light of the observers presence. Although the paradoxical nature of the observers
presence has been discussed in relation to the childrens interaction with peers, the
teachers behaviour may also be affected (e.g. Ob1.17). Specifcally, the teacher in
Ob1 was less experienced and perhaps paid closer attention to the children playing
in proximity to the observer. Additionally, on one occasion the children were
prevented from pursuing the dispute when the teacher interrupted (Ob1.5). The
Church Book.indb 133 13/01/2009 12:11:45
teachers directions to the disputants did not constitute intervention in this instance,
however, as her instructions were not related to the adversative interaction.
In six of the eight episodes interrupted by the teacher in Ob1, the intervention
was made in response to increased amplitude of the childrens voices. Otherwise,
on one occasion (Ob1.35) the teacher interceded where two boys were physically
struggling for possession of an object. The other dispute which attracted the
teachers attention despite the absence of shouting (Ob1.25) was characterised by a
series of repeated utterances within the teachers hearing range. When questioned,
the teacher stated her method of mediation was to allow each child to explain his/
her position, then impose a solution only where the children themselves were not
able to reach a facilitated compromise, yet in practice this did not always prove to
be the case. In Ob1.4 the teacher explained why ownership of a song (and lyrics)
is not restricted to any individual, but in all other instances the teacher either
removed the child from the play space and engaged her/him in another activity or
imposed a verdict (Ob1.25, Ob1.35).
In each episode brought to a close through teacher-initiated intervention there
is a preceding pattern of exchanging utterances in preferred turn shape. This is
exemplifed in the organisation of opposition in Ob1.4.
Ob1. 4
1 TES: everybody can sing it (0.5) not just you.
( 4. 6)
2 HIL: well i sing my song if i want .
( 1. 7)
3 HIL: its my so:ng
4 TES: its my song t oo: and its not your song.
(0.2)
5 HI L: i t i s my song.
(0.5)
(0.6)
7 TES: EENGHH ((screeches in frustration) ) . hhh ( . )
ITS NOT YOUR SONG Hilary.
( 1. 5)
8 YYY: [Tess] are you okay?
Consistently, where confict episodes are brought to a close through teacher
intervention, there is a pattern of exchanging utterances performed in preferred
turn shape throughout the dispute. Although one party may provide an account for
his/her opposition (signalling a dispreferred turn shape), this account is typically
repeated throughout the escalating confict. That is, where dispreferred turn shapes
are produced in teacher-mediated disputes, there is no subsequent development of
mutual accountability because the same utterance, although providing justifcation,
is repeated throughout the dispute. In Ob1.14 below, for example, Sam accounts
Church Book.indb 134 13/01/2009 12:11:45
for his actions, attempting to defer blame by pointing to the unintentionality of his
actions (viz. although he knocked the blocks over he didnt mean to as he was just
trying to balance them). The repetitiveness of the exchanges, however, precludes
negotiation and prompts incessant recycled rounds of counter-challenges until the
teacher intervenes.
Ob1. 14
1 SAM: 0 ((%act: knocks blocks over))
2 SAM: [ah],
3 LUK: [o]:h YOU DID THA:T!=
5 LUK: [ t st oh] oh [ oh oh no: ] . ( ( whining) )
6 SAM: [i was trying to balance] i:t.=
7 LUK: =NAUGHTY!
(0.5)
8 SAM: i was trying to balance it [and it just] fe:ll.=
9 LUK: [its naughty].
10 LUK: =((to PET)) say [naughty] Sam!
11 ADM: [naughty].
12 PET: naughty Sam.
( 1. 1)
13 SAM: i was trying to ba[lance i:t].
14 ADM: [HEY LOOK] (0.2) look at this!
15 LUK: thats NAUghty.
16 ADM: WA[TER]!
17 LUK: [NAUGHTY] [THATS NAUGHTY],
18 SAM: [I WAS TRYING TO] BALA:NCE I:T.
( 1. 4)
19 YYY: excuse me boys?
20 LUK: Sam broke my [x:]
21 YYY: [well] [i dont think he] really meant to
SAM: [i was trying-],
(1.0)
22 YYY: you can make it again
In sum, teacher-intervened disputes typically feature brief, direct utterances
produced with little or no delay (note overlapping speech in Ob1.14); in other
words, a cycle of preferred turn shapes. Where an account may be provided in
a turn, the subsequent repetition of this turn shape essentially invalidates the
mitigation or accommodation inherent in dispreferred turn shapes. Additionally,
in Ob1 this type of dispute outcome was frequently marked by a preceding pattern
of escalating volume (both parties). The events following teacher intervention are
not included in the analysis, as our primary focus remains how children manage
disputes, rather than how children manage teacher instructions in disputes with peers.
Church Book.indb 135 13/01/2009 12:11:46
Whilst teacher intervention accounted for the closings of a quarter of the
disputes recorded, our attention returns to episodes which were ended without
adult participation. Specifcally, in the next section we revisit episodes in which
threats were issued in fnal utterances. As threats appeared in fnal utterances of
both resolved and abandoned disputes, further discussion of these types of turns
is warranted.
Threats
At frst, threats appeared to operate outside the boundaries of preference.
Importantly, threats share no features of preferred turn shapes. Yet, neither do
threats made in childrens adversative discourse constitute typical dispreferred
turns. Accounts are not incorporated because the speaker does not attempt to justify
his opposition in producing the threat, but rather states consequences of failure to
acquiesce. These consequences, however, are not enforced; the force of the threat
lies in the undesirability of the outcome. Usually, among the preschoolers studied,
threats allude to a withdrawal of a particularly attractive commodity.
Fundamentally, the dispreferred status of threats lies in the sequential context
of the dispute: threats are designed to bring about the end of an argument rather
than promote continuing confict. That is, acquiescence is the expected response,
in favour of further challenge from the hearer (Haslett, 1983). A distinguishing
feature of threats, then, is that a preferred response (second pair part) is submission.
Consequently, an inversion of sorts operates in this context. In established disputes,
a preferred response is overt opposition to the prior speaker, as illustrated in the
next chapter. Threats, however, carry an explicit expectation of non-opposition and
demand for compliance, and as such, function as an ultimatum. While a summary
of the sequential organisation of disputes is deferred to next chapter, a discussion
of the turn shapes of threats is included here because threats typically appear in
the closings of disputes.
Types of threats
Benoit (1983) identifed four types of threats used in childrens arguments: harm-
threats, withhold-action/object threats, tell authority threats and unspecifed
outcome threats (see Chapter 2). In the present data, threats to withhold a desirable
action/object were by far the most common. Only one exchange of harm threats
was heard in the second observation environment.
Ob2.10
20 FRE: yeah now- (0.5) then- (0.3) youre (wrecking it)
ill kill your whole building down?
(0.3)
Church Book.indb 136 13/01/2009 12:11:46
21 PAU: huh?
(0.3)
22 FRE: kill your whole building down if you dont-,
(0.3)
(0.5)
25 PAU: what .
(0.7)
26 JIM: your um (0.6) bits:.
(0.4)
There was also one example of a tell-authority threat in the data. In this instance,
the dispute was brought to a close through teacher intervention.
Ob2. 8
(0.7)
11 WIN: excuse me [Y]YY.
In Ob1.20 below, the dispute is brought to a close by Luke threatening to withhold
access to his petrol truck, if Peter does not refrain from drawing on his part of the
group picture.
Ob1.20
11 PET: yes.
not if youre gonna go on (.) on mine. ( ( i e. dr aw
(0.3)
13 PET: i wo:nt.
( 1. 1)
On all other occasions, withholding threats were based on withdrawing friendship
or an invitation to the speakers birthday party. Evidently, both friendship and
parties rank as highly desirable for children of this age, indeed I wont be
your friend functions as a form of social control (Corsaro, 1985). In each of
the examples below the threat to withhold friendship preceded a breakdown in
Church Book.indb 137 13/01/2009 12:11:46
collaborative activity as the disputes were not actively resolved (abandoned in
Ob1.15 and Ob 2.7, and prompting teacher intervention in Ob1.26). Notably,
whilst not as frequently as boys, girls also engage in issuing direct threats (cf.
Danby, 1998) as seen in Ob2.7 and Ob1.27 below.
Ob1. 15
Ob1. 26
30 ADM: I WONT BE YOUR FRIEND
Ob2. 7
21 ELI: im not gonna to be your friend if you dont ever
give me that.
In the following episodes, withholding a party invitation serves as punishment for
inappropriate behaviour (Ob1.7) or as a conditional threat (Ob1.27)
Ob1. 7
Ob1. 27
13 FEL: dont SAY those sort of things >otherwise you
cant come to my party<.
Party invitations were also the withheld consequence in implied or indirect threats.
In Ob2.17, Simon hints at a conditional threat (line 12), and Garys response is to
restate this threat overtly.
Ob2. 17
(0.8)
This sequence is repeated in subsequent episodes by the same children.
Ob2. 19
3 SIM: ill let you come to my par:ty:?
(0.4)
Church Book.indb 138 13/01/2009 12:11:46
4 GAR: and if (.) you (.) dont give me (0.5) one of
those (1.0) one of those big thi:ngs (0.6) you
[cant come to my par:ty].
Ob2.20
Two of these episodes were abandoned (Ob2.19, Ob2.20) but the other three were
resolved. In Ob1.7 and Ob2.17 the hearer conformed to the directive made in the
prior threat, and Ob1.27 was resolved by clearing up a misunderstanding (as to
who uttered the offending statement).
On one of only two occasions where producing a threat did not result in the end
of the dispute, threatening the withdrawal of an invitation to a birthday party was
met with a counter challenge (not threat), and subsequent mid-episode topic shift
to arguing about the birthday calendar.
Ob2. 19
1 SIM: Gary: (0.5) this afterno:on i saw you put the (x x).
(0.7)
2 GAR: n:o:.
(0.4)
5 SIM: [hey Ga::ry]?
(0.7)
( 1. 3)
10 SIM: no it isnt.
(0.4)
( 1. 4)
12 SIM: Ga:ry if you- (0.7) if you let me have that one xx.
(0.3)
i s your s?
%com: continuing conversation focuses on ages of siblings.
Church Book.indb 139 13/01/2009 12:11:46
A point of interest in this dispute is Simons challenge (line 6) to the validity or
power of Garys threat (line 4). As Simon contests that his party will be held frst,
it follows that he has the frst right of (un)invitation. However, threatening to un-
invite a prospective party guest is seldom related to the date of the actual event and
at this age, children typically invite most, if not all, of their preschool group to their
birthday party. The party need not be imminent for the threat to be persuasive; the
birthday may have recently been celebrated or the child might not have a temporal
understanding of when their birthday party will be held. As with the more abstract
concept of removing friendship, these threats are not actually played out: children
play together the next day and attend birthday parties, regardless of the response
to these types of threats.
The other threat that did not bring about the closing of the dispute (either
through resolution, abandonment or teacher intervention) was heard in Ob1.28
(see below). Johns ineffectual threat (lines 16 and 18) promises that he will dob
(tell the teacher) if his house gets broken. Benoits (1983) fnding that unspecifed
or tell-authority threats are least powerful plays out in this instance.
Ob1. 28
6 FEL: [that] doesnt look like a house.
7 CHE: it doesnt look like one?
8 FEL: no:?=
9 LUK: =it looks like a tram track doesnt it.
10 FEL: [yes].
11 CHE: [ yes] .
(0.2)
(0.4)
13 CHE: ill break it?
(0.4)
(0.2)
16 J ON: [otherwise] ill tell the teacher.
(0.5)
18 J ON: DONT BREAK it OTHERWISE I WILL TELL [THE TEACHERS
on you].
19 LUK: [John (0.3) Jo:hn] i wont break your [house].
20 CHE: [i] cant break my: things.
(0.3)
21 FEL: i dont break my: things.
(0.7)
( 1. 1)
Church Book.indb 140 13/01/2009 12:11:46
25 GGG: [this can be Winne] the Poohs house.
(0.7)
27 CHE: [ i s not ] ?
(0.5)
28 JON: it is so=
t o your house.
Based on the data collected, there is a temptation to claim that only withholding an
invitation to a birthday party functions as a successful (i.e. precursor to resolution)
threat, but there are too few examples in the data to make such a claim (although
earlier research suggests that withholding actions/object threats are powerful).
Additionally, we should be wary of over-attributing the content of the threat, as
other factors (children involved in the dispute, type of dispute, and sequential
context previous and subsequent turns) are related to outcome. It could be
claimed, however, that concrete threats where the speaker controls the punishment
are most likely to close an argument.
Threats operate differently in the disputes when compared with the earlier
categories of justifed objections (dispreferred turn shapes); they leave little if
no room for further negotiations. Only two options are available to the hearer:
comply or suffer the penalty stated in the threat. The status of threats as an
endpoint is further implied in the immovability of the speakers position. Once
the speaker has issued an ultimatum, failure to impose the stated consequences
of the threat relinquishes any position of power or authority. Consequently there
is little opportunity for either the speaker or hearer to negotiate once a threat has
been issued. The implications of this fnding relates specifcally to the position of
threats in the sequential organisation of arguments. Threats do not appear in the
early stages of disputes, and result in the submission of one party (an outright win/
loss resolution) or a breakdown collaborative play (abandonment). Consequently,
threats function as a last resort strategy.
Threats in sequences
Overwhelmingly, then, threats appear in the closings of the dispute. Regardless of
the outcome (resolved or abandoned), other confict strategies are seldom produced
once a threat or counter exchange of threats has been uttered. Subsequently, our
Church Book.indb 141 13/01/2009 12:11:46
attention shifts to the preceding context of threats, that is, the sequences of turns
which lead to these last resort strategies.
In Ob1.7, the threat (party invitation) follows failed attempts to gain the
teachers attention to intervene.
Ob1. 7
7 SAM: 0 ((%act: SAM succeeds in reclaiming the boxes
(0.6)))
8 TES: ((whines)) .hhhh Sam took the boxes from me.
%com: di r ect ed t owar ds t eacher who does not hear
(0.4)
%com: al so di r ect ed t o t eacher wi t h no r esponse
( 1. 6)
10 JON: she hit (0.4) Sam.
( 1. 7)
( 1. 1)
The threat is not made contiguously to Tess objection. Furthermore, the conditional
component of the threat (line 12) follows the consequence stated in line 11, after
a considerable pause (1.1). Tess complies with this condition and apologises to
Sam (she has to repeat the apology to satisfy Sams expectation of sincerity). The
threat is built upon a reprimand of Tess behaviour, as J ohn claims she hit Sam.
Tess compliance with the threat is tied to acceptance of her wrongdoing. This
compliance is made without any signifcant delay.
In Ob1.27, Felicity makes a conditional threat (line 13) in response to Lukes
earlier teasing (he claims that he is doing the puzzle faster then Felicity). Cherie
misinterprets the threat as directed towards her, presumably because she is the
immediately prior speaker to Felicitys threat.
Ob1. 27
11 LUK: ( ( to CHE) ) l ast i s you.
(1.0)
12 CHE: i got (part of xxxx).
(0.7)
(0.2)
14 CHE: i didnt say it.
Church Book.indb 142 13/01/2009 12:11:46
Although Luke does not acknowledge Cheries rebuke in line 13, his acceptance of
the conditions of the threat consists of a zero response; he no longer teases Felicity.
As in the example above (Ob1.7), there is a considerable delay between Lukes
turn (line 11) and the threat made by Felicity (line 13).
Garys implied threat in Ob2.17, also follows a lengthy pause, and represents a
different approach, a change in strategy, to his prior (unacknowledged turn).
Ob2. 17
(0.2)
11 SIM: i wont break it.
( 1. 8)
(0.8)
(0.2)
(0.3)
Simons indirect threat in line 12 is met with a reciprocal, recycled threat from Gary
(slightly delayed). Garys repeat is subsequently upgraded from the conditional
wont to the defnite cant (line 15). This modal upgrade is effective, as Simon
relinquishes the object under dispute. The restarts or hesitations (lines 13 and 15)
are compatible with dispreferred turn shape. Indeed in each of the threats used in
the closings of these resolved disputes, the turn shape could be characterised as
dispreferred: delayed, opposition deferred, and containing further evidence (if not
account) of the speakers position.
Gary and Simon produce more birthday party threats in Ob2.19, although in
this instance, Simons prior turn consists of a conditional promise rather than an
implied threat (line 3).
Ob2. 19
2 GAR: n:o:.
(0.4)
Church Book.indb 143 13/01/2009 12:11:46
(0.7)
In line 6, Simon challenges the validity of the threat made by Gary, and the dispute
moves to an exchange of preferred turn shapes (e.g. line 7). Subsequent questions
produced by Gary (asking when Simons birthday is) diffuse the primary confict
and the dispute is abandoned (no further opposition from Gary or Simon). In this
instance, although the dispute is dropped, Simon does not concede to Garys threat,
as there is a topic shift (to a disagreement about birth dates).
Another abandoned party episode (Ob2.20), features Gary making a threat
during an object dispute with Rob, the consequences of which Rob rejects.
Ob2.20
8 ROB: this is mine
(0.7)
( 2. 7)
( 2. 4)
Rob repeats his rejection of Garys threat (again after a lengthy pause) and Simon
jumps on the bandwagon by repeating the rejection (although he is not directly
involved in the dispute). Garys threat is rendered powerless: if the withheld event
is discounted by the hearer, the consequence is no longer a persuasive entity. The
dispute is abandoned as the boys have reached a stalemate.
A stalemate is also reached in the following object dispute between Elinor and
Caroline (Ob2.7) about who gets to play with the girl doll.
Ob2. 7
16 ELI: (youve got) both the girls.
(0.3)
17 CAZ: no: theres another girl
(0.2)
( 6. 8)
Church Book.indb 144 13/01/2009 12:11:47
19 ELI: you cant have two girls. ((petulant tone) )
(0.7)
( 1. 1)
give me that.
(1.0)
22 CAZ: im not gonna ever give that to you.
24 CAZ: alright?
( 1. 1)
%com: ELI moves away from play area.
The most striking feature of this episode is the number of attempts Elinor makes
to gain possession of the girl prior to issuing the conditional threat in line 21.
Each of these turns is performed in dispreferred shape (lines 18-20), which
suggests further attention should be paid to quality of the account (i.e. effcacy or
persuasiveness of the referent) in the dispute.
The following dispute is abandoned (Ob1.15), because Adam ignores Peters
continuing attempts to use one of Adams cars.
Ob1. 15
14 PET: but which one can i have then.
(1.0)
15 ADM: (i have) nothing for you.
(0.4)
16 PET: why: .
( 2. 3)
17 SAM: ((to PET)) make with me!
(0.2)
(0.4)
(0.9)
20 SAM: here you go. ((gives car to PET) )
In the sequence above, Adam ignores not only Peters threat (Peter has already
shifted his allegiance to Sam at this point), but also his prior request for explanation
(line 16). The length of pause (2.3 seconds) and redirection by a third party (Sam
in line 17) suggest that the dispute was in fact abandoned by Adam after his turn
Church Book.indb 145 13/01/2009 12:11:47
in line 15. At the very least the threat in this episode is not made as a contiguous,
next-turn opposition.
In Ob1.26, threatening to withdraw friendship resulted in teacher intervention,
because Adam was shouting at Cherie, and both children had begun to push one
another.
Ob1. 26
23 CHE: [plea:se] can you go away from us?
24 ADM: coz (0.3) [coz (0.5) coz]-,
25 CHE: [were playing a game].
26 ADM: coz coz coz coz [(you got)-,]
27 CHE: [GO AWAY] FROM US!
%act: pushes ADM
(0.3)
28 ADM: DONT PUSH ME!
29 CHE: ( ( to TES)) go on get hi m.
(0.4)
%act: CHE is still pushing ADM so he pushes back.
31 YYY: um excu:se me Adam.
%yyy: Teacher engages ADM in another activity
Cherie ignores Adams threat (line 30) and continues to push Adam away from
where she is playing with Tess. In this instance, the dispute has escalated before
the threat is produced: Cherie has already pushed Adam and he has begun shouting
in response, prior to issuing the threat. This suggests that there is a point in the
discourse where resolution is unlikely (following physical rebukes and escalating
volume), regardless of the form of subsequent utterances.
As noted in the previous section, a threat of harm/physical punishment was
heard only once in the observation sessions.
Ob2.10
%act: PAU is pulling some of the pieces off the ladder.
( 3. 6)
(0.2)
using it.
(1.0)
( 1. 2)
19 PAU: no you were:nt no you werent even using it no:w
(0.7)
Church Book.indb 146 13/01/2009 12:11:47
(0.3)
21 PAU: huh?
(0.3)
(0.3)
(0.5)
25 PAU: what .
(0.7)
(0.4)
A point of interest in Ob2.10 is the turn shapes which precede the frst threat in line
20. The dispreferred turn shapes produced by both parties (lines 18 and 19) fail to
infuence the other speaker, emphasising the last resort strategy nature of threats.
Fred has moved from a direct order (line 16) to justifying his objection (line 18)
with no effect, fnally issuing a threat after false starts/hesitation (line 20). Similar
to the earlier example in Ob2.19, Paul challenges the validity of the threat (he
didnt even make a building). Dropping this side sequence (whether or not Paul
has a building which may be killed) Paul produces a counter harm-threat (line 27)
which is ignored by Fred and his offsider J im. As noted in Chapter 2, one way in
which disputes escalate is through cycles of threats and counter-threats (OKeefe
and Benoit, 1982; Haslett, 1983).
A withhold-object threat which was successful in resolving the dispute (Ob1.20
below) involves access to a petrol truck that Luke has brought from home (these
novel toys are always highly sought-after objects at preschool).
Ob1.20
1 PET: 0 ((%act: draws on LUKs side of the paper))
2 LUK: ( ( to PET) ) no t hi s i s t he moo: n.
(0.8)
( 1. 9)
6 PET: ( ( whines)) dont draw mi::ne.
(0.2)
Church Book.indb 147 13/01/2009 12:11:47
7 LUK: no you ( . ) you dr aw on you: r par t .
( 1. 3)
%com: this is a toy LUK has brought from home.
(0.5)
9 PET: yes.
11 PET: yes.
(0.3)
13 PET: i wo:nt.
( 1. 1)
In his previous attempts (lines, 2, 3, 5 and 7), Luke has not been able to stop Peter
drawing on his side of the collective paper (Peter claims rights to this part of the
paper as he believes this is where the sun should be in the picture line 4). Luke
resorts to issuing the powerful conditional promise of permission to play with
his petrol truck. In this instance the threat is successful and Peter complies. The
fnality of the threat is recognisable in contrast to the possible alternative outcome:
if Peter had not complied, the threat would have been rendered powerless, leading
to a break in interaction.
Ob1. 23
( 2. 2)
cr y: ?
( 1. 3)
6 LUK: yes.
( 1. 5)
8 LUK: yes i do.
(0.3)
%act: LUK stops hitting his head with the block
In Ob1.23 Sam is successful in instructing Luke not to hit himself in the head,
by equating the action with disrespect for his mother. In line 5 Sam claims
Church Book.indb 148 13/01/2009 12:11:47
that continuing this action will cause distress to Sam (defned as threat due to
undesirable consequences). Luke is obliged to stop hitting himself in the head or
otherwise risk contradicting his own professed affection for his mother.
The analysis has demonstrated that threats operate, if not outside the boundaries
of preference, in a slightly different manner to other opposing turns (e.g. do not
share typical dispreference markers). However, it has also been established that
threats function as a dispreferred response to opposition, as they are not designed
to sustain the dispute, but to end the argument through submission of the other
party. A distinctive feature of threats in sequences of discourse is the expectation
of response. A preferred second pair part (to a frst part threat) is acquiescence
through no further challenge, and conformability to the direction inherent in the
threat (i.e. cease the objectionable/offensive action). Evidently, a zero response
or submission to the speakers wishes does not perform elsewhere in disputes as
a preferred second, given that overt disagreement serves to sustain this type of
discourse. It remains to be seen why certain threats lead to resolution while others
prompt a breakdown in shared activity, a consideration for the next chapter.
Dispute closings
In the 60 recorded disputes, three distinct types of dispute closings were identifed:
resolution, abandonment and teacher intervention. Each of these possible outcomes
was arrived at through a variety utterances, seemingly unrelated if considered from
a speech act perspective. The most signifcant fnding presented in this chapter,
however, points to the constancy of turn shape implicated in outcomes. That is,
disputes were always resolved through fnal utterances performed in dispreferred
turn shapes or threats. Conversely, preferred turn shapes were prevalent in
concluding sequences of abandoned or intervened confict.
Through classifcation and analysis of the dispute closings, preference
organisation (as identifed throughout Chapter 4 by the presence or absence of
markedness) emerges as an infuential principle in the development and outcome
of disputes: dispreferred turn shapes lead to resolution; preferred turn shapes are
not heard in the fnal utterances of resolved disputes. As only the fnal turns of each
episode were considered in this chapter, we cannot infer that all dispreferred turn
shapes resolve disputes. Sequences of discourse need to be examined to consider
where dispreferred turns shapes are successful in securing mutual acceptance of
the dispute closing. Therefore, the discussion now moves to address the specifc
features of dispreferred turn shapes which are implicated in resolution.
Church Book.indb 149 13/01/2009 12:11:47
Chapter 6
Preference and Dispute Outcomes
Introduction
In the previous chapter, it was established that the fnal utterances of resolved
disputes are overwhelmingly performed in a dispreferred turn shape. It does not
follow, however, that dispreferred turns always secure resolution. It remains to
be seen, then, if some fner distinction exists; if there are particular sequential
characteristics of these utterances that are implicated in resolution. The analysis of
dispreferred turn shapes in Chapter 4 pointed to accounts as the most prominent
component of these turn shapes in the childrens disputes, so the focus now shifts
to an analysis of justifcations. As seen in the earlier analysis, a variety of accounts
are used throughout dispute episodes. Are certain accounts apprehended as more
persuasive than others? Are persuasive accounts attributed to content? Can
examples of successful accounts (appearing dispute-fnal position) be found in
early stages of other arguments? What types of accounts are implicated in a restart
of preferred turn exchanges? Responding to these questions and subsequently
uncovering sequential patterns in the childrens arguments forms the substance of
this chapter.
Accounts in fnal utterances of resolved disputes
Accounts are the universal feature of dispreferred turn shapes in the data: while
most dispreferred turns are prefaced with delay (pause or marker), all incorporate
some kind of account. In Chapter 4, various types of accounts were identifed in
the disputes, namely: (1) references to personal desire (want, need, (dis)likes); (2)
claiming ownership of objects or play area; (3) stating properties of objects, play
space or play script; (4) invoking behavioural obligations (e.g. rules of sharing);
and (5) epistemological claims. Whilst these categories are not proposed as
fnite, a grouping of accounts based on content allows for exploration of possible
distribution according to referents. Fundamentally, does the referent of the account
(what the justifcation is based upon) infuence the persuasiveness of the turn and
subsequently the outcome of the confict? This question will be answered frst by
considering the types of accounts appearing in the closings of resolved disputes.
A review of the fnal sequences of turns in resolved disputes shows a
predominance of accounts which refer to properties of entities under dispute.
More accounts are based on these concrete qualities than all other four types of
Church Book.indb 151 13/01/2009 12:11:47
accounts combined. Illustration of the sequential context of these accounts in each
resolved dispute follows.
Ob1. 3
2 KOY: where i can go Adam?
( 1. 1)
3 J ON: nowhe[ r e] .
4 KOY: [i] got a rocket?
( 1. 3)
5 KOY: i got a rocket (and a jet).
( 1. 3)
r ocket s.
( 1. 4)
(0.5)
(0.2)
9 KOY: im a jet.
(0.8)
10 ADM: now this is gonna have a big-
In Ob1.3, Adam supports his refusal to allow entry of Koyos rocket (line 8) by
stating that only objects which are a combination of rocket and jet have access to
the landing strip (table), suggesting he did not hear the barely audible second part
of Koyos utterance in line 5 (and a jet). As Koyo conforms to the criteria set
by Adam (only a rocket and a jet) by changing his description of his rocket to
jet, Adam makes no further objection and the dispute is resolved (boys continue
in collaborative play).
Ob1. 2
1 ADM: ((to JON)) move out the way!
2 JON: no no (0.3) no this [spacesh-]
l e:gs.
4 JON: [but-]
(0.9)
just not ready yet.
( 3. 6)
Church Book.indb 152 13/01/2009 12:11:47
Preference and Dispute Outcomes 153
Johns successful utterance in line 5 (no further challenge made by Adam) was
preceded by Adams justifed objection this one hasnt got any legs. Johns
dispreferred turn shape features a number of restarts, noticeably changing the
account from a property of the object (the spaceships not ready) to an inclusive
depiction of the participants (were just not ready yet). Signifcant in this account
is the plural pronoun we (vs. the less persuasive Im not ready), and the
mitigating just. This appeal enlists Adam and secures resolution of the episode.
Ob1. 13
%act: ADM puts his car next to the blocks
14 KOY: =STO::P!
(0.3) coz its fat.
(0.9)
16 ADM: see?
( 2. 6)
18 LUK: ((to ADM)) im making one for you.
%com: Play continues and ADM is now part of the
group.
Prior to this segment of the dispute (Ob1.13), Koyo has refused Adams entry into
the garage because his car is too big. Adam placates Koyo by incorporating this
objection into his own account for placing his car next to the garage (line 13). This
account (conforming to the size requirements established by Koyo) is successful
as no further objection is made, and Adam is accepted as legitimate member of the
garage-making, car-driving play group.
Ob1. 16
%act: ADM pulls down a block that SAM has placed
upright
(0.7)
8 ADM: no but i wanna make CRECHE.
(0.3)
( 3. 2)
%com: ADM is watching SAM move the blocks.
10 SAM: and its-,
( 1. 6)
11 SAM: and these (0.3) these go over like that.=
(0.3)
Church Book.indb 153 13/01/2009 12:11:48
(0.4)
14 ADM: yes.
( 2. 7)
Adams account for his objection in line 8 fails to persuade Sam, who responds
with his own dispreferred turn. Both boys base their early opposition on refexive
motivations: I want, I built. Sams account in line 9 is not challenged by
Adam, suggesting rights to the play script are strengthened by prior claim (the
fact that Sam originally built the bridge holds more sway than Adams plans to
turn the building into creche). Adam accepts Sams authority, but saves face by
making his own addition to the play script (line 12) which is taken up by Sam. It is
consensus to the properties of the bridge ((i) that it is a bridge and (ii) that there is
a river going under it) that secure the mutually contrived closing.
Ob1. 19
1 LUK: ( %act ) put s a bl ock on t he shel f .
( 5. 7)
was a cyl i nder .
In Ob1.19, line 2, Sam explains his objection to Luke putting blocks back on the
shelf by stating that this responsibility has been assigned to Adam. Luke challenges
the quality of this opposition (why should he not be allowed to put blocks away
when he saw Sam do the same thing). Sam immediately counters this objection by
qualifying his own actions, clarifying the distinct features of the object he returned
to the shelf: it wasnt a block it was a cylinder. This specifcity is met with no
further opposition from Luke and the dispute is quickly resolved.
Ob1. 33
1 PET: now: (0.6) you have to have a baby: now [you]-,
(0.3) at the start.
( 1. 9)
5 PET: no: : .
6 CHE: (goes there).
(0.9)
Church Book.indb 154 13/01/2009 12:11:48
%com: Cher i e makes no r esponse. Par al l el pl ay cont i nues
Cheries dispreferred turn shape in line 4 is based on necessity frst we need to
do it again. Peter objects in a preferred turn shape (line 5) then accounts for his
opposition by challenging the content of Cheries prior account (line 7). In this
utterance, Peter corrects Cheries version of the play script. Cheries zero response
and the continuing play indicates resolution.
Ob1. 34
10 FEL: =yeah:.
(0.6)
11 PET: well .hh,
( 1. 9)
12 ADM: no:,=
13 FEL: =no[:].
(0.2)
(0.4)
16 ADM: ((to FEL)) no i think hes got four more minutes
Peters early attempt to justify his refusal to let Adam use a toy car Im not fnished
yet and his subsequent abandoned dispreferred turn (line 11) fails to satisfy Adam
and Felicity. The account in Peters next turn addresses Adams objection (thats a
long turn) by specifying a restricted period of time after which he will relinquish
the car, and presumably allow Adam to play with it (Ive got four minutes left).
This justifcation is validated by Adam: hes got four more minutes.
Ob2. 5
(0.4)
3 ELI: no i didnt?=
(0.3)
In Ob2.5, the adjacency pair of preferred turns (lines 2 and 3) is followed by a
dispreferred turn shape produced by Louise (line 4). Elinor subsequently rejects
the prior account and provides an alibi she could not be held responsible for the
Church Book.indb 155 13/01/2009 12:11:48
blocks falling down because she was helping with Hilary. This justifcation,
describing concrete actions, is accepted by Louise (no further challenge) and the
dispute is resolved.
Ob2. 12
4 WIN: DO:NT!
many things here.
In Ob2.12, Louise defends her frst infringement (knocking over the block bridge)
as unintentional well Im trying to go round. In response to the next attack (line
4) Louise points to Winnies role in the accident you put so many things there
which successfully resolves the dispute.
The examples above illustrate that most accounts in fnal turns of resolved
disputes are based on concrete entities of the play objects, play space, play script
or play actions. The common feature of these properties is the transparency of the
justifcation. That is, in each of the successful dispreferred turns above, the content
of the account is visible or verifable to the opposing party. These accounts are
based on tangible properties, present in the interaction.
More abstract accounts were also implicated in resolution, although less
frequently. Epistemological claims, for example were used by children in Ob2 to
secure resolution. In Ob2.14 below, Toms (actual) knowledge of how to read the
time is tacitly accepted by Don. In line 8, Tom challenges Dons statement its
one oclock in a preferred turn format. His correction is only successful, however,
when he provides a further account of the actual time (ten oclock) in line 10.
Ob2. 14
7 DON: [one] oclo:ck (0.4) yea::h (.) its one oclock.
(0.2)
8 TOM: no its not.
( 2. 3)
9 DON: (on (.) on the) time it says-,
spaceshi p pl ay.
Similarly, in that the justifcation is based on the speakers knowledge, a truth
account appears in Ob2.23.
Church Book.indb 156 13/01/2009 12:11:48
Ob2. 23
3 ROB: youve gotta have a muffn with [me].
4 NIG: [i] already had-,
(0.4)
5 SIM: ive already had mi:ne?
(0.4)
6 NIG: ive >already had morning tea< too
( 1. 3)
(0.6)
Rob challenges Nigel and Simons claims that they have already had morning
tea (line 8). Nigel claims that Rob is not in a position to disbelieve them as he
did not witness the event (an event that Simon and Nigel maintain has occurred).
Importantly, Robert only accepts their claims once this account (you didnt see
us) has been made.
Invoking behavioural norms or expectations of appropriate behaviour has
been identifed in the data as a justifcation used by children. This type of account
was heard, although not frequently, in the closings of resolved disputes. In the
two episodes below, references to expectations of appropriate behaviour secured
acquiescence.
Ob1. 8
1 JON: oh you got my one (.) x ing it.
(0.4)
(0.8)
6 JON: [yeah] oh yeah coz-,
(1.0)
7 JON: oh yeah coz.
The persuasiveness of mitigating dispreferred turn shapes is exemplifed in Ob1.8.
Tess invokes the sharing rule in her frst opposition (line 2), but is only successful
when she repeats this account in a marked turn shape (repetition of but at the
beginning of the utterance) and includes the modifer just. Notably, the plural
pronoun we (as in Ob1.2 above) is implicated in resolution of this episode. Also,
the rule of sharing is produced as a description by Tess rather than as a more direct
(confronting) instruction (e.g. you have to share).
Church Book.indb 157 13/01/2009 12:11:48
Ob2. 4
(0.2)
(0.5)
(0.3)
it=
6 JAK: =i can do it too.
(0.6)
7 LOU: no (.) i i can do it [I-],
%act: pulling arrow from JAK
8 JAK: [its] gonna break >its gonna break<
(0.3)
connect or pi eces.
Each childs turn in Ob2.4 is designed to establish their authority to put the arrow on
the calendar. Jack upgrades his justifcation from I wanna do it to incorporating
external validation of his claim the teacher said I will do it. Louise persists in
stating her ability (line 5 and 7) which is repeated by Jack (line 7). In response to
Jacks complaint that the arrow will break (line 8), Louise acknowledges this (I
know) and promotes her ability to manage the situation (but Im very gentle),
underscoring the appropriate (and therefore defensible) quality of her actions.
Louise has possession of the arrow by this stage and places it on the calendar with
no further objection from J ack.
Ownership accounts were similarly infrequent in dispreferred turns in the
closings of resolved disputes. In the following two examples, ownership rights
to objects (blocks, a car) are stated as accounts, although in Ob2.13 the claim is
revoked as a mistake.
Ob1. 21
( 1. 2)
( 1. 6)
(0.5)
5 PET: no we wont.
Church Book.indb 158 13/01/2009 12:11:48
Peters dispreferred turn in line 3 (Ob1.21) is based on a necessity claim we
need. Cherie counters with another delayed, marked utterance which invokes
ownership rights to particular blocks. Given that there are enough blocks for both
parties in this instance, Cheries turn in line 4 is acknowledged and accepted by
Peter in the subsequent turn.
Ob2. 13
1 WIN: 0 ((%act: drives a car onto the blocks))
(0.4)
3 WIN: no you were using t hat car .
(0.6)
4 LOU: what ?
(0.8)
Winnie resolves the dispute Ob2.13 by clarifying which car Louise was using
i.e. challenging the content of Louises initial objection (line 2). An interesting
feature of this initial objection is Louises revision from basing her opposition
on volition I want to use to claiming prior ownership I was using that car; an
intra-utterance upgrade of accounts, discussed further below. Winnie points to the
falsity of this second account and consequently settles the dispute.
On only one occasion in the data was an account based on personal desire
heard in the fnal utterance of a resolved dispute. Noteworthy in this instance,
however, is that the dislike is attributed to another party rather than claimed by the
speaker himself. In Ob1.6 (below), Sam claims that John does not like pink (and
consequently should be able to fsh for red fsh exclusively). Importantly this
claim is supported by a reference to equal distribution of fshing rights.
Ob1. 6
1 SAM: John you got a red- (.) you have to get a red one
(0.3)[you have to pick up red.]
as wel l .
3 J ON: NO:
4 SAM: no:.
(1.0)
(0.8)
(0.9)
Church Book.indb 159 13/01/2009 12:11:48
( 1. 6)
you dont like pi nk do you J ohn.
(0.9)
( 4. 4)
%com: TES makes no further attempt at topic.
Whilst the summary of analysis above has a quantitative appearance, it is the
distribution of accounts rather than the frequency of occurrence which is of
primary interest. The features of each turn have been considered in relationship to
the outcome of the dispute. In other words, the examples above have been used to
demonstrate specifc qualities of dispreferred turn shapes in the closings of resolved
disputes, for the purpose of identifying an organising principle of infuence.
Dispreferred turn shapes, however, are not limited to fnal utterances of
resolved disputes. Having discussed the types of accounts which appear in
resolved sequences, our attention turns to justifcations used by the children
which fail to persuade their playmates. Specifcally, where dispreferred turns are
followed by preferred turn shapes. Are particular types of accounts more likely
to precede a restart of overt confict? If certain types of accounts are prevalent
in resolved disputes, are different types of accounts found in earlier stages of
disputes, or in adversative interaction which is abandoned or closed through
teacher intervention?
Accounts preceding preferred turn shapes
The effectiveness of concrete accounts has been demonstrated, as most disputes
are resolved through dispreferred turns incorporating tangible, verifable or
quantifable justifcations. Conversely, more abstract types of accounts, particularly
those which are based on personal volition, are less frequent in the fnal sequences
of resolved disputes. This suggests that properties of objects, play space or play
script are more likely to function as successful accounts. If this assumption holds,
we would expect to see fewer of these types of accounts in the early stages of
all arguments and in the closings of unresolved episodes. Moreover, the fact that
accounts based on personal volition are scarce in the closings of resolved disputes,
suggests that they may appear elsewhere in unpersuasive turns.
The examples in this section appear throughout the data in all types of disputes
(resolved and unresolved). As the sequences of utterances remain the analytical
focus, our attention is directed to types of accounts produced in dispreferred turns
which precede preferred turn shapes. That is, are particular types of accounts
unsuccessful, not only in failing to persuade the other party, but by prompting
a reversion to overt opposition displayed in preferred turn shape? Are certain
Church Book.indb 160 13/01/2009 12:11:48
accounts more likely to reignite the confict rather than move towards some sort of
mutually acceptable outcome?
Firstly, it is noted that the types of accounts heard in the closing stages of
resolved disputes are not always successful. In the following abandoned episode
(Ob1.15), for example, a justifcation based on properties of the object under
dispute is rejected by the subsequent speaker.
Ob1. 15
(0.2)
8 RON: [what-],
( 1. 1)
9 SAM: thats a tow bar thats what thats called a
[ t ow bar ] .
(0.6)
11 SAM: it doesnt matter if you dont have a trailer
.hhhh [coz its too xxx.]
( 1. 2)
( 1. 3)
(1.0)
(0.4)
16 PET: why: .
( 2. 3)
(0.2)
(0.4)
(0.9)
@End
Church Book.indb 161 13/01/2009 12:11:48
In Ob1.15 Adam defends his refusal to let Peter use a car by referring to properties
of the object itself which make it unsuitable (line 7). Following a side sequence
between Adam and Sam about tow bars and trailers, Peter counters with an
account based on personal volition in line 12 (but I want one of those). Adams
delayed response claims that he has no more cars to give to other children. When
Adam does not respond to Peters request for further information (line 16), Peter
accepts Sams offer (line 17) and issues a parting threat to Adam (who makes no
response).
In Ob1.15, although Adams account in line 7 is rejected by Peter, this rejection
is not performed in preferred turn shape. However, property accounts do sometimes
appear as frst pair parts to preferred turn shape second pair parts.
Ob2.20
( 1. 2)
(0.2)
4 ROB: hey dont!
( 1. 5)
5 GAR: you didnt see it (.) that [xx if you can] the
(fshy) one this (.)((singsong voice) ) eeny meeny
miney moo (0.2) catch a tiger by the toe (.) if
you holler [[let him go eeny meeny miney]] moo,
6 ROB: [no:: (give it) back]!
%act: takes piece from GARs construction
(0.9)
8 ROB: this is mine
(0.7)
In Ob2.20, Robs objection that Gary has taken a piece that belongs to him (thats
mine) is met with the justifed opposition its just a little one (line 3). This is
immediately responded to with a preferred turn shape from Rob. Subsequently the
episode reaches a stalemate of exchanged threats.
Properties of the play script were also rejected as persuasive accounts in the
following two disputes. In Ob1.20, Luke rejects Peters prior account (but this is
where the sun is) by pushing his hand away (line 5), which Peter subsequently
responds to with a preferred turn shape. In Ob1.32, Sam opposes Koyos version
of the play script (the show is fnished). Koyo repeats this justifcation as a form
of opposition throughout the episode.
Church Book.indb 162 13/01/2009 12:11:49
Ob1.20
( 1. 9)
Ob1. 32
5 SAM: [noea]ngh::. ((whines) )
In the following two examples (appearing in disputes resolved by the teacher
Ob1.14 and by the participants Ob1.7), an account based on the speakers
defence of his own actions is rejected outright by the opposing party. Throughout
Ob1.14, Sams repeated account (I was trying to balance it), identifying his
actions as unintentional, is consistently met with preferred turn shapes from Luke.
In Ob1.7, Tess claims rights to the boxes used in the magnet game because she is
doing fshing, an account met with nonverbal rejection by Sam (as he takes back
the boxes).
Ob1. 14
5 LUK: [ t st oh] oh [ oh oh no: ] . ( ( whining) )
7 LUK: =NAUGHTY!
Ob1. 7
7 SAM: 0 ((%act: SAM succeeds in reclaiming the boxes))
(0.6)
Accounts based on concrete properties of objects, play script and actions, therefore,
are not always successful in securing resolution. The frequency of distribution of
this type of account, however, is of fundamental importance. This type of account
appeared in the majority of fnal dispreferred turns in resolved disputes. Conversely,
this type of account was least common in eliciting a preferred response (i.e. re-
initiation of overt confict) throughout all disputes. Other types of accounts are
more likely to be met with unmarked opposition.
Justifcations based on factual or epistemological claims, for example, were
more often than not promptly rejected. In Ob2.7, although Carolines response
occurs after a delay (1.2 seconds), the content of Elinors prior claim is overtly
challenged.
Church Book.indb 163 13/01/2009 12:11:49
Ob2. 7
8 ELI: i know she is (.) but thats a boy (.) i know that.
%com: referring to doll
( 1. 2)
9 CAZ: girls can have short hair.
In another abandoned dispute (Ob2.19), Garys preferred opposition (no) in line
2 follows a claim made by Simon that he witnessed some objectionable action
(epistemological account). The interaction then moves to a series of exchanged
threats.
Ob2. 19
(0.7)
2 GAR: n:o:.
In Ob2.3, Garys claim that he is going home before lunch, is directly contradicted
by Tom (no you arent). It should be noted that leaving before lunch is an unusual
occurrence in this child care centre.
Ob2. 3
6 GAR: Im going befo:re lunch.
(1.0)
In Ob1.25, Koyos objection to Sam taking the car is based on a claim to prior
ownership (its mine and I was using it). Sam accounts for his actions by
explaining that he was under the impression the Koyo was no longer using the
car, an impression corrected by Koyo in subsequent turns. This epistemological
account (line 4 etc.) is inherently subjective, relying on Sams perception of the
availability of the toy. Notably, the interaction breaks down as both boys persist in
repeating their prior objection.
Ob1. 25
1 SAM: 0 ((%act: picks up a car that KOY had been
using))
2 KOY: its mi::ne.
(0.9)
4 SAM: [BUT i] thought you werent using i:t,=
5 KOY: =im using it (0.3) i wanna- (.) tha[ts
( mi ne) ] .
Church Book.indb 164 13/01/2009 12:11:49
9 YYY: ((to SAM) ) wel l i t hi nk he st i l l i s
Epistemological accounts were also rejected in two instances in the early stages
of resolved disputes. In Ob1.13, Koyo immediately challenges the claim of third-
party permission made by Adam (line 3).
Ob1. 13
2 KOY: no big cars!
( 2. 4)
4 KOY: Luke (doesnt have) big cars.
In Ob2.23, Robert negates Nigel and Simons prior claims that they have already
had morning tea (truthful claim). As Nigel subsequently points to the fact that
Robert is not in a position to contradict him (because he did not see them eat
morning tea), the dispute is brought to an end.
Ob2. 23
1 ROB: Nige::l (.) (come and have a) muffn with me.
(0.4)
2 NI G: what ?
(0.2)
(0.4)
(0.4)
( 1. 3)
(0.6)
Accounts based on appeals to acceptable/permissible behaviour were also responded
to with overt (preferred) opposition in the data. In Ob1.11 Nancys turn invoking an
obligation to share is met with a preferred (although delayed)
1
response from Cherie,
prompting a cycle of preferred turns throughout the remaining dispute.
1 Delay may be accounted for in this instance by prior opposition made by Felicity,
i.e. next-speaker selection is not automatic or straightforward in multiparty disputes.
Church Book.indb 165 13/01/2009 12:11:49
Ob1. 11
( 1. 2)
In Ob1.12, Adams protest in line 6 is based on the rule of sharing. This turn, and
his following upgrade in line 8 (stating the rule is imposed by the teacher), is met
with overt (shouted) opposition by Luke (lines 7 and 9). The episode then breaks
down to a series of repeated short utterances, until Adam abandons his attempts
to join the group.
Ob1. 12
1 LUK: against the wall?
(0.7)
(0.3)
3 LUK: were no:t.
(0.9)
4 LUK: none for A- (.) none for Adams.
(0.2)
5 SAM: no.
(0.6)
7 LUK: NO: ?
(0.6)
(0.5)
9 LUK: NO: ?
(0.2)
10 ADM: <YES she does>.
(0.6)
11 LUK: [ no: ] ?
12 KOY: [im mak]ing a garage.
(0.6)
13 ADM: Y[ES:].
In Ob2.21, Nigels opposition is based on the centres rule that outside play
cannot begin until a teacher has moved outside (which has already occurred in
this instance, witnessed by Simon but not by Nigel). Following a request for
clarifcation (presumably Simon did not hear Nigels utterance in line 2), Simon
opposes Nigels admonition outright.
Church Book.indb 166 13/01/2009 12:11:49
Ob2. 21
1 SIM: im going outsi:de.
(0.3)
(1.0)
3 SIM: wha:t?
(0.3)
5 SIM: yea:h
(0.3)
7 SIM: i a::m?
In Ob2.20 Robs utterance in line 7 is also unsuccessful, although it is not met with
immediate opposition, because the behaviour rule is ignored by Gary.
Ob2.20
In Ob1.17, Adam objects to Peter taking all the blocks by invoking the rule of
sharing (line 7), which is explicitly rejected by Peter in the next turn. Adam
repeats this account throughout the dispute and Peter invariably responds with the
most direct form of opposition, using the single word no. Adams fnal shouted
objection (prior to bursting into tears) claims that the blocks do not belong to
Peter.
Ob1. 17
( 1. 5)
8 PET: but were not gonna share with our toys [are
we] ( ( this
directed to SAM and KOY))
11 PET: [ NO. ]
(0.2)
12 KOY: no.
(0.5)
Church Book.indb 167 13/01/2009 12:11:49
(0.8)
14 PET: no.
(0.3)
( 1. 1)
16 KOY: NO.
%act: PET and KOY start taking blocks from the foor
that ADM has taken from the shelf.
(0.6)
17 PET: yeah weve got all of our-,
%act : t akes mor e bl ocks.
( 1. 3)
%act: PET and KOY continue to take ADMs blocks.
(0.4)
19 ADM: if you (0.6) (that) (.) NO:.((starts to cry) )
%yyy: teacher intervenes, saying to observer Somebody
needs a sl eep t oday.
In two resolved episodes, behavioural accounts (invoking rules/norms of
comportment) failed to persuade the other party in the earlier stages of the dispute.
In Ob2.1, in response to Mirandas claim that the plastic lids are not distributed
equally (because youve got lots there) which indirectly invokes the rule of
sharing, Caroline restates her refusal to give any of her lids to Miranda.
Ob2. 1
3 CAZ: no: (0.3) (Ive got these).
l ot s t her e.
(1.0)
5 CAZ: im not giving any of these to you
In Ob2.25, Pauls complaint (line 8) rests on the charge of Jim cheating and the
claim that Paul needs a block. This utterance and the (delayed) accompanying
action (pulling the blocks apart) are overtly opposed by Jim. The dispute is
subsequently resolved by Paul stating a compromise.
Ob2. 25
(0.3)
8 PAU: youre cheati:ng i need o:ne. ((whining))
Church Book.indb 168 13/01/2009 12:11:49
10 JIM: o::y:.
More frequent in the data were examples of ownership accounts (claiming
(prior) rights to objects or play space) followed by preferred turn shapes. Whilst
this type of account was only heard twice in the closings of resolved disputes,
dispreferred turns incorporating these accounts were typically rejected overtly by
the next speaker. On two occasions in the data, the account referred to rights to
play space.
Ob2. 9
6 LOU: do:nt!
( 1. 1)
( 1. 1)
8 LOU: ( ( to WIN)) Pauls spoiling- (0.3) ((to PAU) ) we
were here f:rst.
(0.5)
(0.4)
10 PAU: xx [ xxx]
11 LOU: [we (need)] the-,
12 LOU: we were- off you go because we were here frst!
( 3. 4)
At the beginning of Ob2.9 Louise makes continued objections to Pauls nonverbal
behaviour (he is touching what Louise and Winnie have made with wooden blocks).
Louises frst account is produced in line 8, claiming prior rights to the play space,
countered with a repeat from Paul we were here frst. Louise abandons her next
attempt, we need and reverts to telling Paul to leave because we were here frst.
Paul gives up and moves away. In Ob2.2 below, Mirandas claim of ownership is
immediately rejected by Jake (line 8).
Ob2. 2
8 JAK: [no::]!
Elsewhere, ownership claims rejected by the opposing party referred to objects
under dispute. In Ob2.7, for example, Carolines ownership claim is responded to
with a short, direct counter-claim by Elinor.
Church Book.indb 169 13/01/2009 12:11:49
Ob2. 7
(0.4)
12 ELI : its mine.
In Ob1.4, in response to Tess claim that everybody is entitled to sing the Barbie
song, Hilarys objects that the song is hers to sing if she wants to, repeating in the
subsequent turn that its my song (line 3). This prompts a counter claim from
Tess that the song belongs to her, not Hilary. Throughout the remaining dispute
this claim is repeated by the girls in short turns with increasing volume (on Tess
part).
Ob1. 4
1 TES: everybody can sing it (0.5) not just you:?
( 4. 6)
( 1. 7)
3 HIL: its my: so:ng
(0.2)
(0.5)
(0.6)
( 1. 5)
8 YYY: Tess are you okay?
In Ob2.8, Winnie rejects Pauls continued ownership claims. Paul upgrades his
account of prior ownership by specifying the period in which the object was in his
possession. Winnie immediately contradicts this claim (line 9). Pauls response is
to resort to a tell-authority threat.
Ob2. 8
( 2. 5)
7 WI N: [no].
(0.5)
Church Book.indb 170 13/01/2009 12:11:50
(0.7)
12 PAU: [ no]
(0.5)
Overwhelmingly, however, accounts based on the speakers volition prove to
be the least effectual. Personal accounts (based on the speakers wants, needs or
(dis)likes) are predominantly met with a preferred turn shape from the opposing
party, and subsequently are much more likely to promote rather than resolve confict.
Most of these personal accounts invoke need as the reason for opposition. The
exigency may be attributed refexively to the speaker (I need), to the other party
(you need) or as an inclusive attempt to engage the opposee (we need). Most
examples represent a collective need, comprising both parties. For example,
in Ob1.33, Peter objects outrightly to Cheries claim that they need to return
to the beginning of the pretend play script. He later accounts for this opposition
(successfully) by explaining that they have already been near the start.
Ob1. 33
(0.3) at the
st ar t .
( 1. 9)
5 PET: no: : .
(0.9)
In Ob1.31, Sam complains that he wants to add more carrots to the mixture. This
is opposed by Adams account that adding more corks (not carrots in Adams
version of the play script) is unnecessary. Sam objects almost immediately
(overlapping with Koyos turn). This exchange is followed by a series of preferred
turn shapes, ultimately interrupted by the teacher.
Church Book.indb 171 13/01/2009 12:11:50
Ob1. 31
4 SAM: (i want to put) some more of those in.
(0.6)
6 KOY: =excuse m[e:].
8 ADM: [no],
9 KOY: [>put](them) in<.
(0.2)
(0.4)
12 KOY: look (0.2) theyre carrots.
(0.4)
14 J ON: AHH: HA.
( 1. 4)
17 KOY: excuse me [xxx].
18 YYY: [talk to] your friends talk to your friends.
In Ob1.12, Adams frst turn (line 2) is based on a claim of necessity, in an attempt
to direct the play. Lukes response is made in preferred turn shape, a prompt
rejection of Adams suggestion.
Ob1. 12
(0.7)
(0.3)
3 LUK: were no:t.
In Ob2.25, Pauls complaint, challenging the cheat of J ims actions, is
accompanied by the plea I need one. This claim and the accompanying action
are overtly challenged by Jim (line 10).
Ob2. 25
8 PAU: youre cheati:ng i need o:ne. ((whining) )
10 JIM: o::y:.
Tess stance in Ob1.6 is unusual in that she incorporates two volition accounts
in a single utterance (line 2). The immediate, bald rejection made by both John
Church Book.indb 172 13/01/2009 12:11:50
and Sam, applies to the turn as a whole and could address either account as
objectionable. Interestingly, however, in this turn, the liking serves as the account
for the opposition.
Ob1. 6
as wel l .
3 J ON: NO:
4 SAM: no:.
Like or dislike typically appears in sequences as an account which is met with
direct opposition (preferred turn shape). Only in Ob 1.6 (above) does the speaker
refer to personal appreciation as a form of justifcation. Each other instance invokes
dislike as an account for opposition and is expressed in the frst person. On one
occasion (Ob1.6) this type of account is attributed to another speaker, but is heard
in the closing of a resolved dispute rather than preceding continuing confict.
In Ob2.11, Freds antipathy is expressed through the more forceful hate.
This account for getting rid of the helmet (having thrown it out of the play area) is
rejected by Paul as a justifcation for his (objectionable) actions.
Ob2. 11
4 PAU: =you cant even throw em out.
An expression of hatred is also used by Elinor in Ob2.7, (upgraded from a prior
account of I dont like). These utterances are not met with preferred verbal
responses, but instead are ignored by her play partner Caroline.
Ob2. 7
(0.2)
( 6. 8)
(0.7)
( 1. 1)
In Ob1.31, Sam uses the expression I dont like that (line 23). It should be noted
that this utterance is not a response to Sam or Koyos immediately prior turns, but
rather follows the teachers advice in line 18. This utterance and the accompanying
action, however, (he is trying to add more carrots to the mixing bowl) is opposed
immediately by Adam.
Church Book.indb 173 13/01/2009 12:11:50
Ob1. 31
19 SAM: 0 ((%act: again tries to put carrots in bowl))
20 ADM: thats [got] them.
21 SAM: ehh.
22 KOY: this ones [mine].
24 ADM: =NO THATS YYYs.
Wanting is similarly rejected in the data as a weak account, failing to persuade
the opposing party. In Ob1.4, Tess effectively ignores the justifcation made by
Tess (line 2) and pursues instead the ownership claim.
Ob1. 4
( 1. 7)
This account (I want) is similarly ignored by Caroline in Ob2.7, as she addresses
Elinors subsequent claim that she (Caroline) has both the girl dolls.
Ob2. 7
14 ELI: i wanna have (.) a gir:l (0.4) i wanna have a one
girl.
(0.7)
15 ELI: youve got two: gi:rls.
(0.4)
(0.3)
Although seemingly performed in dispreferred turn shape, Sams challenge in line
8 (Ob1.10) is an inverted repeat of Tess prior account for opposition. Both claims
are disregarded and the play breaks down.
Ob1.10
( 1. 3)
Church Book.indb 174 13/01/2009 12:11:50
fshing rod.
(2.0)
(0.8)
( 1. 6)
It has already been mentioned that the categories of accounts proposed above were
not designed for prescriptive or quantitative analysis, but rather have provided
a framework for discussion. Sequences of utterances have been reviewed in
this chapter to determine possible infuences on the development of disputes.
Specifcally, the components of turns preceding resolution or re-initiation of confict
have been analysed, and the quality of accounts has proven to be responded to in
particular ways by the children. Earlier in the analysis, accounts were identifed
as fundamental properties of dispreferred turn shape, and the type of account is
implicated in the form and force of the response.
Whilst it has been shown that certain types of accounts are more persuasive
(e.g. referring to properties of objects) or more likely to be followed by overt
opposition (e.g. accounts based on personal volition), something should be said
of a general principle operating throughout the disputes. Analysis of the proposed
categories of accounts has generated fndings that illustrate broader or generic
infuences of justifcations for opposition. Essentially, by studying different types
of accounts, a continuum of objectivity has been discovered.
Continuum of objectivity
Throughout this chapter, an inverse distribution of types of accounts and outcomes
has been identifed. That is, where opposition is based on a justifcation which
refers to properties of objects, play space or play script, resolution is the most
likely outcome. Conversely these types of accounts are least likely to be followed
with overt opposition (preferred turn shape). At the other extreme, accounts based
on personal volition (e.g. I want) are overwhelmingly responded to with a direct
challenge from the opposing party, and almost never implicated in resolution of
disputes. A hierarchy of accounts appears to be operating in the childrens disputes,
from most frequently implicated in resolution at the top to least at the bottom.
Figure 6.1 illustrates the fnding that concrete entities are more likely to
secure resolution than factual claims, that factual claims are more effective than
challenges invoking behavioural obligations, and so forth, where each account
type has proven to be more persuasive than the next. This ranking can be seen as
representing degrees of persuasiveness. Importantly, this hierarchy does not only
operate in relationship to resolution. In inverse order, each category of account
Church Book.indb 175 13/01/2009 12:11:50
is more likely to be met with a preferred turn shape from the opposing party.
Justifcations such as I want (personal volition) are typically responded to with
brief and direct objections. Invoking ownership rights is the next most likely to
be met with overt opposition, and so forth. The order, therefore, represents both a
gradation of likelihood of resolution, and inversely, the continuation of confict.
From this hierarchy of accounts, a governing rule emerges. Throughout the
analysis, the fve categories of accounts have been imposed as a framework for
investigation; if these categories are removed (to avoid imposed constructs), an
overriding pattern emerges. The gradation of persuasiveness or effectiveness
presented in Figure 6.1 reveals a paradigm of relative objectivity as an organising
principle. In other words, the hierarchy of accounts can be considered in terms
of the objectivity of the justifcation, where objectivity relates to the properties
of the referent. The more real, actual or tangible the account, the more likely the
utterance will lead to resolution. Conversely, the more subjective or refexive the
account, the more likely the dispute will re-ignite.
Qualities of objects or play space are concrete, real entities, and, as such, are openly
verifable to all parties. Factual claims are also palpable (e.g. its ten oclock),
but because such a claim is not always open to immediate authentication by the
opposing party, the account proves less effective (less objective) than when the
referent is a physically present wooden block or toy car. In turn, accounts based
properties of objects, play space or play script

epistemological/factual claims

behavioural obligations

ownership rights

personal volition

Figure 6.1 Continuum of account objectivity
Church Book.indb 176 13/01/2009 12:11:50
on behavioural expectations refer to a collective norm, but are acceded to in a
subjective manner. That is, sharing is a universal rule, but the application of the
rule allows for individual interpretation.
Continuing down the scale of objectivity, ownership rights are also subjective
and fuid in the preschool classroom, as most objects do not actually belong to
any of the children. Use of an object establishes ownership (possession is perhaps
greater than nine tenths of the law!) yet claiming prior possession or shared object
rights is open to debate. Finally, the least objective or most subjective of the
accounts identifed in the data refer to personal desire (want, need, like or dislike)
as the justifcation is wholly based on the speakers internal motivation.
A criticism could be levelled at the type of analysis presented in this chapter,
as a preoccupation with content does not appear to follow conversation analytic
principles, and the categories of accounts proposed purely for the purpose of
description of data (Chapter 4) appear here as analytic categories. That said, the
analysis of dispreferred turns presented here rests on their sequential positioning
in the discourse, and their relevance both to the subsequent turn, the immediately
prior turn and the turns at talk that precede in this sequence.
Importantly, I am not making claims about these accounts proving effective;
they are shown to be so by the childrens responses to the dispreferred turn. Claims
are made on the basis of how these particular turns with particular accounts
are attended to by the children themselves. Certainly, how these accounts are
collectively grouped is open to challenge, as these categories are not proscribed
by the participants, but the responses remain transparent for the analyst as realised
by the participants themselves.
Considering accounts in terms of objectivity of the referent, frees the analysis
from assigning fxed categories, categories which are not organically derived.
Objectivity or subjectivity, however, are wholly recognisable to the children
themselves. Indeed it is possible cognizance of the claim which serves as the
property of persuasiveness. Where the account refers to something visible or
verifable it is more likely to be effective in persuading the opposing party. It
should be emphasised that this hierarchical principle operates as a continuum
between objectivity and subjectivity (rather than an either/or nomination). The
more objective the account, the more likely it is to promote or result in resolution
in subsequent turns.
Relative objectivity is found not only across different types of accounts but
within the variant performances (i.e. form) of the account. For example, the property
of an object is a more tangible referent than an account based on features of the
play script (as these features are negotiable). This is exemplifed in the following
two extracts; Koyos version of events proves ineffectual (Ob1.32), whereas Sams
detailed defence based a highly specifc description of suitability (he is allowed
to return a cylinder to the shelf because it is not technically a block) stumps Luke
into submission (Ob1.19). These examples illustrate the lesser infuence of less
objective accounts. In Ob1.32 Koyo fails to stop Sam from opening the stage
doors by claiming that the show is fnished, according to his version of the play
Church Book.indb 177 13/01/2009 12:11:51
script. Conversely, Sams justifcation in Ob1.19 is essentially irrefutable, given
that he states the palpable property of the object.
Ob1. 32
5 SAM: [noea]ngh::. ((whines) )
Ob1. 19
4 SAM: =that doesnt matter coz it wasnt a block it
was a cyl i nder .
Similarly the subject or agent of the account operates on a continuum of objectivity,
ranging from the collective pronoun we as relatively objective when compared to
I as most subjective. The infuence of objectivity is refected in the comparative
effectiveness of subject pronouns in the data. Whilst referring to ownership is
essentially a subjective justifcation and subsequently does not usually secure
acquiescence, evidence in the data suggests that a plural subject is more persuasive
than insisting in the frst person singular.
Ob1. 21
(0.5)
5 PET: no we wont.
Ob1. 4
(0.5)
The ranking of effectiveness in terms of objectivity of account is therefore evident
across and within the provisional categories of accounts, and as such serves as
a comprehensive and unifying feature of justifcations used in the childrens
arguments. The gradation of objectivity is perhaps most clearly observed in
different types of threats, as discussed below. Elsewhere, the relative strength or
weakness of accounts is manifested in extended sequences, where upgrading or
downgrading is apparent.
Objectivity in threats
A continuum of objectivity also holds across varieties of threats. Threats produced
in the fnal utterances of disputes led either to outright resolution (submission
of one party) or abandonment (dissolution of collaborative play); so outcomes
Church Book.indb 178 13/01/2009 12:11:51
may at frst appear random. The dispute could go either way: be resolved abruptly
or collapse. Interpreted through a paradigm of objectivity, however, persuasive
threats are identifable.
Elsewhere, categories of threats are defned by the outcome proposed by the
speaker, e.g. withhold action/object (Benoit, 1983). If, however, the content of the
threat is considered in terms of relative objectivity an interesting fnding presents
itself. In earlier parts of the analysis, the majority of threats in dispute closings
were identifed as promising to withhold desirable objects or rights (a threat of
physical harm appeared in the fnal turns of only one dispute Ob2.10). Threats
to withhold incorporated a restricted set of entities: a petrol truck (I wont let you
have a turn on the petrol truck), invitations to the speakers birthday party (you
cant come to my party), and friendship (I wont be your friend anymore).
Of these three referents, access to the petrol truck and access to birthday parties
are concrete entities, whilst friendship is subject to individual interpretation. As
such, it could be proposed that the more subjective the punishment inherent in
promising to remove or withhold friendship, the less persuasive the threat. Where
these friendship threats are produced, the episode is either abandoned or closed
through teacher intervention. Conversely, birthday party threats appearing at the
end of episodes secure resolution. It could be inferred that attending a peers
birthday party is prized above being their friend, but the prior analysis of accounts
in typical dispreferred turn shapes implicates objectivity as relevant to outcome.
The concept of relative objectivity is further supported by the examples of
compromise heard in the data. In Chapter 5, the effectiveness of compromises
in securing resolution of confict was discussed. These turns which acknowledge
and incorporate the wishes of both parties were identifed as non-opposition, as
the turn was designed to appease rather than oppose the prior speaker. However,
in terms of acknowledging the other speakers point of view, compromises can
be identifed at the positive extreme of a continuum of objectivity. A compromise
acknowledges the position or perspective of the other speaker, and consequently is
antithetical to subjective justifcation for opposition.
Essentially, the more objective a justifcation for opposition, the more likely
it is to successfully persuade or placate the other party. This claim at frst appears
intuitively simple. However, it is through the microanalysis of turns at talk
facilitated by a conversation analytic approach to the data that this conclusion is
supported.
Upgrading/downgrading in dispute sequences
Perhaps the idea of a continuum of objectivity in justifcations for opposition is
best viewed through extended sequences of interaction. In adjacency pairs (across
different episodes) a hierarchy of persuasiveness is not directly discernable. The
building of turns in disputes, however, provides an opportunity to see an upgrading
or downgrading of accounts. Although there is not a constant trend in either
Church Book.indb 179 13/01/2009 12:11:51
direction in all disputes (speakers may provide accounts of varying objectivity
in varying order) the tendency for upgrading to occur in resolved disputes and
downgrading to occur prior to a breakdown in play merits further consideration.
Upgrading
On the assumption that a hierarchy of accounts is based on objectivity, upgrading
consists of subsequent accounts whose referent is increasingly objective. In other
words, each speakers new turn is justifed by an entity which is more concrete
(less dependent on the speakers own perspective) than his or her previous turn.
For example, in Ob1.16 below, the accounts move from want (line 2) to need
(line 3), to obligation (line 5). Although Adam reverts to his earlier justifcation of
wanting to make crche (line 8), Sams response upgrades to the more tangible,
authoritative claim of ownership, as he originally built the bridge (line 9). The
upgrading continues to the fnal utterances which refer to concrete properties of
the object (the bridge and the river fowing beneath the bridge).
Ob1. 16
1 ADM: how bout we make creche:.
2 SAM: i wanna make a road (.) and you:r (0.2) rocket
(0.2) is under it.
(0.7)
(0.7)
4 SAM: no.
( 1. 3)
( 2. 1)
( 2. 5)
(0.7)
(0.3)
( 3. 2)
10 SAM: and its-,
( 1. 6)
Church Book.indb 180 13/01/2009 12:11:51
that (.) .hhhthats the river.
(0.3)
(0.4)
14 ADM: yes.
( 2. 7)
Upgrading may also occur within the same type of account, where the shift is
made through the subject rather than the content of the utterance. For example, in
Ob1.6, the liking is attributed to a third party as an upgrade on Tess original claim
of liking the red fsh.
Ob1. 6
(0.8)
(0.9)
7 TES: but (0.3) i got three coz i need (1.3) that
many.
( 1. 6)
(0.9)
( 4. 4)
%act: TES makes no further attempt at topic.
An account may also be considered as upgraded where the speaker rephrases his
or her original utterance to include third party authorisation (specifcally teacher
permission or instruction).
Ob1. 12
(0.3)
3 LUK: were no:t.
(0.9)
(0.2)
5 SAM: no.
(0.6)
Church Book.indb 181 13/01/2009 12:11:51
7 LUK: NO: ?
(0.6)
(0.5)
9 LUK: NO: ?
Ob2. 4
(0.2)
(0.5)
4 J AK: t he the teacher said i will do it.
(0.3)
5 LOU: no:w (.) i know which day (0.2) and i can do it=
(0.6)
7 LOU: no (.) i i can do it [I-],
(0.3)
connect or pi eces.
In both examples above, invoking the teachers authority is not the only instance
of upgrading. In Ob1.12, Adams frst opposition (line 2) is based on a necessity
account. In his next turn (line 6) he states a behavioural expectation (rule of
sharing), before insisting (line 8) that the teacher supports this norm. In Ob2.4,
Louise claims that not only is she able to put the arrow on the calendar, shes aware
of the arrows fragility and possesses the necessary competency or ability to carry
out the action properly.
In the data, there are also instances of upgrading made by the same speaker in
the same turn (restart). In Ob2.13, Louise moves from stating personal desire as a
reason for her objection, to a claim of prior ownership. In Ob1.2, J ohn revises his
statement that the spaceship is not ready and attributes the state of unreadiness to
both parties (i.e. inclusive, plural subject). In Ob1.16, Adam shifts from invoking a
necessity claim to providing an alternate suggestion for the play script. In Ob2.25,
Paul revises his initial ownership claim to the play space and proposes that the
entire zoo belongs to the group.
Ob2. 13
Church Book.indb 182 13/01/2009 12:11:51
Ob1. 2
just not ready yet.
( 3. 6)
Ob1. 16
Ob2. 25
2 PAU: thats my si- (0.2) this is all our fun zoo.
Essentially, in an upgraded utterance, the speaker provides further information or
further evidence to support his or her position.
Ob2. 12
4 WIN: DO:NT!
many things here.
Downgrading
Downgrading is found in disputes which are not actively resolved (i.e. abandoned
or brought to end through teacher intervention). In contrast to the examples above,
the following episode demonstrates subsequent dispreferred turn shapes which
incorporate progressively weaker (more subjective) accounts.
Ob2. 7
(0.2)
( 1. 8)
6 ELI: whos wearing pants.
(0.3)
7 CAZ: she i s.
%act: points to observer
( 1. 9)
Church Book.indb 183 13/01/2009 12:11:51
8 ELI: i know she is (.) but thats a boy (.) i know that.
( 1. 2)
10 ELI: x x x x x.
( 2. 5)
(0.4)
12 ELI: its mine.
( 1. 1)
( 3. 3)
girl.
(0.7)
(0.4)
(0.3)
(0.2)
( 6. 8)
(0.7)
( 1. 1)
give me that.
(1.0)
Although upgrading is not essential to secure resolution, nor does downgrading
inevitably lead to a collapse of collaborative play more extensive data is needed
to establish a conclusive pattern of escalating (or de-escalating) accounts across
disputes these sequences provide further evidence to support a relationship
between objectivity of accounts and outcome. Inevitably, allowances should be
made for other infuential features of the interaction (particularly the relationship
between the participants involved, issues of motivation associated with topic of
dispute, and so on). However, the fndings presented here demonstrate a pattern
of turn shapes where specifc accounts function as more powerful referents for
opposition than others.
Arguably, the notion of objectivity in accounts provided by the children is one
imposed here by the analyst rather than categorically referred to by the children
Church Book.indb 184 13/01/2009 12:11:51
themselves even though particular responses are made to particular types of
accounts. It is the function of accounts more generally, however, that proves the
signifcant fnding in this research. Throughout this chapter, the types of turn
shapes appearing in the closing of disputes have been considered. We have seen
that preference organisation is an organising principle in disputes, in that preferred
turn shapes invariably sustain the disputes and resolution can only be achieved
where children provide justifcation for their opposition.
Church Book.indb 185 13/01/2009 12:11:51
Chapter 7
How to Resolve Disputes
The analysis throughout Chapters 4, 5 and 6 has underscored the saliency of
preference organisation in young childrens peer disputes. Preference features
(i.e. markedness or its absence) were produced consistently throughout the
childrens arguments, and sequences of specifc turn shapes have been tied to
specifc outcomes. It remains, in this concluding chapter, to defend the isolation of
accounts as a dominant feature of dispreferred turn shapes. The role of preference
in adversative discourse is also revisited, followed by examples from the data
which serve as a summary of fndings, fndings which illustrate how young
children resolve arguments with peers.
Saliency of accounts
The focus in the previous chapter was directed to accounts provided for opposition.
Justifcations have been considered in terms of persuasiveness, particularly
where notions of upgrading are tied to resolving disputes. It is important, given
the conversation analytic approach employed in this study, to demonstrate why
these accounts have received so much attention in the analysis. Although much
of the analysis seemingly isolates utterances in discussion of preference features,
it should be noted that these features are interpreted as responsive to the prior
turn. It is argued that the saliency of accounts is oriented to by the children
themselves: accounts are of primary importance because the children treat them
as such. Frequently in the data, opposition to the prior utterance/speaker consists
of challenging the content of the prior account, as exemplifed in the segments
below.
Ob1. 1
6 LIA: no: animals allowed under the bridge (0.9) or on
top of the bridge.
(0.5)
7 CHE: y[es]!
8 NOR: [(well)] that lions on top of the bridge?
Ob1. 13
Church Book.indb 187 13/01/2009 12:11:52
Ob1. 19
( 5. 7)
Ob2. 2
(0.3)
4 J AK: no: (.) you were over there.
Ob2. 7
1 CAZ: heres another big girl
(0.4)
(0.2)
Ob2.10
(0.3)
21 PAU: huh?
(0.3)
(0.3)
Ob2. 11
(0.2)
Ob2. 13
(0.4)
3 WI N: no you were using that car.
In challenging the content of a prior account, the speaker is also challenging
the authority of the opposing party. When the quality of the account is called
into question, so too is the competency/knowledge/position of the author of the
account. These challenges are made to all types of accounts, but the majority
not surprisingly occur contiguously to more subjective justifcations (open to
Church Book.indb 188 13/01/2009 12:11:52
How to Resolve Disputes 189
verifcation challenges). Interestingly, these corrections function as instances of
other-initiated repair, performed as unmitigated opposition.
These types of challenges are not extraordinary because the very existence
of confict is based on next-position opposition. The point underscored here is
the frequency with which opposition is content-tied to the account in the prior
utterance. The powerful status of accounts, then, is not only evidenced by their
role in resolving confict, but also where they fail to justify the speakers position,
a failure which may be noted explicitly by the hearer. It has been suggested
elsewhere that a supported turn may secure agreement or acceptance when an
unsupported turn would ordinarily get argument (Jackson and Jacobs, 1980: 258).
Fundamentally, it is the quality of the account which instigates the opportunity for
resolution.
Why preference?
Oppositional turns in young childrens verbal disputes with peers are predominantly
performed in one of two ways: confrontation is direct, or the child attempts to
persuade by providing a reason for his/her challenge. This pattern, found throughout
the disputes recorded in the two child care centres, mirrors the organisation of
preference identifed in (adult) conversation (e.g. Atkinson and Heritage, 1984;
Levinson, 1983; Pomerantz, 1984). Whilst turn initial pauses were not always
consistent markers of preference in the data, turns were recognisably performed in
preferred or dispreferred turn shape.
As demonstrated earlier, for arguments to exist or continue, disagreement is
a preferred action. Evidently opposition may not be personally preferred by the
speakers, but the discourse is structured such that counter-objection orients to
objection, and counter-opposition to opposition. For confict to perpetuate, the next
speaker must oppose (preferably overtly and without delay) the prior utterance.
Where this opposition is not overt, it is marked as dispreferred, characterised by
delay and the provision of an accompanying account or justifcation for opposition.
In other contexts, accounts in dispreferred turn shapes provide for the absence of
a preferred second pair part. This holds in childrens disputes; essentially the child
accounts for a less direct form of opposition.
Labelling overt opposition as preferred may appear counter-intuitive, given
that overt opposition is essentially face-threatening. Yet preference operates as a
conversational structuring device; preference in this context relates to the existence
or continuation of adversative discourse. As discussed in Chapter 3, the problems
of applying preference relate to confusion with lay interpretation of the term
preference and misapplication to fxed categories of action. That is, preference
does not necessarily refect the individuals motivation, nor are certain actions
(e.g. agreement) invariably preferred. Through analysis of preference features,
this study has uncovered characteristics of turns in sequence which promote
or preclude resolution of disputes. Having identifed the function of preference
Church Book.indb 189 13/01/2009 12:11:52
organisation in the outcomes of young childrens disputes, we can move to identify
these turn shapes as something other than preferred or dispreferred, to clarify the
signifcance of unequal turn status.
Preferred turns in the childrens dispute episodes are just that: immediate, brief
and overt objection is preferred if the argument is to continue. Whilst the discussion
in Chapter 3 identifed confict as an inversion of conversational expectation (see
Kotthoff, 1993), it is an inversion only where a universal preference for agreement
exists. In childrens arguments, there is no deference to agreement. The resolution
of confict points to this: seeking mutual ground and avoiding overt opposition
(performed in dispreferred turns) leads to a closing rather than continuation of
disputes. The function of preference as an indicator of outcome, indicates that
in the context of childrens disputes, the term preferred could be replaced with
sustaining. That is, turns produced in preferred turn shapes serve to provoke and
sustain confict, whilst dispreferred turn shapes are non-sustaining (designed to
bring the dispute to a close).
This concept of sustaining vs. non-sustaining moves is refected in the
infuence of turn shape on the outcome of disputes. As demonstrated in Chapter
4, simple contradiction of the prior speakers utterance is universally unsuccessful
in persuading the opposing party. Moreover, this type of immediate, short direct
opposition (e.g. line 9 in Ob2.8 below) invariably prompts further opposition and
therefore the continuation of the dispute. It is the expected form of the (rejoining)
second pair part which denotes this turn shape as sustaining. The overall
conclusion is both simple and striking: short, direct forms of opposition do not
resolve disputes.
Ob2. 8
9 WI N: =no you did[nt].
Conversely, dispreferred turn shapes function as non-sustaining, mitigating moves.
They are dispreferred in that they are not designed to perpetuate confict but rather
are produced to appease the opposing party. Furthermore, fnal utterances in
resolved disputes are preceded by dispreferred turn shapes. That is, there is an
established pattern of speakers justifying their own positions, rather than simply
contradicting the prior speaker. Sequences of non-sustaining (i.e. dispreferred)
turn shapes in resolved disputes typically allow for negotiation, rather than bald
confict.
A fundamental characteristic of non-sustaining turns is the provision of novel
content in attempting to persuade the opposing party. Sustaining turn shapes,
on the other hand, typically contain minimal or negligible novel content. It has
been shown in earlier research (e.g. Eisenberg and Garvey, 1981), and replicated
here, that repetition is a weak form of opposition, one which promotes a cycle
of counter challenges. As seen in the analysis, repetition of prior utterances is
implicated in disputes which prompt teacher intervention (e.g. Ob1.14, Ob1.25),
Church Book.indb 190 13/01/2009 12:11:52
underscoring the ineffectualness of simply repeating prior objections. Introducing
novel content in the dispute, by providing additional or alternative reasons for
opposition therefore constitutes a move towards reconciliation.
This analysis not only informs dispute practices between young children,
but reinforces the theory of preference organisation. Turn shapes in opposition
moves were consistently performed in one of two ways: directly or overtly in short
utterances (sustaining), or delayed with accompanying accounts (non-sustaining).
This supports the argument made at the end of Chapter 3 for the reliability of
linguistic markedness in distinguishing preference organisation.
Turn shapes in sequence
The signifcance of preference organisation in young childrens disputes is best
represented in examples of extended sequences of discourse. In Ob1.4, the counter-
cycles of typically preferred turn shapes continues until the teacher intervenes.
The short and direct forms of opposition throughout this episode serve to sustain
the dispute.
Ob1. 4
( 4. 6)
( 1. 7)
(0.2)
(0.5)
(0.6)
( 1. 5)
( 1. 3)
9 TES: Hi lary just said the song is her s and its not
its mi : ne.
(0.9)
10 HIL: well it i s mi ne t oo: .
( 3. 8)
11 YYY: girls (0.4) whats the problem.
( 1. 5)
Church Book.indb 191 13/01/2009 12:11:52
12 HIL: it is my song t oo: .
(0.2)
14 HI L: i t i s.
(0.4)
15 TES: no:.
( 2. 5)
(0.4)
17 YYY: okay whats the matter over here.
%yyy: teacher goes on to explain that songs belong to
everybody.
In contrast, the brief episode below (Ob1.2) is characterised by an exchange of
justifed opposition. In line 3, Adam produces an objective account based on the
properties of the object he is building. In response, J ohn counters in dispreferred
turn shape (i.e. non-sustaining move), attributing a state of unreadiness not only to
himself but to Adam as well. This inclusive account proves successful in resolving
the dispute.
Ob1. 2
2 JON: no no (0.3) no this [spacesh-],
l e:gs.
4 JON: [but-],
(0.9)
just not ready yet.
( 3. 6)
Through studying preference features in childrens disputes, characteristics of
sustaining and non-sustaining turns have been identifed. Turn shapes have been
labelled as preferred or dispreferred throughout this book because the function
of these unequal second pair parts has been discovered during the course of
sequential analysis. Having completed the analysis, however, these turn shapes can
now be identifed by their role in the outcome of disputes. While a more generic
substitutive term might be markedness (Mey, 2001), preference organisation in
young childrens adversative discourse delineates sustaining and non-sustaining
utterances. To sum up, the more overt the opposition, the more likely the dispute
will continue. Conversely where children account for their opposition (i.e.
providing novel content), a mutually acceptable outcome becomes possible.
Church Book.indb 192 13/01/2009 12:11:52
Overwhelmingly, the more objective the childs position or justifcation, the more
likely resolution will be secured.
Existing research has illustrated the social context, function, and frequency
of disputes, and the role of argument in developing social cognition. Related to
developing communicative competence, earlier studies concentrate on types of
strategies in childrens adversative discourse (Chapter 2), the range of which is not
contradicted in the research reported here. The present study, however, has moved
beyond classifcation of single utterances and has provided a theoretical framework
through which these arguments may be better understood. The distinctive value
of using a conversation analytic approach (Chapter 3) was to further explore
childrens arguments as connected discourse.
Features of preference organisation (Chapter 3), in particular, have been
identifed in this study as infuential in the outcome of disputes. The analysis
revealed the constancy of preference features throughout the data. Specifcally,
markedness is indicative of dispreferred turn shape, given that preferred turn
shapes are essentially unmarked (Chapter 4). In order to consider the role of
preference organisation in the development of disputes, closings were classifed as
resolved, abandoned or achieved through teacher intervention (Chapter 5). Final
utterances of resolved disputes were almost universally performed in dispreferred
turn shape; threats were shown to operate as atypical dispreferred turn shapes.
Conversely, it became increasingly clear throughout the analysis that preferred
turn shapes sustain disputes, given that overt opposition is likely to be responded
to with further opposition. The type of justifcation provided for opposition proved
of particular signifcance (Chapter 6), specifcally the quality of the account. In
attempting to bring about resolution, accounts which are most objective prove
most infuential.
Applicability of fndings
The data presented here is representative of adversative discourse between
Australian English-speaking four-year-old children from middle- and upper middle-
class families living in Melbourne. The fndings do not pretend to be applicable
to all young childrens verbal disputes. However, the analysis uncovered patterns
or sequences of turns which may occur elsewhere. It is proposed that preference
organisation may operate as a universal organisational principle of sequences
of adversative discourse. Importantly, patterns of preference organisation were
performed constantly in both observation environments. Although the two groups
of children differed as to frequency and distribution of types of disputes, there
was uniformity in the manner in which objections were performed and disputes
resolved.
The fndings are not necessarily peculiar to childrens disputes. Indeed, one
would expect objective justifcations to be more persuasive than overt opposition in
the disputes of older children and adults. However, it is important to re-emphasise
Church Book.indb 193 13/01/2009 12:11:52
a point made in the introductory chapter; childrens competencies should not be
viewed as imperfect adult productions. Rather, the pragmatic abilities demonstrated
by young children continue to develop (building on earlier competencies) into
adulthood.
In managing interaction with peers, children are frequently encouraged to
express their intrinsic reaction to another childs behaviour, e.g. I dont like
that. Whilst this advice may be appropriate in other contexts, the analysis has
shown that this is not an effective response or justifcation in disputes. This fnding
underscores the importance of studying patterns of peer interaction as they unfold,
rather than imposing adult interpretation or impressions of childrens experiences.
Child-directed strategies should be informed by actual child-child interaction.
The analysis has demonstrated that, not only should children account for their
objections in order to resolve disputes with peers, the more objective the account,
the more persuasive the speaker will be. This fnding obviously holds signifcant
implications for teacher strategies in supporting childrens negotiations with peers.
The ubiquitous instruction to use your words can be refned in this context to
you need to give a reason for disagreeing with your friend.
Beyond this book
Whilst the theory of linguistic preference has proven instrumental in uncovering
the sequential infuence of turn shapes, it is not claimed here that preference
organisation is the only signifcant feature of childrens disputes. The richness
of the data precludes an exhaustive analysis of all features of this discourse.
Subsequent analysis, for example, should be directed to paralinguistic features and
nonverbal behaviour in the disputes (accessible through improved video recording).
Although increased volume, for example, was not related to resolution (shouting
appeared in disputes which were abandoned or brought to a close through teacher
intervention), future research could properly examine suprasegmental cues.
Further criticism may be made of a model of confict resolution which does
not account for shifting sociometric status in the preschool classroom. The present
study, however, whilst not directly incorporating peer social status in the analysis,
points to the manner in which this status may be realised; namely, through turn-
taking in conversation. The theory of social identity as created through local action
(specifcally conversation) is a legacy of Harvey Sacks and is of fundamental
import in conversation analysis and membership catergorzation analysis as felds
of study. In the domain of childrens arguments, we may look for the management
of power relationships in the sequential organisation of the adversative discourse.
The assumption is that high status (popular) children employ effective opposition
moves, performed in non-sustaining (dispreferred) turn shape, and non-sustaining
turns are produced by children who are able to infuence peers. The conversational
behaviour of young children and relative sociometric status can be seen as
interdependent entities.
Church Book.indb 194 13/01/2009 12:11:52
Similarly, notions of facework and politeness theory were acknowledged in
Chapter 3 but have not been directly accounted for in the analysis presented here.
It remains to be seen if the performance of accounts (ie continuum of objectivity)
is managed by the children in respect to face concerns, and how the performance
of politeness or impoliteness is developed in early childhood. Indeed, it remains
to provide a more comprehensive account of how analysis of childrens arguments
contributes to a theoretical account for childrens developing social skills
Evidently other features of the local social context infuence childrens
adversative discourse. Gender remains an issue in infuencing how children argue,
as boys and girls have been found to argue differently (see Chapter 2). Elsewhere,
manifestation of gender has been identifed not only in contextual variation
(i.e. different types of play and dispute topics) but in the semantic content of
oppositional turns. Although gender was not included as a component of analysis
in this study, it is not dismissed as pertinent in the performance of adversative
discourse. Importantly, however, a uniformity in the organisation of turn shapes
was found throughout the data. That is, in both boys and girls disputes (and
episodes involving both girls and boys) there was a stable relationship between
turn shape and outcome. Further study is necessary to determine if gender
infuences proportion of turn shapes or types of accounts provided (cf. Kyratzis,
1992). Features of adversative discourse which have not been considered here
belong, therefore, to prospective research.
This research has uncovered an organising principle of verbal disputes between
children. Only through closer attention to the sequences of turns, particularly the
form of second pair parts, has a relationship between utterances and outcomes
been established. Preference organisation has proven a viable framework for
distinguishing types of turns which are most likely to bring about resolution of
confict. An obvious practical application of these fndings relates to the content of
adult intervention strategies. The introductory chapter emphasised the importance
of encouraging pedagogical practice in preschool classrooms which is informed
by child-centric research rather than adult intuition. The analysis presented here
has identifed processes in childrens peer disputes, specifcally those related to
resolution, contributing to a strong platform for greater understanding of childrens
communicative abilities.
Although these fndings provide a basis to inform teaching strategies, it does
not follow that children are foundering in confict situations. The data collected
in this study illustrate that competent and often complex sequences of talk are
co-constructed by children at the age of four, providing further evidence of
the developed and developing communicative competence of young children.
Furthermore, an understanding of childrens adversative discourse not only
illuminates childrens pragmatic abilities but provides a window to the organisation
of childrens social worlds.
Church Book.indb 195 13/01/2009 12:11:52
Appendix A
Table A.1 Transcription conventions
.
Falling terminal contour
,
Continuing contour (incomplete)
?
Strongly rising terminal contour
Rising terminal contour

!
Emphatic/animated utterance terminator
-
Abrupt halt
[ ] Overlapping speech
=
Latching (contiguous stretches of talk)
(0.7)
Pause measured in tenths of a second
( . )
Pause timed less than 0.2 seconds
___
Stress on the word/syllable/sound
:
Lengthening of previous sound
CAPS
Increase in volume

Decrease in volume
Signifcant rise or fall in intonation
> <
Faster than surrounding talk
< >
Slower than surrounding talk
. hhh
Audible inhalation
$
Laughing while talking (smile talk)
( ) Uncertain words (best guess)
( ( ) )
Comments e.g. quality of speech or intended hearer
x
Unintelligible speech
%act
Identifes (accompanying) nonverbal action
%com
Observer comment
text Feature of interest
Source: See Sacks, Schegloff and J efferson, 1974.
Church Book.indb 197 13/01/2009 12:11:53
Observation 1 transcripts
@Begin
@Participants: NOR Norm CHE Cherie MIN Minnie LIA Liam
FEL Fel i ci t y
@Fi l e name: Ob1. 1. ca
@Audio: Disc 2(1) (Begin) 9:50
@Epi sode: 1
@Situation: MIN and LIA have spent considerable time
constructing a jetty together for their
lions. NOR, CHE and FEL approach and try
to push their boats (blocks, each with
a different animal as a passenger) under
the bridge.
1 NOR: ((to Ch and F)) lets go to the li:on jetty:!
(0.7)
2 NOR: lets go to the jetty:.
( 1. 5)
3 NOR: lets [go to the jetty].
4 MIN: [no (.) no (0.3)] no no (0.4) no (we) dont want
those (0.4) big anim[als x-],
5 LI A: [ no] .
(0.3)
6 LIA: no: animals allowed under the bridge (0.9) or on
top of the bridge.
(0.5)
7 CHE: y[es]!
8 NOR: [(well)] that lions on top of the bridge?
(0.2)
9 LI A: ( ( to the girls, teasing voice)) you cant go on
( 1. 1)
10 MIN: but cept but cept [they can go] on (.) they
ca: n.
11 CHE: [but were new].
( 1. 4)
12 CHE: going.
%com: pr oduced as st at ement of i nt ent
( 1. 7)
13 FEL: me as wel l .
( 1. 5)
Church Book.indb 198 13/01/2009 12:11:53
Appendix A 199
15 LIA: [uh uh]. ((negating prior utterance))
( 1. 3)
16 LIA: uh uh=
17 MIN: =uh uh (0.2) uh u[h].
18 FEL: [ m] mmmm.
%com: sound of f r ust r at i on as she t r i es t o push her
boat through but LIA stops her
(0.3)
19 LIA: no no [NAH] NO:: (0.2) No::: do:nt.
20 NOR: im [up here]. ((places his animal on the
jetty))
(0.6)
21 CHE: xxxxxx
( 3. 4)
22 NOR: im up here (0.2) im up here (0.3) up (0.3) x
that ones up.=
23 MIN: =you s[ee lo]ok- (0.5) you see look what happened
(0.8) your dog broke the jetty.
24 LIA: [nah], ((whines) )
(0.8)
25 MIN: or maybe [he might broke] the jetty when he
walks along.
26 CHE: [(im breaking it)].
(0.5)
27 NOR: no he can just stand there when he doesnt break
i t ?
( 3. 1)
28 FEL: he can just stand there.=
29 MIN: =break it Felicity.
(0.5)
30 NOR: get that up here.
( 1. 3)
31 NOR: up here [Im] up here.
32 LI A: [ no] .
33 CHE: ill go and tell the teacher.
%com: i.e. to report she is not being allowed to push
her boat through
%yyy: Teacher suggests to LIA that he should let the
girls play and that they will help fx the jetty
i f t hey cause a pi ece t o f al l .
@End
Church Book.indb 199 13/01/2009 12:11:53
@Begin
@Participants: ADM Adam JON John
@Fi l e name: Ob1. 2. ca
@Tape: Disc 3(1): (Begin) 0:48
@Epi sode: 2
@Situation: ADM and JON are using Lego to make Astro
spaceshi ps.
2 JON: no no (0.3) no this [spacesh-],
l e:gs.
4 JON: [but-],
(0.9)
just not ready yet.
( 3. 6)
@End
@Begin
@Participants: ADM Adam KOY Koyo JON John
@Fi l ename: Ob1. 3
@Audio: Disc 3(1): (Begin) 11:34
@Epi sode: 3
@Situation: JON, ADM and KOY are landing their Lego
rockets/jets on the table.
1 KOY: Adam (0.6) where i can go.
(0.7)
2 KOY: where i can go Adam?
( 1. 1)
3 J ON: nowhe[ r e] .
4 KOY: [i] got a rocket?
( 1. 3)
5 KOY: i got a rocket (and a jet).
( 1. 3)
r ocket s.
( 1. 4)
(0.5)
Church Book.indb 200 13/01/2009 12:11:53
Appendix A 201
8 ADM: no: coz (0.3) rockets are not allowed to come in
(.) only (0.4) a rocket and a jet (0.4) coz
(0.2)
9 KOY: im a jet.
(0.8)
10 ADM: now this is gonna have a big-,
@End
@Begin
@Participants: HIL Hilary TES Tess YYY Teacher
@Fi l ename: Ob1. 4. ca
@Epi sode: 4
@Situation: HIL and TES are sitting at a table, each
placing coloured pieces into mesh frames.
HIL has quietly been singing a popular
tune about Barbie. Before the dialogue
i s pi cked up by t he audi o t ape ( pr i or
interaction is obscured by the conversation
of ot her chi l dr en cl oser t o t he mi cr ophone)
TES has started to sing the same song.
HIL has told TES that shes not allowed
to sing this particular song.
( 4. 6)
( 1. 7)
(0.2)
(0.5)
(0.6)
( 1. 5)
( 1. 3)
Church Book.indb 201 13/01/2009 12:11:53
9 TES: Hi lary just said the song is her s and its not
its mi : ne.
(0.9)
10 HIL: well it i s mi ne t oo: .
( 3. 8)
11 YYY: girls (0.4) whats the problem.
( 1. 5)
12 HIL: it is my song t oo: .
(0.2)
14 HI L: i t i s.
(0.4)
15 TES: no:.
( 2. 5)
(0.4)
17 YYY: okay whats the matter over here.
%yyy: teacher goes on to explain that songs belong to
everybody
@End
@Begin
@Participants: TES Tess, ADM Adam, SAM, Sam, HIL Hilary
@Epi sode: 5
@Situation: Children are playing near blocks. TES is
some distance from boys, yet they overhear.
1 TES: bum bum heh heheheh heh huh.((laughing) )
( 1. 2)
2 ADM: who said bum bum?
(0.2)
3 TES: eh heh heh $me:$ he he.
(0.8)
4 SAM: ((serious tone)) Tess: (0.3) [its rude].
5 ADM: [cept] youre not allowed to say bum [bum].
6 SAM: [rude] rude rude.
(2.0)
7 SAM: babies say that sort of thing?
8 TES: huh huh [huh].
9 HIL: [yes] they do:: (.) dont they?
( 1. 2)
Church Book.indb 202 13/01/2009 12:11:53
Appendix A 203
10 ADM: yes they-,
( 1. 6)
11 SAM: >they [do]<.
12 ADM: [a:]ha thats what they say they say (.) bum
bum.
13 TES: ha [hugnh hungh].
14 SAM: [they say] booboo as well.
(0.2)
15 ADM: .hhh yeah and they say (.) .hhhh hello mister
booboo beebee but i (.) but i [cant say that
xxx].
16 TES: [ha hah ha $hey] who said that$ eh heh heh.
(0.2)
17 SAM: Adam (.) hes telling you (0.2) NOT (0.2) to say
si l l y ( . ) wor ds.
(0.3)
18 HI L: yes.
(0.8)
19 TES: no i say xxxxx.
%com: utterance obscured by teacher giving directions
to different group of children (3.2).
20 HIL: shes (.) a (.) baby isnt she.
( 1. 1)
21 TES: im not a baby.
( 1. 4)
22 ADM: yes (.) that means you say BUM BUM.
(0.4)
23 TES: im not a baby so- (0.4) babies are very small
(0.2) and i - when i was a baby next year (0.7)
i said bum bum (0.3) booboo bumbum.
%yyy: Teacher i nt er r upt s t o i nst r uct chi l dr en t o st ar t
packing up.
@End
Church Book.indb 203 13/01/2009 12:11:53
@Begin
@Participants: JON John, TES Tess, SAM Sam
@Epi sode: 6
@Situation: JON and TES are fshing with magnet rods.
The fsh are coloured and the game involves
putting the fsh into the appropriately
col our ed boat ( t he boat s ar e made f r om
boxes). There are seven boats in all,
four of which are placed in front of TES.
One of t he boat s i n f r ont of J ON i s r ed.
SAM is supervising their play.
1 SAM: John you got a red- (.) you have to get a red one
(0.3)[you have to pick up red.]
as wel l .
3 J ON: NO:
4 SAM: no:.
(1.0)
(0.8)
(0.9)
7 TES: but (0.3) i got three coz i need (1.3) that
many.
( 1. 6)
(0.9)
( 4. 4)
%act: TES makes no further attempt at topic
@End
Church Book.indb 204 13/01/2009 12:11:53
Appendix A 205
@Begin
@Participants: SAM Sam, TES Tess, JON John
@Audio: Disc 5:(Begin) 4:39
@Epi sode: 7
@Situation: SAM, TES and JON are playing with the
magnet fsh and fshing rods. The boxes to
which they refer are designed to collect
the corresponding coloured fsh. TES grabs
some of the boxes. The children were
laughing together prior to this episode.
1 TES: ((silly voice)) these are mine (.) thats mine
(.) thats mine (.) tha- my yeeiyeei [yeiyei],
%act: grabbing boxes
2 JON: [hey (.) hey,]=
3 SAM: = hey sto:p (0.5) TE::S[S]::!
4 TES: ((whines)) [na]agnhh.
%act: both children are pulling boxes
(0.5)
5 SAM: Tess (0.4) dont SNA:tch!
7 SAM: 0 ((%act: SAM succeeds in reclaiming the boxes))
(0.6)
8 TES: ((whines)).hhhh Sam took the boxes from me.
%com: di r ect ed t owar ds t eacher who does not hear
(0.4)
%com: al so di r ect ed t o t eacher wi t h no r esponse
( 1. 6)
10 JON: she hit (0.4) Sam.
( 1. 7)
( 1. 1)
(0.4)
(0.3)
15 TES: s[orry] Sam.
16 JON: [prop-],
%com: pl ay r esumes
@End
Church Book.indb 205 13/01/2009 12:11:54
@Begin
@Participants: JON John, TES Tess
@Epi sode: 8
@Situation: JON and TES are playing with the magnet
fshing game. The fsh are seven different
colours. TES catches a blue fsh even
though the blue boat is in front of
J ON.
1 JON: oh you got my one (.) x ing it.
(0.4)
(0.8)
6 JON: [yeah] oh yeah coz-,
(1.0)
7 JON: oh yeah coz.
@End
@Begin
@Participants: JON John, TES Tess, SAM Sam
@Epi sode: 9
@Situation: JON, TES and SAM are still playing with
the fshing magnets. They have been putting
he fsh back into the large box, because
they have been pretending that a shark is
swimming near the smaller boats (boxes).
1 TES: put the boats in there c- coz we are packing up
(.) coz the sharks coming.
(0.7)
3 JON: =not the-,
(1.0)
Church Book.indb 206 13/01/2009 12:11:54
Appendix A 207
(0.5)
8 TES: the sharks coming.
( 1. 2)
10 SAM: coz [see (.) if people want to play with them
(0.7) they wont be ready] for them (0.2) so-,
11 JON: [look at this Sam: (0.3) look at this Sam].
( 1. 2)
12 JON: $oh: you got my one (0.6) oh you got my one:$.
(1.0)
13 JON: i [got] my green one.
14 SAM: [no-],
(0.5)
15 SAM: no they all in the-,
( 3. 5)
16 SAM: and i:m waiting to have (0.2) a go: and
youre taking (.) so (0.3) l:o:ng.
%com: JON offers one of the rods to SAM.
@End
@Begin
@Participants: JON John, TES Tess, SAM, Sam, MIL Milly
@Filename: Ob1.10.ca
@Episode: 10
@Situation: JON and TES are using the only two
available fshing rods to catch magnet
fsh. MIL has just arrived and is watching
them. Prior to this exchange, SAM asked
TES if he could have a turn and she
r ef used.
1 J ON: ( ( to MIL teasing voice)) oh YOU havent got a f:
shing ro:d.
2 TES: 0 (3.6) ((%act: attempts to take JONSs fshing
rod which he has put on the ground in order to
pick up a fsh with his hands))
3 J ON: ( ( rise throughout) ) no no no no no.
%act: JON reclaims his fshing rod
4 TES: no (0.4) Milly and me are having a turn.
Church Book.indb 207 13/01/2009 12:11:54
5 JON: NO: (0.2) ive got a fshing rod (0.2) see:?
( 1. 5)
6 JON: so dont (.) take (0.2) this (0.2) fshing rod
of f me.
(0.6)
(0.2) ((turns to MIL)) do[nt you].
( 1. 3)
fshing rod.
(2.0)
(0.8)
( 1. 6)
( 3. 1)
%com: Neither TES nor JON actually pass on the rods to
MIL or SAM. Eventually the teacher steps in to
allot turns to SAM and MIL who have not yet
pl ayed.
@End
@Begin
@Participants: FEL Felicity, CHE Cherie, NAN Nancy
@Audio: Disc 6 (1): (Begin) 8:45
@Epi sode: 11
@Situation: FEL and CHE are using the only two
available fshing rods to catch the
magnetic fsh. NAN has been watching them
f or some t i me.
1 NAN: i want a turn of that fsh.
( 2. 1)
2 NAN: Cher i e.
(0.8)
3 FEL: wha: [ t ] ?
(0.4)
(0.3)
Church Book.indb 208 13/01/2009 12:11:54
Appendix A 209
7 CHE: ( ( sings quietly to herself))[get the] little
fshies out (0.2) in the little box.
8 CHE: ( ( to FEL) ) ( t hese [ ar e your s] ) .
9 FEL: ([fshes]),
(0.5)
10 CHE: you put them in.
( 2. 6)
( 1. 2)
(0.6)
13 NAN: no youre not sharing (.) youre (0.4) taking
a long time.
( 3. 4)
14 FEL: mmm.
15 NAN: dont say mmm.
( 1. 1)
16 FEL: mmm.
(0.2)
18 FEL: mmm.
(0.4)
20 CHE: put the [little fshies],
21 NAN: [you dont have] to sa:y tha:t.
(0.6)
22 NAN: you dont have to sa:y that (0.7) anyway.
( 2. 3)
23 NAN: dont say that to me (0.3) [anyway].
(0.4)
24 FEL: [MMM].
(0.5)
25 NAN: D[O::NT (.)((whimpers)) i dont] like it.
26 CHE: [fshes (0.2) theyre your fshes],
%act: CHE and FEL move with their fshing rods to the
ot her si de of t he r oom. NAN hesi t at es t hen
f ol l ows.
@End
Church Book.indb 209 13/01/2009 12:11:54
@Begin
@Participants: ADM Adam, LUK Luke, PET Peter, KOY Koyo
@Epi sode: 12
@Situation: LUK and SAM are making a house with wooden
blocks. ADM is sitting 2m away.
(0.7)
(0.3)
3 LUK: were no:t.
(0.9)
(0.2)
5 SAM: no.
(0.6)
7 LUK: NO: ?
(0.6)
(0.5)
9 LUK: NO: ?
(0.2)
10 ADM: <YES she does>.
(0.6)
11 LUK: [ no: ] ?
12 KOY: [im mak]ing a garage.
(0.6)
13 ADM: Y[ES:].
14 KOY: im [putting] in a bit of [garage].
15 LUK: [ no: ] ?
16 KOY: [lets make a] garage-,
17 LUK: [here look] (0.2) lets make a very big [one].
(0.2)
19 LUK: ( ( sing song voice) ) t he: y do: no: t .
(0.2)
20 ADM: yes they (.) say-,
%com: LUK becomes busy constructing the garage with
other boys. ADM abandons this entry attempt.
@End
Church Book.indb 210 13/01/2009 12:11:54
Appendix A 211
@Begin
@Participants: KOY Koyo, ADM Adam, LUK Luke, PET Peter
@Epi sode: 13
@Situation: KOY, LUK, and PET are making garages with
blocks. ADM drives his tall duplo car
in the direction of one of the garages.
2 KOY: no big cars!
( 2. 4)
( 1. 3)
5 ADM: excuse me (.) um (.) Luke can i come- (.) .hhhh
can my car come in
(0.3)
6 LUK: um (.) um (.) mines only one of the li:ttle
(0.5) fats.
7 LUK: [if you-],
8 PET: [because] (.) because we wont make a house with
t hat one.
9 ADM: but [the but xxx] NO:.
%act: drives towards garage
(0.5)
10 LUK: ha ha
11 PET: ha[ haha]
12 LUK: [ hahahaha}
13 ADM: [i have to stay out] of the gargage (0.2) (get
ou:t),=
%act: puts his car next to the blocks
14 KOY: =STO::P!
(0.3) coz its fat.
(0.9)
16 ADM: see?
( 2. 6)
18 LUK: ( ( to ADM)) im making one for you.
%com: Play continues and ADM is now part of the
group.
@End
Church Book.indb 211 13/01/2009 12:11:54
@Begin
@Partcipants: LUK Luke, SAM Sam, PET, Peter, ADM Adam
@Epi sode: 14
@Situation: SAM and PET are assisting LUK in the
construction of his bridge. SAM accidentally
knocks the blocks over.
1 SAM: 0 ((%act: knocks blocks over))
2 SAM: [ah],
5 LUK: [ t st oh] oh [ oh oh no: . ] ( ( whining) )
7 LUK: =NAUGHTY!
(0.5)
8 SAM: i was trying to balance it [and it just] fe:ll.=
9 LUK: [its naughty].
10 LUK: =((to PET)) say [naughty] Sam!
11 ADM: [naughty].
12 PET: naughty Sam.
( 1. 1)
13 SAM: i was trying to ba[lance i:t].
14 ADM: [HEY LOOK] (0.2) look at this!
15 LUK: thats NAUghty.
16 ADM: WA[TER]!
17 LUK: [NAUGHTY] [THATS NAUGHTY],
18 SAM: [I WAS TRYING TO] BALA:NCE I :T.
( 1. 4)
19 YYY: excuse me boys?
20 LUK: Sam broke my [x:].
21 YYY: [well] [i dont think he] really meant to
22 SAM: [i was trying-],
(1.0)
23 YYY: you can make it again
%com: This is followed by a nonverbal tussle between
LUK and SAM, each trying to grab blocks, each
bursting into tears.
@End
Church Book.indb 212 13/01/2009 12:11:54
Appendix A 213
@Begin
@Participants: PET Peter, ADM Adam, SAM Sam, RON Ron
@Epi sode: 15
@Situation: ADM has brought toy cars from home.
1 PET: but which one can i: have.
( 1. 5)
2 ADM: i have to have two.
( 1. 2)
3 PET: and which one then then which [one],
4 ADM: [i got] another one of the special car?
(0.3)
(0.2)
8 RON: [what-],
( 1. 1)
9 SAM: thats a tow bar thats what thats called a
[ t ow bar ] .
(0.6)
11 SAM: it doesnt matter if you dont have a trailer
.hhhh [coz its too xxx.]
( 1. 2)
( 1. 3)
(1.0)
(0.4)
16 PET: why: .
( 2. 3)
(0.2)
Church Book.indb 213 13/01/2009 12:11:55
(0.4)
(0.9)
@End
@Begin
@Participants: ADM Adam, SAM Sam
@Epi sode: 16
@Situation: SAM is playing with the blocks. ADM joins
hi m.
1 ADM: how bout we make creche:.
2 SAM: i wanna make a road (.) and you:r (0.2) rocket
(0.2) is under it.
(0.7)
(0.7)
4 SAM: no.
( 1. 3)
( 2. 1)
( 2. 5)
(0.7)
(0.3)
( 3. 2)
10 SAM: and its-,
( 1. 6)
(0.3)
Church Book.indb 214 13/01/2009 12:11:55
Appendix A 215
(0.4)
14 ADM: yes.
( 2. 7)
@End
@Begin
@Participants: ADM Adam, PET Peter, KOY Koyo
@Epi soe: 17
@Situation: ADM, PET, KOY and SAM have been playing
wi t h t he bl ocks f or some t i me. Cl assr oom
r ul es st at e t hat bl ocks on t he shel f may
be used by any child, but once they have
been removed and used in construction they
belong to that child (i.e. permission
must be asked before using a block that
is already on the foor). ADM approaches
t he shel f .
(0.2)
(0.2)
3 ADM: yes i am.
(0.2)
4 PET: no.
(0.8)
5 ADM: i am.
( 1. 4)
( 1. 5)
8 PET: but were not gonna share with our toys [are we]
%com: PET is addressing SAM and KOY.
11 PET: [ NO. ]
(0.2)
12 KOY: no.
(0.5)
Church Book.indb 215 13/01/2009 12:11:55
(0.8)
14 PET: no.
(0.3)
( 1. 1)
16 KOY: NO.
%act: PET and KOY start taking blocks from the foor,
blocks that ADM has taken from the shelf.
(0.6)
17 PET: yeah weve got all of our-,
%act : t akes mor e bl ocks.
( 1. 3)
%act: PET and KOY continue to take ADMs blocks.
(0.4)
19 ADM: if you (0.6) (that) (.) NO:.((starts to cry) )
%yyy: teacher intervenes, saying to observer Somebody
needs a sl eep t oday.
@End
@Begin
@Participants: TES Tess, SAM Sam, KOY Koyo, PET Peter,
ADM Adam, LUK Luke
@Epi sode: 18
@Situation: All the children are packing away the
blocks. KOY accidentally knocks some of
the blocks off the shelf. KOY and SAM
laugh. TES has just moved into this room
from Kinder 1 (younger group) and is one
of onl y t wo chi l dr en i n t hi s pl ayr oom
under the age of 4.
%act: blocks knocked (accidentally) off shelf by KOY
1 SAM: o:hh[h huh huh huh] [[huh huh,]]
2 KOY: [hah hah hah,]
3 TES: [[THATS]] (.) VERY NAUGHty.
( 1. 1)
4 SAM: no Koyo didnt do it?
(0.9)
5 KOY: [no.]
6 TES: [yes] he did [he] did.
Church Book.indb 216 13/01/2009 12:11:55
Appendix A 217
7 KOY: [no].
8 SAM: a[(ctually)],
9 KOY: ((to TES) ) [ see ( . ) $yo: u] di d i t $.
(0.2)
(0.9)
11 SAM: Te:ss (.) too: lou:d.
12 KOY: it hurts my ears.
(0.3)
13 SAM: it hurts (.) my ears as well (.) thats a
ou:tsi:de (.) voice (0.3) isnt it A[dam].
14 ADM: [yes].
15 TES: do you know what Sam (.) i tried a new-,
16 PET: [Tess we dont scream (0.3) not] at all.=
17 TES: = a-
(0.5)
18 LUK: not (even) [one little bit].
19 PET: [ not at al l ] .
( 1. 9)
20 PET: NOT AT ALL:,=
21 KOY: =not [at all].
22 TES: [i i] i didnt do it did i Nancy?
( 1. 1)
23 KOY: yeah you did it i did[nt].
24 PET: ( ( to TES) ) [ yes] you di d.
25 KOY: (Adam didnt do it)?
26 KOY: not [xx].
27 PET: [xx-],
28 TES: 0 ((%act: TES gestures towards PET with a block))
29 PET: ah!
( 1. 2)
30 PET: thats not very nice. ((chanting) )
31 PET: [thats not very nice].
32 KOY: [not very nice] thats not very nice].
33 SAM: [thats not very nice] thats not very nice]
thats not very nice.
34 TES: NO I DIDNT DO IT did i Nancy (0.5) Koyo did it=
35 KOY: =no.
(0.3)
36 SAM: no Koyo didnt.
(0.6)
37 PET: yea: h.
38 SAM: it just fell down.
Church Book.indb 217 13/01/2009 12:11:55
39 PET: ( ( to TES)) you Miss Mup-,
(0.5)
40 ADM: you Miss Mu:shroom?
41 TES: IM NOT A MISS [MUSHROOM] im [TE::SS].
42 PET: [hahaha] (0.5) [yes you are (0.2)] [[yes you
are]],
43 YYY: [[Tess]]
%yyy: Teacher intervenes by calling TES over to the
other side of the room. TES is crying and her
words are unintelligible by this stage.
@End
@Begin
@Participants: LUK Luke, SAM Sam
@Fi l ename: Ob1. 19
@Epi sode: 9
@Situation: Pack up time. The children are pretending
to be cranes and are placing blocks next
to ADM who has been given the responsibility
of stacking the blocks on the shelf.
1 LUK: 0 ((%act: puts a block on the shelf))
( 5. 7)
4 SAM: =that doesnt matter coz it wasnt a block it
was a cyl i nder .
@End
@Begin
@Participants: LUK Luke, PET Peter, ADM Adam
@Episode: 20
@Situation: PET, CHE, ADM, LUK and KOY are seated
around a table drawing on one large piece
of paper .
1 PET: 0 ((%act: draws on LUKs side of the paper))
2 LUK: ( ( to PET) ) no t hi s i s t he moo: n.
(0.8)
Church Book.indb 218 13/01/2009 12:11:55
Appendix A 219
( 1. 9)
6 PET: ( ( whines)) dont draw mi::ne.
(0.2)
7 LUK: no you ( . ) you dr aw on you: r par t .
( 1. 3)
%com: this is a toy LUK has brought from home.
(0.5)
9 PET: yes.
11 PET: yes.
(0.3)
13 PET: i wo:nt.
( 1. 1)
@End
@Begin
@Participants: CHE Cherie, LUK Luke, PET Peter
@Epi sode: 21
@Situation: CHE and KOY are building with blocks near
PET and LUK who are using blocks to make
a garage.
1 PET: 0 ((%act:picks up a few blocks which are on the
ground near CHE))
( 1. 2)
( 1. 6)
(0.5)
5 PET: no we wont.
( 1. 9)
Church Book.indb 219 13/01/2009 12:11:55
6 LUK: we need l i t t l e bl ocks.
(0.3)
7 PET: we need the little blocks and you can have the
long blocks.
%act: CHE returns to her own building.
@End
@Begin
@Participants: ADM Adam, KOY Koyo
@Epi sode: 22
@Situation: Pack up time. The children are trying to
put blocks on the shelf. ADM has made
something with the blocks on the shelf,
KOY accidentally knocks it as he puts
anot her bl ock on t he shel f .
(0.2)
(0.6)
4 ADM: yes i am.
6 ADM: =YES I AM.
%act: KOY walks away to collect more blocks.
@End
@Begin
@Participants: LUK Luke, SAM Sam
@Epi sode: 23
@Situation: LUK is banging a block on his own head.
1 LUK: look Sam (0.3) ow ow.=
2 SAM: =dont do that (.) thats-,
(0.8)
( 2. 2)
Church Book.indb 220 13/01/2009 12:11:55
Appendix A 221
cr y: ?
( 1. 3)
6 LUK: yes.
( 1. 5)
8 LUK: yes i do.
(0.3)
%act: LUK stops hitting his head with the block.
@End
@Begin
@Participants: LUK Luke, KOY Koyo, RON Ron
@Epi sode: 24
@Situation: LUK and KOY have built separate roads
wi t h wooden bl ocks. LUK pi cks up an empt y
cardboard box to use as a tunnel under
whi ch hi s car can pass. ( LUK bui l t hi s
road with KOY; RON built his with SAM).
1 LUK: we ca- (.) they have to join (under [there]).
2 RON: [no tha-] (0.3) we need tha:t
(0.6)
3 RON: we need that.
(0.4)
4 LUK: how about we can put it in the mi:ddle:.=
5 RON: =yeah:.
(0.5)
6 LUK: so they can go through it.
( 4. 1)
7 RON: like tha:t.
(0.5)
8 LUK: yeah: l i ke t ha: t .
@End
Church Book.indb 221 13/01/2009 12:11:56
@Begin
@Participants: SAM Sam, KOY Koyo, YYY Teacher
@Epi sode: 25
@Situation: Koyo is driving cars near the block corner.
1 SAM: 0 ((%act: picks up a car that KOY had been
using))
2 KOY: its mi::ne.
(0.9)
4 SAM: [BUT I] thought you werent using i:t,=
5 KOY: =im using it (0.3) i wanna- (.) tha[ts
( mi ne) ] .
9 YYY: ((to SAM) ) wel l i t hi nk he st i l l i s
@End
@Begin
@Participants: ADM Adam, CHE Cherie, TES TESS, YYY
Teacher
@Epi sode: 26
@Situation: CHE and TES are sitting at a table playing
with dominoes. ADM wanders around the
r oom f or a f ew mi nut es t hen appr oaches
the two girls.
1 ADM: ((sings) ) meeny meeny mi ney moo: .
(0.2)
2 CHE: no we are not singing that song,=
3 TES: =were singing a different song.
(0.3)
4 CHE: we are singing a doggie (0.2) dog song.
5 TES: its not what we singing were [singing]-,
6 ADM: [it it] its its its called (0.5) um (0.5) hhh
.hhh aa:h its called (0.3) ah it- that that
that (.) doggie song is called (0.5) um- (0.3)
.hhh,
Church Book.indb 222 13/01/2009 12:11:56
Appendix A 223
7 CHE: you arent gonna sing it!
8 ADM: i just- (.) no ill show you what its called
okay (0.4) um (0.4) um (1.6) ill sing it to you
okay (0.2) um (0.6) um (0.3) the::,=
9 CHE: =dont sing it [xxx]
10 ADM: [yeah but i] but i just have to show you because-,
(0.6)
11 ADM: now (0.7) now u:m (0.3) um-,
(2.0)
12 TES: we dont want to hear the doggie doggie.
( 1. 7)
13 ADM: no no no (0.2) no no doggie dog (0.4) .hhh
( ( starts singing)) doggie doggie (0.2) whos got
the bone (0.3) someone stole it from your home.
(0.7)
14 ADM: thats the [song].
15 CHE: [im] (singing it).
(0.3)
16 ADM: you [have to say] doggie doggie whos got the
bone.
17 CHE: [go away].
18 CHE: GO away from us!
19 ADM: dont you know doggie [doggie whos got]-,
20 TES: [we dont] ca:re dont we?=
21 CHE: =go away from us!
22 ADM: >yeah but< you: you dont have to say you dont
care .hh coz .hh coz [coz coz]-,
23 CHE: [plea:se] can you go away from us?
24 ADM: coz (0.3) [coz (0.5) coz]-,
25 CHE: [were playing a game].
26 ADM: coz coz coz coz [(you got)]-,
27 CHE: [GO AWAY] FROM US!
%act: pushes ADM
(0.3)
28 ADM: DONT PUSH ME!
29 CHE: ( ( to TES)) go on get hi m.
(0.4)
%act: CHE is still pushing ADM so he pushes back.
31 YYY: um excu:se me Adam.
%yyy: Teacher engages ADM in another activity.
@End
Church Book.indb 223 13/01/2009 12:11:56
@Begin
@Participants: CHE Cherie, FEL Felicity, LUK Luke
@Epi sode: 27
@Situation: CHE, FEL and LUK are sitting at a table
doing jigsaw puzzles. LUK is rushing to
fnish his frst.
1 LUK: look (0.7) look (0.5) ((singsong voice) ) i : beat
you (.) didnt i:.
(0.4)
2 CHE: well im still doing mine so (you cant xxxx).
(0.8)
3 FEL: dont SAY dont beat me (0.2) [otherwise],
4 CHE: [no im] not speaking to you (.) im (0.2) im
saying it to Luke.
5 FEL: you (0.3) you said my name?
(0.5)
6 CHE: no i didnt.
7 FEL: yes i di d i hear you.
(0.3)
8 CHE: no: i didnt say your name.
9 FEL: i know: [because you- (.) i heared].
10 LUK: [youre going to beat Che]rie arent you.
( 2. 2)
11 LUK: ( ( to CHE) ) l ast i s you.
(1.0)
12 CHE: i got (part of xxxx).
(0.7)
(0.2)
14 CHE: i didnt say it.
%com: unintelligible utterances in this episode were
obscured by voices of other children not involved
in the exchange (playing nearby).
@End
Church Book.indb 224 13/01/2009 12:11:56
Appendix A 225
@Begin
@Participants: CHE Cherie, FEL Felicity, LUK Luke, GER
Geri, JON John
@Epi sode: 28
@Situation: JON has made a house by placing blocks
together in an outline, GGG has been
helping him. CHE, LUK and FEL approach
holding cars.
1 LUK: 0 ((%act: starts driving his car along the
bl ocks) )
2 JON: no its not a- (0.5) its not a- (0.9) its not
a r oad.
(0.2)
3 CHE: i know that.
( 1. 7)
4 LUK: im go[ing to make a tram track.]
5 GER: [that (.) that doesnt look like] .hhh a house
(0.6) but it is a house ((to JON)) isnt [it].
6 FEL: [that] doesnt look like a house.
7 CHE: it doesnt look like one?
8 FEL: no:?=
9 LUK: =it looks like a tram track doesnt it.
10 FEL: [yes].
11 CHE: [ yes] .
(0.2)
(0.4)
13 CHE: ill break it?
(0.4)
(0.2)
16 JON: [otherwise] ill tell the teacher.
(0.5)
18 JON: DONT BREAK it OTHERWISE I WILL TELL [THE TEACHERS
on you] .
19 LUK: [John (0.3) Jo:hn] i wont break your [house].
20 CHE: [i] cant break my: things.
(0.3)
Church Book.indb 225 13/01/2009 12:11:56
21 FEL: i dont break my: things.
(0.7)
( 1. 1)
25 GER: [this can be Winne] the Poohs house.
(0.7)
27 CHE: [ i s not ] ?
(0.5)
28 JON: it is so=
t o your house.
31 J ON: ( ( to LUK)) yes (0.5) eh (0.4) (yes good) idea.
@End
@Begin
@Participants: CHE Cherie, FEL Felicity, JON John
@Epi sode: 29
@Situation: John, Cherie and Felicity are playing
with Lego.
1 JON: who broke my spaceship my winged spaceship.
(0.8)
2 CHE: no one.
(0.4)
3 J ON: yes ( . ) she ( . ) di d.
( 1. 2)
4 J ON: Fel i ci t y di d.
( 1. 4)
5 CHE: Felicity didnt.
(0.4)
6 JON: Felicitys (0.2) shoe did it.
( 2. 6)
7 J ON: i know t hat ( 1. 6) r eal l y.
( 9. 5)
8 FEL: 0 ((%act: FEL now approaches CHE and JON fying
her Lego spaceship))
Church Book.indb 226 13/01/2009 12:11:56
Appendix A 227
9 FEL: br mbr r mbr r r m.
10 JON: somebody breaked (0.5) the wing (0.6) ((to FEL) )
did your shoe broke the wing?
%act: CHE moves away.
(0.8)
11 FEL: no?
(0.8)
12 JON: yes (.) it did (1.2) so say naughty shoe (that
br eaked i t ) .
( 1. 7)
13 FEL: im NOT A SHOE:.
14 J ON: i t was.
(0.7)
15 FEL: no i:m no:t the shoe.
16 JON: no (0.2) uh (0.6) yes thats the shoe that
knocked my sp- (0.5) my wing.
%act: FEL moves away to join CHE.
@End
@Begin
@Participants: LUK Luke, FEL Felicity, JON John, JO2
John (2), CHE Cherie, BIL Bill
@Episode: 30
@Situation: LUK, CHE and FEL had built houses with
blocks but were no longer playing with
t hem. J O2 acci dent al l y st epped on one of
the houses as he was crossing the room to
play with JON and BIL.
1 LUK: Cher i e: . hhhh ( . ) Cher i e l ook what t hey di d t o
your house!
2 FEL: thats my house.
(0.2)
3 LUK: l ook what t hey di d t o your house Fel i ci t y.
(0.6)
4 FEL: Cher i e l ook what t hey di d t o your house.
5 CHE: i was trying to get my [xxxx],
6 JON: [ma- (.) it wasnt] me who did (.) your (0.2)
house (0.3) Felicity (0.3) it wasnt me and Bill?
7 FEL: i t was J ohn.
(0.5)
8 JON: it wasnt (0.2) it was that John.
Church Book.indb 227 13/01/2009 12:11:56
13 J O2: di d no: t .
(0.7)
14 J ON: wel l who di d t hat .
(0.6)
15 LUK: J ohn di d i t .
16 J O2: no t he [ t abl e done i t ] .
17 JON: [i didnt].
(0.3)
18 J O2: t he t abl e done i t .
(0.4)
19 JO2: the table (0.6) the table done it.
(0.7)
20 FEL: did not?
(0.5)
21 J O2: [ di d t oo: ] .
22 LUK: [did not i] s-,
23 J O2: t he t abl e [ done i t and t hen] i t st epped on
itself,=
24 LUK: [ i sa: w i t . ]
25 LUK: =i saw what happened.
( 1. 1)
26 LUK: um how did- who did it?
(0.7)
27 FEL: um [Bill who did it].
28 JON: [i dont know] who did it.
(0.5)
29 JO2: we [dont know].
30 BIL: [ma:ybe:] (0.5) maybe somebody did it
xxxx[x.]
31 LUK: [it might] have been a (boy that had [xx).]
32 FEL: [ i know] who di d i t l i on di d.
( 1. 2)
33 BIL: may:be a bear came.
(1.0)
34 JON: yeah (0.3) well done.
@End
Church Book.indb 228 13/01/2009 12:11:56
Appendix A 229
@Begin
@Participants: ADM Adam, SAM Sam, KOY Koyo, YYY Teacher
@Epi sode: 31
@Situation: ADM, SAM and KOY are in the kitchen.
ADM has already prepared a bowl of
playdough for the teacher.
1 SAM: 0 ((%act: places corks on top of the playdough
in the bowl prepared by ADM))
2 KOY: and that-,
3 ADM: thats Ys.
( 4. 2)
4 SAM: (i want to put) some more of those in.
(0.6)
6 KOY: =excuse m[e:].
8 ADM: [no],
9 KOY: [>put](them) in<.
(0.2)
(0.4)
12 KOY: look (0.2) theyre carrots.
(0.4)
14 J ON: AHH: HA.
( 1. 4)
19 SAM: 0 ((%act: again tries to put carrots in bowl))
20 ADM: thats [got] them.
21 SAM: ehh.
22 KOY: this ones [mine].
24 ADM: =NO THATS Ys.
(0.8)
25 ADM: thats Ys.
26 SAM: eneaghh ((whines) ) .
(0.6)
Church Book.indb 229 13/01/2009 12:11:56
27 KOY: i dont have my [xxx].
28 ADM: [thats where] the spoon goes.
%act : t akes cor ks out of bowl .
29 SAM: 0 ((%act: attempts to return cork))
30 ADM: n[o:].
31 SAM: [eang]hh.
(0.2)
32 SAM: ADAM I WANT TO:::.
33 YYY: okay whats the problem.
34 ADM: its al- its already got [carrots in].
35 YYY: [yeah what does] what does Sam want to do Adam?
36 ADM: um but this has already got carrots.
%yyy: teacher continues dialogue with ADM regarding
addition of carrots. She suggests that SAM cook
wi t h hi s own bowl .
@End
@Begin
@Participants: KOY Koyo, SAM Sam, YYY Teacher
@Epi sode: 32
@Situation: KOY and SAM have been playing with hand
puppets. SAM still has puppets on the
stage (cardboard box with faps). KOY
tries to shut the box.
1 SAM: 0 ((%act: pushes faps open))
2 KOY: no: no it was clo:sed that.
(0.4)
3 KOY: it was closed now its closed.
(0.5)
5 SAM: [noea]ngh:: ((whines) ) .
6 KOY: the SHOW is FINISHED.
7 SAM: 0 ((%act: continues to hold puppets in box))
8 KOY: 0 ((%act: tries to shut faps))
9 SAM: no:.
11 SAM: [no]:. ((whines) )
%yyy: t eacher appr oaches ( 1. 6)
12 KOY: ((to teacher)) the show is fnished.
(0.2)
Church Book.indb 230 13/01/2009 12:11:57
Appendix A 231
13 YYY: well i dont think Sam is fnished.
14 KOY: the show is fnished Y.
%act: KOY does not pursue topic and moves away from
t he puppet ar ea.
@End
@Begin
@Participants: PET Peter, CHE Cherie, FEL Felicity
@Epi sode: 33
@Situation: PET, CHE, KOY and FEL are playing families
i n t he home cor ner .
1 PET: now: (0.6) you have to have a baby: now [you]-,
(0.3) at the start.
( 1. 9)
5 PET: no: : .
(0.9)
@End
@Begin
@Participants: PET Peter, FEL Felicity, ADM Adam, KOY
Koyo
@Epi sode: 34
@Situation: PET is driving one of the two cars KOY has
brought from home.
1 FEL: hes having a long turn Koyo.
(0.4)
2 ADM: youre having a long turn.
(0.3)
3 PET: no im not
(0.2)
4 ADM: yes you are
( 1. 4)
Church Book.indb 231 13/01/2009 12:11:57
5 FEL: Peters having a long turn.
( 1. 1)
6 ADM: i [wanna have a turn].
7 KOY: [he might give you] (the turn) Felicity.=
9 PET: but i :m not fn(.)ished ye::t.=
10 FEL: =yeah:.
(0.6)
11 PET: well .hh,
( 1. 9)
12 ADM: no:,=
13 FEL: =no[:].
(0.2)
(0.4)
16 ADM: ((to FEL)) no i think hes got four more
mi nut es
%com: argument ceases for two minutes but then ADM
pur sues PET t o t he ot her si de of t he r oom and
resumes attempts to have a turn with the car.
@End
@Begin
@Participants: ADM Adam, PET Peter
@Epi sode: 35
@Situation: ADM picks up a lego construction that PET
had l ef t on t he t abl e.
1 ADM: now (0.2) (im gonna put that there).
2 PET: HE::Y.
( 1. 3)
5 ADM: yeah now i: got it.
6 PET: nnghehhngh: ((grabbing object) ) .
%act: both boys struggle, holding onto Lego.
7 YYY: Adam and Peter.
%yyy: teacher intervenes and explains to ADM that PET
was still using the Lego and that he must put it
back on t he t abl e.
@End
Church Book.indb 232 13/01/2009 12:11:57
Appendix A 233
Observation 2 transcripts
@Begin
@Participants: MIR Miranda, CAZ Caroline
@Audio: Disc 2: (Begin) 6:06
@Epi sode: 1
@Situation: MIR and CAZ are playing in the spaceship.
MIR is holding two plastic lids.
1 MIR: we both have two.
( 1. 2)
2 MIR: see?
(0.8)
3 CAZ: no: (0.3) (ive got these).
l ot s t her e.
(1.0)
5 CAZ: im not giving any of these to you
( 1. 8)
6 MIR: (if you dont) then ill just take it then.
%act: reaches to grab plastic lid
7 CAZ: STO::P!
(0.3)
(0.2)
. . . . ( 5. 6)
10 %com: utterances inaudible
11 MIR: lets just be nice and understand okay?
( 1. 9)
12 CAZ: but we have to just type into the computer.
%com: MIR takes up this suggestion and both girls
return to playing with the keyboards in the
spaceshi p
@End
Church Book.indb 233 13/01/2009 12:11:57
@Begin
@Participants: CAZ Caroline, MIR Miranda, JAK Jack, TOM
Tom
@Epi sode: 2
@Situation: CAZ and MIR were playing in the spaceship
prior to dressing up for a wedding. JAK
and TOM have come in from outside, and
J AK has ent er ed t he spaceshi p.
1 JAK: no!
(0.2)
(0.3)
4 JAK: no: (.) you were over there.
8 JAK: [no::]!
%act : pushes CAZ as she t r i es t o ent er
( 1. 1)
got some fr:st [and we] just went to get
mar r i ed.
12 JAK: [POW]!
( 2. 3)
13 J AK: ( ( to TOM)) come on!
%act: CAZ starts moving towards teacher.
15 JAK: [HEY WAIT]!
%act: JAK follows CAZ to teacher to argue his case.
@End
Church Book.indb 234 13/01/2009 12:11:57
Appendix A 235
@Begin
@Participants: SIM Simon, GAR Gary, TOM Tom
@Epi sode: 3
@Situation: SIM, GAR and TOM are playing in the block
cor ner .
1 SIM: ((to TOM)) what time do you leave creche today?
( 1. 4)
2 SIM: are you going home before lunch or after lunch.
(0.3)
3 TOM: a:fter (0.3) i :m going after lunch are you?
(0.2)
4 SIM: im going (0.5) a:fter lunch.
(0.2)
5 TOM: me too.
(0.9)
6 GAR: im going befo:re lunch.
(1.0)
( 2. 2)
8 GAR: im not staying for lunch.
(0.2)
9 TOM: pardon?
(0.3)
10 GAR: im not staying for lunch.
( 1. 2)
11 TOM: youre (.) youre (0.3) youre tricking me:.
(0.2)
12 GAR: i am not!
13 TOM: you you you are so youve got a smile on your
f ace.
(0.9)
14 GAR: go and look in the book (0.4) go and have a
look!
%act: TOM goes to ask teacher if GAR is staying for
l unch.
@End
Church Book.indb 235 13/01/2009 12:11:57
@Begin
@Participants: JAK Jack, LOU Louise
@Epi sode: 4
@Situation: LOU and JAK have been asking the teacher
what day it is (Friday). They move towards
the calendar to move the arrow to Friday.
(0.2)
(0.5)
(0.3)
it=
(0.6)
7 LOU: no (.) i i can do it [i-],
(0.3)
%com: both children return to collaborative play with
connect or pi eces.
@End
@Begin
@Participants: LOU Louise, ELI Elinor, HIL Hilary
@Epi sode: 5
@Situation: LOU, ELI and HIL are building a house
wi t h wooden bl ocks i n t he bl ock cor ner .
%act : a st ack of bl ocks f al l down of t hei r own accor d
1 ELI: Loui:se,
(0.7)
(0.4)
3 ELI: no i didnt?=
Church Book.indb 236 13/01/2009 12:11:57
Appendix A 237
(0.3)
%act: LOU and ELI start rebuilding
@End
@Begin
@Participants: LOU Louise, ELI Elinor, HIL Hilary
@Epi sode: 6
@Situation: LOU and ELI are walking around the two
walls that they have made out of blocks.
While they are doing this, HIL has placed
two blocks across the foor.
1 LOU: ( ( to ELI)) >why did you do< that.
(0.4)
2 ELI: i didnt.
( 1. 2)
3 LOU: who: di d t he: se.
(0.7)
4 LOU: ( ( to HIL) ) di d you?
5 HIL: 0 ((%act: nods)) (0.8)
6 LOU: $why di d you do t hat $.
( 2. 2)
7 HIL: im not telling you why.
(0.9)
8 ELI: maybe coz she was (0.6) (making a foor).
( 1. 5)
9 LOU: oh >shall we make a< foor?
(0.3)
10 ELI: yes (0.2) >of course we< can.
@End
Church Book.indb 237 13/01/2009 12:11:57
@Begin
@Participants: ELI Elinor, CAZ, Caroline
@Epi sode: 7
@Situation: ELI and CAZ have been playing in the
spaceship. CAZ is holding a doll that she
has col l ect ed f r omt he near by dol l shouse.
1 CAZ: heres another big girl
(0.4)
(0.2)
(0.9)
(0.2)
( 1. 8)
6 ELI: whos wearing pants.
(0.3)
7 CAZ: she i s.
%act: points to observer
( 1. 9)
8 ELI: i know she is (.) but thats a boy (.) i know
t hat .
( 1. 2)
10 ELI: x x x x x.
( 2. 5)
(0.4)
12 ELI: its mine.
( 1. 1)
( 3. 3)
girl.
(0.7)
(0.4)
Church Book.indb 238 13/01/2009 12:11:58
Appendix A 239
(0.3)
(0.2)
( 6. 8)
(0.7)
( 1. 1)
give me that.
(1.0)
24 CAZ: alright?
( 1. 1)
%com: ELI moves away from play area
@End
@Begin
@Participants: WIN Winnie, PAU Paul
@Note: raining this morning, therefore more
chi l dr en i nsi de t han usual .
@Epi sode: 8
@Situation: WIN and LOU are building garages with the
wooden blocks. PAU has joined them. WIN
pi cks up a pl ast i c l adder made f r om
connect or pi eces.
( 2. 5)
4 PAU: [no i -](.) no i had i:t.
7 WI N: [ no] .
(0.5)
Church Book.indb 239 13/01/2009 12:11:58
(0.7)
12 PAU: [no],
(0.5)
@End
@Begin
@Participants: LOU Louise, PAU Paul
@Note: raining this morning (more children inside
t han usual )
@Epi sode: 9
@Situation: LOU and WIN have been building garages
wi t h wooden bl ocks. PAU appr oaches and
t ouches one of t he bl ocks wi t h a pl ast i c
l adder .
1 PAU: 0 ((%act: touches block with plastic ladder))
2 LOU: what are you do:ing.
( 1. 5)
3 PAU: 0 ((%act: continues to nudge the blocks))
4 LOU: what are you doing youre breaking everything.
( 2. 2)
6 LOU: do:nt!
( 1. 1)
( 1. 1)
8 LOU: ( ( to WIN)) Pauls spoiling- (0.3) ((to PAU) ) we
were here f:rst.
(0.5)
(0.4)
10 PAU: xx [xxx]
11 LOU: [we (need)] the-,
Church Book.indb 240 13/01/2009 12:11:58
Appendix A 241
12 LOU: we were- off you go because we were here frst!
( 3. 4)
@End
@Begin
@Participants: FRE Fred, JIM Jim, PAU Paul
t han usual )
@Episode: 10
@Situation: FRE and JIM are playing in the spaceship.
PAU approaches them holding a plastic
l adder made f r omconnect or pi eces t hat he
f ound i n t he bl ock cor ner .
1 PAU: Fred are you still using this?
(0.5)
2 FRE: ME.
( 1. 4)
3 JIM: yes he i:s.
(0.2)
4 PAU: well then (1.2) then how come youre not using
i t
(0.5)
5 JIM: C[O::Z].
6 FRE: [put it] over the::re!
7 JIM: YEAH::!
8 FRE: dont x (0.2) look after it xxxxx.
(0.2)
9 FRE: Paul DONT BREAK it!
10 PAU: i wont.
(0.2)
11 JIM: (co:z).
(0.3)
12 PAU: I WONT.
(0.4)
13 FRE: alright.
(0.2)
14 JIM: you better watch it.
( 4. 4)
Church Book.indb 241 13/01/2009 12:11:58
15 FRE: ((to JIM)) you can kill the trolls alright (.)
( ( to PAU)) youre wrecking it.
%act: PAU is pulling some of the pieces off the
l adder .
( 3. 6)
(0.2)
using it.
(1.0)
( 1. 2)
19 PAU: no you were:nt no you werent even using it no:w
(0.7)
(0.3)
21 PAU: huh?
(0.3)
(0.3)
(0.5)
25 PAU: what .
(0.7)
(0.4)
@End
Church Book.indb 242 13/01/2009 12:11:58
Appendix A 243
@Begin
@Participants: FRE Fred, JIM Jim, PAU Paul
t han usual )
@Epi sode: 11
@Situation: FRE and JIM are still playing in the
spaceshi p. PAU appr oaches t hem f or a
second t i me.
1 FRE: 0 ((%act: throws a party hat out of the
spaceshi p) )
2 PAU: dont (.) you cant wreck those (0.2) he:lmets.
(0.4)
4 PAU: =you cant even throw em out.
( 1. 4)
(0.2)
%com: FRE does not respond, PAU moves away.
@End
@Begin
@Participants: LOU Louise, WIN Winnie
t han usual )
@Epi sode: 12
@Situation: LOU and WIN have been building bridges
et c i n t he bl ock cor ner f or some t i me. As
LOU drives her car around she is knocking
over blocks.
4 WIN: DO:NT!
many things here.
@End
Church Book.indb 243 13/01/2009 12:11:58
@Begin
@Participants: LOU Louise, WIN Winnie
t han usual )
@Epi sode: 13
@Situation: WIN and LOU are playing in the block
cor ner .
1 WIN: 0 ((%act: drives a car onto the blocks))
(0.4)
3 WIN: no you were using t hat car .
(0.6)
4 LOU: what ?
(0.8)
@End
@Begin
@Participants: DON Don, ALI Alistair, TOM Tom
@Epi sode: 14
@Situation: 9:48 am. DON and ALI are playing in the
spaceship. TOM approaches DON, who is
wearing a watch.
1 TOM: whats the time Don.
2 DON: 0 ((%act: shows watch to TOM))
3 ALI : can i see what t he t i me i s?
(0.4)
4 DON: one oclock.
(0.8)
5 ALI: thats the time?
6 TOM: (yeah) th[at]-,
7 DON: [one] oclo:ck (0.4) yea::h (.) its one
oclock.
(0.2)
8 TOM: no its not.
( 2. 3)
9 DON: (on (.) on the) time it says-,
Church Book.indb 244 13/01/2009 12:11:58
Appendix A 245
spaceshi p pl ay.
@End
@Begin
@Participants: MIR Miranda, Pau Paul
@Epi sode: 15
@Situation: PAU, FRE and MIR are listening to a story
t ape on headset s wi t h anot her chi l d. The
children are having problems controlling
the volume (there is a main control board
with a volume switch for each headset
plugged in).
1 MIR: i cant hea:r it.
%act: fddles with buttons
(0.2)
2 PAU: hey.
3 MIR: i cant hear it.
(0.9)
( 1. 2)
6 PAU: 0 ((%act: turns the control button for MIRs
headset ) ) ( 1. 6)
7 PAU: now you can hear
@End
@Begin
@Participants: MIR Miranda, Pau Paul, FRE Fred
@Epi sode: 16
@Situation: PAU, FRE and MIR are still having
diffculties with the volume control on
t he headset s.
1 PAU: 0 ((%act: turns volume control to another headset))
2 FRE: he[::y].
%act: pushing PAUs hand away
Church Book.indb 245 13/01/2009 12:11:58
3 PAU: [ hey] .
(0.7)
4 FRE: ive got this o:ne.
( 1. 4)
5 PAU: i cant hear anything.
( 1. 1)
6 FRE: well i can hear it.
%act : PAU t hen t ur ns t o t eacher f or hel p.
@End
@Begin
@Participants: GAR Gary, SIM Simon
@Epi sode: 17
@Situation: GAR and SIM are playing in the block
cor ner wi t h t he pl ast i c connect or pi eces.
SIM is looking for a piece and fnds it in
one of GARs constructions.
1 SIM: can i break this?
(0.5)
2 GAR: n:o.
3 SIM: well >can i have a-< can i (break this) .hhh=
4 GAR: =NO NO: (0.3) (no i built it) dont!
(1.0)
5 SIM: Gary: (1.0) can i have a little play of yours?
(0.2)
6 GAR: no.
( 1. 3)
7 SIM: can i?
8 GAR: no.
9 SIM: i wont [break it].
(0.2)
11 SIM: i wont break it.
( 1. 8)
(0.8)
those things to me (.) you wont come to my
par : t y.
(0.2)
Church Book.indb 246 13/01/2009 12:11:58
Appendix A 247
(0.3)
@End
@Begin
@Epi sode: 18
@Situation: follows episode 17 by 40 seconds (same
context).
1 SIM: Gary can i break this.
(0.8)
2 GAR: no:.
(2.0)
3 SIM: plea:se can i have it.
(0.2)
4 GAR: n:o:.=
7 SIM: well-,
( 4. 7)
%com: dialogue between the two boys shifts to
conversation about when lunchtime falls relative
to GARs departure.
@End
@Begin
@Epi sode: 19
@Situation: follows episode 24 by 3 minutes (same
context).
(0.7)
Church Book.indb 247 13/01/2009 12:11:59
2 GAR: n:o:.
(0.4)
(0.7)
( 1. 3)
10 SIM: no it isnt.
(0.4)
( 1. 4)
12 SIM: Ga:ry if you- (0.7) if you let me have that one
xx.
(0.3)
i s your s?
%com: continuing conversation focuses on ages of
siblings.
@End
@Begin
@Participants: GAR Gary, SIM Simon, ROB Robbie
@Episode: 20
@Situation: ROB, GAR and SIM are playing in the block
cor ner wi t h connect or pi eces.
1 GAR: 0 ((%act:takes piece near ROB))
( 1. 2)
(0.2)
4 ROB: hey dont!
( 1. 5)
Church Book.indb 248 13/01/2009 12:11:59
Appendix A 249
5 GAR: you didnt see it (.) that [xx if you can] the
(fshy) one this (.)((singsong voice) ) eeny meeny
miney moo (0.2) catch a tiger by the toe (.) if
you holler [[let him go eeny meeny miney]] moo,
(0.9)
8 ROB: this is mine
(0.7)
( 2. 7)
( 2. 4)
@End
@Begin
@Participants: NIG Nigel, SIM Simon,
@Epi sode: 21
@Situation: It has been raining and all children have
been i nsi de. Thr ee mi nut es pr i or t o t hi s
episode the assistant teacher has gone
out si de whi ch means t he chi l dr en may now
go outside and play under the veranda.
NIG did not see the teacher move
out si de.
1 SIM: im going outsi:de.
(0.3)
(1.0)
3 SIM: wha:t?
(0.3)
5 SIM: yea:h
(0.3)
Church Book.indb 249 13/01/2009 12:11:59
7 SIM: i a::m?
@End
@Begin
@Participants: NIG Nigel, PAU Paul, SIM Simon
@Epi sode: 22
@Situation: NIG, SIM and ROB are in the block corner.
PAU comes in from outside and knocks over
a tower of blocks that he originally built
but t hat NI G has si nce r emodel l ed.
1 PAU: 0 ((%act: knocks over tower of blocks))
2 NIG: you WRECKER.
(0.7)
3 SIM: we dont need it Nigel?
(0.3)
(0.6)
5 NIG: well (0.2) do you know what you did to it?
(0.7)
6 PAU: yes
(0.9)
7 PAU: i wrecked my thing (0.2) and it wasnt yours
%act: rebuilding (3.0)
10 PAU: dont need >all of em<.
%com: NI G does not r espond
@End
@Begin
@Participants: NIG Nigel, SIM Simon, ROB Robbie
@Epi sode: 23
@Situation: SIM amd NIG are in the block corner. ROB
appr oaches t he t wo boys.
1 ROB: Nige::l (.) (come and have a) muffn with me.
(0.4)
Church Book.indb 250 13/01/2009 12:11:59
Appendix A 251
2 NI G: what ?
(0.2)
(0.4)
(0.4)
( 1. 3)
(0.6)
@End
@Begin
@Participants: SIM Simon, BRI Brian, GAR Gary
@Epi sode: 24
@Situation: BRI and GAR are in the block corner making
spaceshi ps wi t h connect or pi eces.
%act: SIM looks at GARs contruction.
1 SIM: ((laughing)) he he look at Ga::rys heh heh,
(0.3)
2 BRI: $oh yu:ck$.
(0.8)
4 GAR: no it isnt
(0.4)
5 BRI: yes it is.
(1.0)
6 GAR: NO IT ISNT.
(0.5)
7 SIM: dont worry about it Brian.
%act: BRI returns to making his own construction.
@End
Church Book.indb 251 13/01/2009 12:11:59
@Begin
@Participants: PAU Paul, JIM Jim
@Epi sode: 25
@Situation: PAU and JIM have made two ramps leading
to a swimming pool in the block corner.
The ramps are for the zoo animals they
are playing with.
1 PAU: heres my house (0.3) heres your house.
(0.5)
2 PAU: thats my si- (0.2) this is all our fun zoo.
(0.2)
3 PAU: thats your side (0.3) this is my side (0.2) we
stay on our [own]-,
4 JIM: [we c]an (.) we can wa:lk on each others?
(0.2)
5 PAU: yes except (0.2) we ca::nt
(0.5)
(0.3)
8 PAU: youre cheati:ng i need o:ne. ((whining) )
10 JIM: o::y:.
(0.2)
11 PAU: l ook see: ?
(0.4)
12 PAU: no youre a chea:ter:.
(0.3)
(0.3)
14 JIM: yeah.
(0.3)
15 PAU: see?
%act: pushes blocks together
(0.9)
16 PAU: bot h of our s now.
@End
Church Book.indb 252 13/01/2009 12:11:59
Appendix A 253
Observation 1 summary
Type Outcome
Ob1.1 Play script I Intervention (C)
Ob1.2 Play script R Resolved
Ob1.4 Possession I Intervention (T) V
Ob1.5 Local rules * (Interrupted) (T)
Ob1.7 Local rules R Resolved
Ob1.8 Object/possession R Resolved
Ob1.9 Play script A Abandoned
Ob1.10 Object A Abandoned
Ob1.14 Local rules I Intervention (T)
Ob1.15 Object/possession A Abandoned
Ob1.17 Object I Intervention (T)
Ob1.18 Local rules I Intervention (T)
Ob1.21 Object R Resolved
Ob1.22 Local rules A Abandoned
Ob1.26 Play script I Intervention (T)
Ob1.27 Truth R Resolved
Ob1.29 Truth A Abandoned
Ob1.31 Play script I Intervention (C) (T)
Ob1.32 Play script I Intervention (C)
Church Book.indb 253 13/01/2009 12:11:59
Observation 2 summary
Type Outcome
Ob2.2 Object I Intervention (C)
Ob2.3 Truth I Intervention (C)
Church Book.indb 254 13/01/2009 12:12:00
References
Adger, C. T. (1986), When difference does not confict. Text, 6, 223-237.
Adler, P. A. and Adler, P. (1994), Observational techniques. In N. K. Denzin and Y.
S. Lincoln (eds), Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oak, California:
Sage.
Ahrens, U. (1997), The interplay between interruptions and preference organization
in conversation: New perspectives on a classic topic of gender research. In H.
Kotthoff and R. Wodak (eds), Communicating gender in context. Amsterdam:
Benjamins.
Allan, K. (1994), Speech act theory: An overview. In R. Asher (ed.), Encylopedia
of language and linguistics. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Ardington, A. M. (2003), Alliance building in girls talk: A conversational
accomplishment of playful negotiation. Australian Review of Applied
Linguistics, 26, 38-54.
Aronsson, K. and Thorell, M. (1999), Family politics in childrens play directives.
Journal of Pragmatics, 31, 25-47.
Asher, S. R., Singleton, L. C., Tinsley, B. R. and Hymel, S. (1979), A reliable
sociometric measure for preschool children. Developmental Psychology, 15,
443-444.
Atkinson, J. M. and Drew, P. (1979), Order in court: The organisation of verbal
interaction in judicial settings. London: Macmillan.
Atkinson, J. M. and Heritage, J. (eds) (1984), Structures of social action: Studies
in conversation analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Austin, J. L. (1962), How to do things with words. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Bakeman, R. and Brownlee, J. R. (1982), Social rules governing object conficts
in toddlers and preschoolers. In K. H. Rubin and H. S. Ross (eds), Peer
relationships and social skills in childhood. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Baker, C. D. and Campbell, R. (2000), Children, language and power. In R.
Campbell and D. Green (eds), Literacies and learners: Current perspectives.
Frenchs Forest: Prentice Hall.
Bates, E. (1976), Peer relations and the acquisition of language. In M. Lewis and
L. A. Rosenblum (eds), Friendship and peer relations. Toronto: J ohn Wiley
and Sons.
Baxter, L. A. (1984), An investigation of compliance-gaining as politeness. Human
Communication Research, 10, 427-456.
Becker, J. A. (1988), I cant talk Im dead: Preschoolers spontaneous
metapragmatic comments. Discourse Processes, 11, 457-467.
Church Book.indb 255 13/01/2009 12:12:00
Benoit, P. (1992), The use of argument by preschool children: The emergent
production of rules for winning arguments. In W. Benoit and Hample and P.
Benoit (eds), Readings in argumentation. New York: Mouton De Gruyter.
Benoit, P. J. (1983), The use of threats in childrens discourse. Language and
Speech, 26, 305-329.
Benoit, W. L. and Benoit, P. J. (1990), Aggravated and mitigated opening utterances.
Argumentation, 4, 171-183.
Bilmes, J. (1988), The concept of preference in conversation analysis. Language
in Society, 17, 161-181.
Bilmes, J. (1991), Toward a theory of argument in conversation: The preference for
disagreement. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the second international
conference on argumentation, Amsterdam.
Bloom, L. (1970), Language development: Form and function in emerging
grammars. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Bloom, L. (1993), Transcription and coding for child language research: The parts
are more than the whole. In J. A. Edwards and M. D. Lampert (eds), Talking
data: Transcription and coding in discourse research. Hillsdale, NJ : Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Boden, D. and Zimmerman, D. H. (1991), Talk and social structure: Studies in
ethnomethodology and conversation analysis. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Boggs, S. T. (1978), The development of verbal disputing in part-Hawaiin children.
Language in Society, 7, 325-344.
Boyle, R. (2000), Whatever happened to preference organization? Journal of
Pragmatics, 32, 583-604.
Brenneis, D. (1988), Language and disputing. American Review of Anthropology,
17, 221-237.
Brenneis, D. and Lein, L. (1977), You fruithead: A sociolinguistic approach to
childrens dispute settlement. In S. Ervin-Tripp and C. Mitchell-Kernan (eds),
Child discourse. New York: Academic Press.
Brown, P. and Levinson, S. C. (1978), Universals in language usage: Politeness
phenomena. In E. N. Goody (ed.), Questions and politeness: Strategies in
social interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brown, P. and Levinson, S. C. (1987), Politeness: Some universals in language
usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brown, R. (1973), A frst language: The early stages. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Button, G. and Lee, J. R. E. (eds) (1987), Talk and social organization. Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters.
Camras, L. A. (1980), Childrens understanding of facial expressions used during
confict encounters. Child Development, 51, 879-885.
Chen, D. W., Fein, G. G., Killen, M. and Tam, H.-P. (2001), Peer conficts of
preschool children: Issues, resolution, incidence and age-related patterns.
Early Education and Development, 12, 523-544.
Church Book.indb 256 13/01/2009 12:12:00
References 257
Chen, X. and French, D. C. (2008), Childrens social competence in cultural
context. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 591-616.
Chomsky, N. (1957), Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton.
Chomsky, N. (1965), Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chung, T.-Y. and Asher, S. R. (1996), Childrens goals and strategies in peer
confict situations. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 42(1), 125-147.
Cicourel, A. V. (1978), Interpretation and summarization: Issues in the childs
acquisition of social structure. In J. Glick and K. A. Clarke-Stewart (eds), The
development of social understanding. New York: Gardiner Press.
Clark, H. H. (1997), Using language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Clayman, S. and Heritage, J. (eds) (2002), The news interview: Journalists and
public fgures on the air. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Coie, J. D. and Dodge, K. A. (1988), Multiple sources of data on social behavior
and social status in the school: A cross-age comparison. Child Development,
59, 815-829.
Coie, J. D., Dodge, K. A. and Kupersmidt, J. B. (1990), Peer group behavior and
social status. In S. R. Asher and J. D. Coie (eds), Peer rejection in childhood.
Cambridge studies in social and emotional development. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Corsaro, W. A. (1979), Were friends, right? Childrens use of access rituals in a
nursery school. Language in Society, 8, 315-336.
Corsaro, W. A. (1985), Friendship and peer culture in the early years. Norwood,
New J ersey: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Corsaro, W. A. (1985), Sociological approaches to discourse. In T. v. Dijk (ed.),
Handbook of discourse analysis, Volume 3: Discourse and dialogue. London:
Academic Press.
Corsaro, W. A. (2004), The sociology of childhood. Second edition. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.
Corsaro, W. A. and Maynard, D. W. (1996), Format tying in discussion and
argumentation among Italian and American children. In D. I. Slobin and J .
Gerhardt (eds), Social interaction, social context and language: Essays in
honor of Susan Ervin-Tripp. Mahwah, NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Corsaro, W. A. and Rizzo, T. A. (1990), Disputes in the peer culture of American
and Italian nursery-school children. In A. D. Grimshaw (ed.), Confict talk:
Sociolinguistic investigations of arguments in conversations. Cambridge:
Coulter, J. (1983), Contingent and a priori structures in sequential analysis. Human
Studies, 6, 361-376.
Coulter, J. (1990), Elementary properties of argument sequences. In G. Psathas
(ed.), Interaction competence. Washington, DC: University Press of America.
Coulthard, M. (1985), An introduction to discourse analysis. Burnt Mill, Essex:
Longman.
Coupland, N., Grainger, K. and Coupland, J. (1988), Politeness in context:
Intergenerational issues. Language in Society, 17, 253-262.
Church Book.indb 257 13/01/2009 12:12:00
Craig, R. T., Tracy, K. and Spisak, F. (1986), The discourse of requests: Assessment
of a politeness approach. Human Communication Research, 12, 437-468.
Crockenberg, S. and Lourie, A. (1996), Parents confict strategies with children
and childrens confict strategies with peers. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 42(4),
495-518.
Danby, S. (2002), The communicative competence of young children. Australian
Journal of Early Childhood, 27, 25-30.
Danby, S. and Baker, C. D. (1998), How to be masculine in the block area.
Childhood, 5, 151-175.
Danby, S. and Baker, C. D. (2000), Unravelling the fabric of social order in
block area. In S. Hester and D. Francis (eds), Local educational order:
Ethnomethodological studies of knowledge in action. Amsterdam: J ohn
Benjamins.
Davidson, J. (1984), Subsequent versions of invitations, offers, requests and
proposals dealing with potential or actual rejection. In J . M. Atkinson and J .
Heritage (eds), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dawe, H. C. (1934), An analysis of two hundred quarrels of preschool children.
Child Development, 5, 139-157.
Diez, M. E. (1986), Negotiation competence: A conceptualization of the rules of
negotiation interaction. In D. G. Ellis and W. A. Donohue (eds), Contemporary
issues in language and discourse processes. Hillsdale, New J ersey: Lawrence
Arlbaum Associates.
Ditchburn, S. (1988), Confict management in young childrens play. International
Journal of Early Childhood, 20, 62-70.
Dodge, K. A. (1983), Behavioral antecedents of peer social status. Child
Development, 54, 1386-1399.
Dodge, K. A., Coie, J. D., Petit, G. S. and Price, J. M. (1990), Peer status and
aggression in boys play groups: Developmental and contextual analyses.
Dore, J. (1979), Conversational acts and the acquisition of language. In E. Ochs
and B. Schieffelin (eds), Developmental Pragmatics. New York: Academic
Press.
Dore, J. (1985), Childrens conversations. In T. A. van Dijk (ed.), Handbook of
discourse analysis. London: Academic Press.
Drew, P. (1984), Speakers reportings in invitation sequences. In J. M. Atkinson
and J. Heritage (eds), Structures in social action: Studies in conversation
analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Drew, P. and Heritage, J. (eds) (1992), Talk at work: Interaction in institutional
settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Du Bois, J. W. (1991), Transcription design principles for spoken discourse
research. Pragmatics, 1(1), 71-106.
Du Bois, J. W., Schuetze-Coburn, S., Cumming, S. and Paolino, D. (1993), Outline
of discourse transcription. In J. A. Edwards and M. D. Lampert (eds), Talking
Church Book.indb 258 13/01/2009 12:12:00
References 259
data: Transcription and coding in discourse research. Hillsdale, New J ersey:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Dundes, A., Leach, J. and Ozkok, B. (1972), The strategy of Turkish boys
verbal duelling rhymes. In J. Gumperz and D. Hymes (eds), Directions in
sociolinguistics. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Dunn, J. and Munn, P. (1987), Development of justifcation in disputes with mother
and siblings. Developmental Psychology, 23, 791-798.
Dunn, J. and et al. (1995), Confict, understanding and relationships: developments
and differences in the preschool years. Early Education and Development, 6,
303-316.
Edmondson, W. (1981), Spoken discourse. London: Longman.
Edwards, J. A. (1993), Principles and contrasting systems of discourse transcription.
In J. A. Edwards and M. D. Lampert (eds), Talking Data: Transcription and
coding in discourse research. Hillsdale, New J ersey: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Ehlich, K. and Wagner, J. (eds) (1995), The discourse of business negotiation.
Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Eisenberg, A. R. (1987), Learning to argue with parents and peers. Argumentation,
1, 113-125.
Eisenberg, A. R. (1990), Teasing: Verbal play in two mexicano homes. In B.
Schieffelin and E. Ochs (eds), Language socialization across cultures.
Eisenberg, A. R. and Garvey, C. (1981), Childrens use of verbal strategies in
resolving conficts. Discourse Processes, 4, 149-170.
Emihovich, C. (1986), Argument as status assertion: Contextual variations in
childrens disputes. Language in society, 15, 485-500.
Ervin-Tripp, S. (1977), Wait for me, roller-skate! In S. Ervin-Tripp and C.
Mitchell-Kernan (eds), Language, thought and culture: Advances in the study
of cognition. New York: Academic Press.
Ervin-Tripp, S. (1978), Whatever happened to communicative competence?
Studies in the Linguistic Sciences, 8, 237-258.
Ervin-Tripp, S. (1982), Ask and it shall be given to you: Childrens requests. In
H. Byrnes (ed.), Contemporary perceptions of language. Washington, DC:
Georgetown University Press.
Ervin-Tripp, S., Guo, J. and Lampert, M. D. (1990), Politeness and persuasion in
childrens control acts. Journal of Pragmatics, 14, 307-331.
Fabes, R. A., Eisenberg, A. R., Smith, M. C. and Murphy, B. C. (1996), Getting
angry with peers: Associations with liking the provocateur. Child Development,
67, 942-956.
Farris, C. S. P. (2000), Cross-sex peer confict and the discursive production of
gender in a Chinese preschool in Taiwan. Journal of Pragmatics, 32, 539-568.
Fine, G. A. and Sandstrom, K. L. (1988), Knowing children: Participant observation
with minors, Sage University Paper Series on Qualitative Research Methods.
Sage: Beverly Hills, California.
Church Book.indb 259 13/01/2009 12:12:00
Fine, J. and Freedle, R. (1983), Developmental issues in discourse. Norwood, NJ :
Ablex.
Firth, A. (ed.) (1995), The discourse of negotiation: Studies of language in the
workplace. Oxford: Pergamon.
Ford, C. E., Fox, B. A. and Thompson, S. A. (eds) (2002), The language of turn
and sequence. New York: Oxford University Press.
Forrester, M. A. (1996), Psychology of language: A critical introduction. London:
Sage.
Foster, S. (1990), The communicative competence of young children. New York:
Longman.
Fraser, B. (1980), Conversational mitigation. Journal of Pragmatics, 4, 341-350.
Gardner, R. (2001), When listeners talk: Response tokens and listener stance.
Philadelphia: J ohn Benjamins Publishing.
Garfnkel, H. (1967), Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ :
Prentice-Hall.
Garfnkel, H. (1972), Remarks on ethnomethodology. In J. Gumperz and D. Hymes
(eds), Directions in sociolinguistics. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Garvey, C. (1974), Requests and responses in childrens speech. Journal of Child
Language, 2(41-63).
Garvey, C. (1984), Childrens talk. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Garvey, C. and Berninger, G. (1981), Timing and turn-taking in childrens
conversations. Discourse Processes, 4, 27-57.
Garvey, C. and Shantz, C. U. (1995), Confict talk: Approaches to adversative
discourse. In C. U. Shantz and W. W. Hartup (eds), Confict in child and
adolescent development. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Genishi, C. and Di Paolo, M. (1982), Learning through argument in the preschool.
In L. C. Wilkinson (ed.), Communicating in the classroom. New York:
Academic Press.
Gilligan, C. (1982), In a different voice: Psychological theory and womens
development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Gilligan, C. (1988), Two moral orientations: Gender differences and similarities.
Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 34(3), 223-237.
Goffman, E. (1955), On face-work: Analysis of ritual elements in social interaction.
Psychiatry, 18, 213-231.
Goffman, E. (1959), The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City, NY:
Doubleday.
Goffman, E. (1961), Encounters: Two studies in the sociology of interaction. New
York: Bobbs-Merrill.
Goffman, E. (1963), Behavior in public places: Notes on the social organization
of gatherings. New York: Free Press.
Goffman, E. (1964), The neglected situation. American Anthropologist, 66(6, part
II), 133-136.
Goffman, E. (1967), Interaction ritual: Essays in face-to-face behavior (Vol. 18),
Chicago: Aldine.
Church Book.indb 260 13/01/2009 12:12:00
References 261
Goffman, E. (1971), Relations in Public. New York: Basic Books.
Goodwin, C. (1981), Conversational organisation: Interaction between speakers
and hearers. New York: Academic Press.
Goodwin, C. and Goodwin, M. H. (1990), Interstitial argument. In A. D.
Grimshaw (ed.), Confict talk: Sociolinguistic investigations of arguments in
conversations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Goodwin, C. and Heritage, J. (1990), Conversation analysis. Annual Review of
Anthropology, 19, 283-307.
Goodwin, M. H. (1982), Processes of dispute management among urban black
children. American Ethnologist, 9(76-96).
Goodwin, M. H. (1983), Aggravated correction and disagreement in childrens
conversations. Journal of Pragmatics, 7, 657-677.
Goodwin, M. H. (1990), He-said-she-said: Talk as social organization among
black children. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
Goodwin, M. H. and Goodwin, C. (1987), Childrens arguing. In S. Philips and S.
Steele and C. Tanz (eds), Language, gender and sex in comparative perspective.
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Goodwin, M. H., Goodwin, C. and Yaeger-Dror. (2002), Multi-modality in girls
game disputes. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 1621-1649.
Graue, M. E. and Walsh, D. J. (1998), Studying children in context: Theories,
methods and ethics. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Green, E. H. (1933), Frienships and quarrels among preschool children. Child
Development, 4(1), 237-252.
Green, V. A. and Cillessen, A. H. N. (2008), Achievement versus maintenance
of control in six-year-old childrens interactions with peers: An observational
study. Educational Psychology, 28, 161-180.
Grice, H. P. (1975), Logic and conversation. In P. Cole and J. L. Morgan (eds),
Syntax and semantics 3: Speech acts. New York: Academic Press.
Grice, H. P. (1978), Further notes on logic and conversation. In P. Cole (ed.),
Syntacs and semantics 9: Pragmatics. New York: Academic Press.
Grimshaw, A. D. (1980), Mishearings, misunderstandings and other nonsuccesses
in talk: A plea for redress of speaker-oriented bias. Sociological inquiry, 50,
33-74.
Grimshaw, A. D. (1990), Research on confict talk: Antecedents, resources,
fndings, directions. In A. D. Grimshaw (ed.), Confict talk. Cambridge:
Grootevant, H. D. and Cooper, C. R. (1985), Patterns of interaction in family
relationships and the development of identitiy exploration in adolescence.
Gumperz, J. (1982), Discourse strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gumperz, J. (1986), Interactional sociolinguistics in the study of schooling. In
J. Cook-Gumperz (ed.), The social construction of literacy. Cambridge:
Church Book.indb 261 13/01/2009 12:12:01
Gumperz, J. and Berenz, N. (1993), Transcribing conversational exchanges. In J.
A. Edwards and M. D. Lampert (eds), Talking data: Transcription and coding
in discourse research. Hillsdale, New J ersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Gumperz, J. J. and Hymes, D. (eds) (1972), Directions in sociolinguistics: The
ethnography of communication. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1975), Learning how to mean: Explorations in the development
of child language. London: Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1978), Language as a social semiotic. London: Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M. A. K. and Hasan, R. (1976), Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
Hartup, W. W. (1992), Peer relations in early and middle childhood. In V. B. v.
Hasselt and M. Hersen (eds), Handbook of social development: A lifespan
perspective. New York: Academic Press.
Hartup, W. W. (1995), Confict and friendship relations. In C. U. Shantz and W.
W. Hartup (eds), Confict in child and adolescent development. New York:
Hartup, W. W., Laursen, B., Stewart, H. I. and Eastenson, A. (1988), Confict and
friendship relations of young children. Child Development, 59, 1590-1600.
Haslett, B. (1983), Preschoolers communicative strategies in gaining compliance
from peers. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 69, 84-99.
Hatch, J. A. (1987), Peer interaction and the development of social competence.
Child Study Journal, 17, 169-183.
Hatch, J. A. (1995), Ethical conficts in classroom research: Examples from a
study of peer stigmatization in kindergarten. In J. A. Hatch (ed.), Qualitative
research in early childhood settings. Westport, Connecticut: Praeger.
Hay, D. F. (1984), Social confict in early childhood. Annals of Child Development,
1, 1-44.
Hay, D. F. and Ross, H. S. (1982), The social nature of early confict. Child
development, 53, 105-113.
Hayashi, T. (1996), Politeness in confict management: A conversation analysis
of dispreferred message from a cognitive perspective. Journal of Pragmatics,
25(2), 227-255.
Heritage, J. (1984), Garfnkel and ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Heritage, J. (1995), Conversation analysis: Methodological aspects. In U. M.
Quasthoff (ed.), Aspects of oral communication. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Heritage, J. and Watson, D. R. (1979), Formulations as conversational objects. In
G. Psathas (ed.), Everyday language: Studies in ethnomethodology. New York:
Irvington.
Hess, R. D. and McDevitt, T. M. (1984), Some cognitive consequences of maternal
intervention techniques: A longitudinal study. Child Development, 55, 2017-
2030.
Holtgraves, T. (2000), Preference organization and reply comprehension. Discourse
Processes, 30(2), 87-106.
Horowitz, L., Jansson, L., Ljungbergm T. and Hedenbro, M. (2005), Behavioural
patterns of confict resolution strategies in preschool boys with language
Church Book.indb 262 13/01/2009 12:12:01
References 263
impairment in comparison with boys with typical language development.
International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders, 41, 441-466.
Hutchby, I. and Woofftt, R. (2008), Conversation analysis: Principles, practices
and applications. Second Edition. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Hymes, D. (1972), On communicative competence. In J. B. Pride and J. Holmes
(eds), Sociolinguistics. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Hymes, D. (1974), Foundations in sociolinguistics: An ethnographic approach.
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Jackson, S. and Jacobs, S. (1980), Structure of conversational argument: Pragmatic
bases for the enthymene. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 66, 251-265.
Jacobs, S. and Jackson, S. (1982), Conversational argument: A discourse analytic
approach. In J. R. Cox and C. A. Willard (eds), Advances in argumentation
theory and research. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
Jefferson, G. (1985), An exercise in the transcription and analysis of laughter. In T.
A. van Dijk (ed.), Handbook of Discourse Analysis. London: Academic Press.
Jefferson, G. (1989), Preliminary notes on a possible metric which provides for
a standard maximum silence of approximately one second in conversation.
In B. Roger and P. Bull (eds), Conversation: An Interdisciplinary perspective.
Clevedon: Mulitilingual Matters.
Jefferson, G. (1996), A case of transcriptional stereotyping. Journal of Pragmatics,
26, 159-170.
Johansson, S. (1995), The encoding of spoken texts. In N. Ide and J. Veronis
(eds), Text encoding initiative: Background and context. Dordrecht: Kluwer
Academic Publishers.
Kakava, C. (2003), Discourse and confict. In D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen and H.
Hamilton, E. (eds), The Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Oxford: Blackwell
(pp. 651-670).
Kasper, G. (1990), Linguistic politeness. Journal of Pragmatics, 14, 193-218.
Katriel, T. (1985), Brogez: Ritual and strategy in Israeli childrens conficts.
Language in Society, 14, 467-490.
Kochman, T. (1983), The boundary between play and nonplay in black verbal
dueling. Language in Society, 12, 329-337.
Kotthoff, H. (1993), Disagreement and concession in disputes: On the context
sensitivity of preference structures. Language in Society, 22, 193-216.
Krasnor, L. R. and Rubin, K. H. (1983), Preschool social problem solving: Attempts
and outcomes in naturalistic interaction. Child Development, 54, 1545-1558.
Kyratzis, A. (1992), Gender differences in the use of persuasive justifcations in
childrens pretend play. In K. Hall and M. Bucholtz and B. Moonwoman (eds),
Locating power. Proceedings of the second Berkeley Women and Language
Conference, 2. Berkeley: University of California.
Kyratzis, A. and Ervin-Tripp, S. (1999), The development of discourse markers in
peer interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 31, 1321-1338.
Church Book.indb 263 13/01/2009 12:12:01
Kyratzis, A. and Guo, J. (2001), Preschool girls and boys verbal confict strategies
in the US and China: Cross-cultural and contextual considerations. Research
on Language and Social Interaction, 34, 45-74.
Labov, W. (1972a), Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia: University of
Pennsylvania Press.
Labov, W. (1972b), Rules for ritual insults. In D. Sudnow (ed.), Studies in social
interaction. New York: Free Press.
Labov, W. and Fanshel, D. (1977), Therapeutic discourse: Psycotherapy as
conversation. New York: Academic Press.
Lampert, M. D. and Ervin-Tripp, S. (1993), Structured coding for the study of
language and social interaction. In J. A. Edwards and M. D. Lampert (eds),
Talking data: Transcription and coding in discourse research. Hillsdale, New
J ersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Laursen, B. and Hartup, W. W. (1989), The dynamics of preschool childrens
conficts. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 35(3), 281-297.
Laursen, B., Hartup, W. W. and Koplas, A. L. (1996), Towards understanding peer
confict. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 42(1), 76-102.
Lein, L. and Brenneis, D. (1978), Childrens disputes in three speech communities.
Language in society, 7, 299-323.
Lemke, J. L. (1990), Talking science: Language, learning and values. Norwood:
Ablex Publishing Company.
Lerner, G. (1996), Finding face in the preference structures of talk-in-interaction.
Social Psycology Quarterly, 59, 303-321.
Lever, J. (1976), Sex differences in the games children play. Social Problems, 23,
478-487.
Levinson, S. C. (1981), The comparative inadequacies of speech act models of
dialogue. In H. Parret and M. Sbisa and J. Verschueren (eds), Possibilities
and limitations of pragmatics: Proceedings of the conference of pragmatics,
Urbino, July 8-24, 1979. Amsterdam: J ohn Benjamins B V.
Levinson, S. C. (1983), Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lewis, D. K. (1969), Convention: A philosophical study. Cambridge MA: Harvard
University Press.
Lewis, D. K. (1979), Scorekeeping in a language game. Journal of Philosophical
Logic, 8, 339-359.
Maccoby, E. E. (1996), Peer confict and intrafamily confict: Are there conceptual
bridges? Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 42(1), 165-176.
MacWhinney, B. (1982), Basic processes in syntactic acquisition. In S. A. Kuczaj
II (ed.), Language development (Vol.1 ): Syntax and semantics. Hillsdale, NJ :
Erlbaum Associates.
MacWhinney, B. (2000), The CHILDES project: Tools for analyzing talk. Third
edition. Mahwah, NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
MacWhinney, B. and Snow, C. (1985), The child language data exchange system.
Journal of Child Language, 12, 271-296.
Church Book.indb 264 13/01/2009 12:12:01
References 265
Malloy, H. and McMurray, P. (1996), Confict strategies and resolutions: Peer
confict in an integrated early childhood classroom. Early Childhood Research
Quarterly, 11, 185-206.
Maltz, D. and Borker, R. (1982), A cultural approach to male-female
miscommunication. In J. Gumperz (ed.), Language and social identity.
Mandell, N. (1988), The least-adult role in studying children. Journal of
Contemporary Ethnography, 16, 433-467.
Maynard, D. W. (1985a), How children start arguments. Language in society, 14,
1-30.
Maynard, D. W. (1985b), On the functions of social confict among children.
American sociological review, 50, 207-223.
Maynard, D. W. (1986a), Offering and soliciting collaboration in multi-party
disputes among children (and other humans), Human studies, 9, 261-285.
Maynard, D. W. (1986b), The development of argumentative skills among children.
In P. A. Adler and P. Adler (eds), Sociological studies of child development.
Greenwich, Conneticut: J AI Press.
McEvoy, W. (1989), Woodbine Place. Newcastle upon Tyne: Common Features.
McHoul, A. (2008) Questions of context in studies of talk and interaction
Ethnomethodology and conversation analysis. Journal of Pragmatics, 40, 823-
826.
McTear, M. (1979), Hey! Ive got something to tell you: A study of the initiation
of conversational exchanges by preschool children. Journal of Pragmatics, 3,
321-336.
McTear, M. (1985), Childrens conversations. Oxford: Blackwell.
Mey, J. L. (2001), Pragmatics: An introduction. Oxford: Blackwell.
Miller and Chapman (1983), SALT: Systematic Analysis of Language Transcripts,
users manual.
Miller, P. M., Danaher, D. L. and Forbes, D. (1986), Sex-related strategies for coping
with interpersonal confict in children aged fve and seven. Developmental
Psychology, 22(4), 543-548.
Moerman, M. (1988), Talking culture: Ethnography and conversation analysis.
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Muntigl, P. and Turnbull, W. (1998), Conversational structure and facework in
arguing. Journal of Pragmatics, 29, 225-256.
Newman, R. S., Murray, B. and Lussier, C. (2001), Confrontation with aggressive
peers at school: Students reluctance to seek help from the teacher. Journal of
educational psychology, 93(2), 398-410.
Ninio, A. and Snow, C. (1996), Pragmatic development. Oxford: Westview Press.
Ochs, E. (1979), Transcription as theory. In E. Ochs and B. Schieffelin (eds),
Developmental Pragmatics. New York: Academic Press.
Ochs, E. (1983), Conversational competence in children. In E. Ochs and B.
Schieffelin (eds), Aquiring conversational competence. London: Routledge
and Kegan Paul.
Church Book.indb 265 13/01/2009 12:12:01
Ochs, E. and Schieffelin, B. (1979), Developmental pragmatics. New York:
Academic Press.
Ochs, E. and Schieffelin, B. (1983), Acquiring conversational competence.
London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Odom, S. L. and Ogawa, I. (1992), Direct observation of young childrens social
interaction with peers: A review of methodology. Behavioral Assessment, 14,
407-441.
OKeefe, B. J. and Benoit, P. J. (1982), Childrens arguments. In J. R. Cox and C.
A. Willard (eds), Advances in argumentation theory and research. Carbondale:
Southern Illinois University Press.
OKeefe, D. J. (1977), Two concepts of argument. Journal of the American
Forensic Association, 13, 121-128.
Parsons, T. (1937), The structure of social action. New York: Mc-Graw-Hill.
Phinney, J. S. (1986), The structure of 5-year-olds verbal quarrels with peers and
siblings. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 147(1), 47-60.
Piaget, J. (1959), The language and thought of the child. New York: Harcourt
Brace.
Piaget, J. (1965), The moral judgement of the child. London: Routledge and Kegan
Paul.
Pomerantz, A. (1975), Second assessments: A study of some features of agreements/
disagreements. Unpublished Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of
California, Irvine.
Pomerantz, A. (1978), Compliment responses: Notes on the co-operation of
multiple constraints. In J. N. Schenkein (ed.), Studies in the organization of
conversational interaction. New York: Academic Press.
Pomerantz, A. (1984), Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features
of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In J. M. Atkinson and J. Heritage (eds),
Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis. Cambridge:
Pomerantz, A. and Fehr, B. J. (1997), Conversation analysis: An approach to the
study of social action as sense making practices. In T. v. Dijk (ed.), Discourse
as social interaction. London: Sage.
Pruitt, D. G. (1981), Negotiation behavior. New York: Academic Press.
Pruitt, D. G. and Carnevale, P. J. (1993), Negotiation in social confict. Pacifc
Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing.
Psathas, G. (ed.) (1979), Everyday language: Studies in ethnomethodology. New
York: Irvington.
Psathas, G. (ed.) (1990), Interaction competence. Washington, DC: University
Press of America.
Psathas, G. (1995), Conversation analysis: The study of talk-in-interaction.
Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.
Psathas, G. and Anderson, T. (1990), The practices of transcription in conversation
analysis. Semiotica, 78(1/2), 75-99.
Church Book.indb 266 13/01/2009 12:12:01
References 267
Putallaz, M. and Sheppard, B. H. (1995), Confict management and social
competence. In C. U. Shantz and W. W. Hartup (eds), Confict in child and
adolescent development. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Rapoport, A. and Chammah, A. (1965), Prisoners Dilemna. Ann Arbor, MI:
University of Michigan Press.
Rizzo, T. A. (1992), The role of confict in friendship development. In W. A. Corsaro
and P. J. Miller (eds), Interactive approaches to childrens socialization: New
directions for child development. San Francisco: J ossey-Bass.
Romaine, S. (1984), The language of children and adolescents: The acquisition of
communicative competence. Oxford: Blackwell.
Ross, H. S. (1996), Negotiating principles of entitlement in sibling property
disputes. Developmental Psychology, 32(1), 90-101.
Ross, H. S. and Conant, C. L. (1995), The social structure of early confict:
Interaction, relationships and alliances. In C. U. Shantz and W. W. Hartup
(eds), Confict in child and adolecent development. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Sackin, S. and Thelen, E. (1984), An ethological study of peaceful associative
outcomes to confict in preschool children. Child development, 55, 1098-1102.
Sacks, H. (1979), Hotrodder: A revolutionary category. In G. Psathas (ed.),
Everyday language: Studies in ethnomethodology. New York: Irvington.
Sacks, H. (1984a), Notes on methodology. In J. M. Atkinson and J. Heritage (eds),
Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis. Cambridge:
Sacks, H. (1984b), On doing being ordinary. In J. M. Atkinson and J. Heritage
(eds), Strucures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis. Cambridge:
Sacks, H. (1987), On the preferences for agreement and contiguity in sequences in
conversation. In G. Button and J. R. E. Lee (eds), Talk and social organization.
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Sacks, H. (1995a), Lectures on conversation (Vol. I), Oxford: Blackwell.
Sacks, H. (1995b), Lectures on conversation (Vol. II), Oxford: Blackwell.
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. and Jefferson, G. (1974), A simplest systematics for the
organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50(4), 696-735.
Sacks, H. and Schegloff, E. A. (1979), Two preferences in the organization of
reference to persons in conversation and their interaction. In G. Psathas (ed.),
Everyday language: Studies in ethnomethodology. New York: Irvington.
Schegloff, E. A. (1968), Sequencing in conversational openings. American
Anthropologist, 70, 1075-1095.
Schegloff, E. A. (1972), Notes on conversational practice: Formulating place. In D.
Sidnell, J. (1995), Repair. In J. Verschueren and J.-O. Ostman (eds), Handbook
of Pragmatics. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: J ohn Benjamins.
Sudnow (ed.), Studies in social interaction. New York: Free Press.
Church Book.indb 267 13/01/2009 12:12:01
Schegloff, E. A. (1979), Identifcation and recognition in telephone conversation
openings. In G. Psathas (ed.), Everyday language: Studies in ethnomethodology.
New York: Irvington.
Schegloff, E. A. (1984), On some questions and ambiguities in conversation. In
J. M. Atkinson and J. Heritage (eds), Structures of social action: Studies in
conversation analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schegloff, E. A. (1988a), Applying speech act theory to ordinary conversation.
Journal of Pragmatics, 12, 55-62.
Schegloff, E. A. (1988b), Goffman and the analysis of conversation. In P. Drew
and A. Wootton (eds), Erving Goffman: Exploring the interaction order.
Cambridge: Polity Press.
Schegloff, E. A. (1995a), Introduction. In H. Sacks (ed.), Lectures on conversation.
Oxford: Blackwell.
Schegloff, E. A. (1995b), Introduction. In H. Sacks (ed.), Lectures on conversation.
Oxford: Blackwell.
Schegloff, E.A. (2007) Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in
conversation analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schegloff, E. A., Jefferson, G. and Sacks, H. (1977), The preference for self-
correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language, 53, 361-382.
Schegloff, E. A. and Sacks, H. (1973), Opening up closings. Semiotica, 8, 289-327.
Schelling, T. (1960), The strategy of confict. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Schenkein, J. N. (ed.) (1978), Studies in the organization of conversational
interaction. New York: Academic Press.
Schieffelin, B. and Ochs, E. (eds) (1986), Language socialization across cultures.
Schiffrin, D. (1985), Conversational coherence: The role of well. Language, 61,
640-667.
Schiffrin, D. (1987), Discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schiffrin, D. (1994), Approaches to discourse. Oxford: Blackwell.
Searle, J. R. (1969), Speech acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Searle, J. R. (1975a), A taxonomy of illocutionary acts. In K. Gunderson (ed.),
Language, mind and knowledge. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Searle, J. R. (1975b), Indirect speech acts. In P. Cole and J. L. Morgan (eds),
Syntax and semantics Vol. 3: Speech acts. New York: Academic Press.
Shantz, C. U. (1987), Conficts between children. Child development, 58, 283-305.
Shantz, C. U. and Shantz, D. W. (1985), Confict between children: Social-
cognitive and sociometric correlates. In M. W. Berkowitz (ed.), Peer confict
and psychological growth. San Francisco: J ossey-Bass.
Sheldon, A. (1990), Pickle fghts: Gendered talk in preschool disputes. Discourse
processes, 13, 5-31.
Sheldon, A. (1992), Confict talk: Sociolinguistic challenges to self-assertion and
how young girls meet them. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 38(1), 95-117.
Church Book.indb 268 13/01/2009 12:12:02
References 269
Sheldon, A. (1996), You can be the baby brother, but you arent born yet: Preschool
girls negotiation for power and access in pretend play. Research on Language
and Social Interaction, 29, 57-80.
Silver, C. and Harkins, D. (2007), Labeling, Affect and Teachers Hypothetical
Approaches to Confict Resolution: An Exploratory Study. Early Education
and Development, 18, 625-645.
Silverman, D. (1998), Harvey Sacks: Social Science and conversation analysis.
Cambridge: Polity Press.
Sinclair, H. (1994), Early cognitive development and the contribution of peer
interaction: A Piagetian view. In S. Friedman and H. C. Haywood (eds),
Developmental follow-up: Concepts, domains and methods. San Diego:
Academic Press.
Sinclair, J.M. and Coulthard, R.M. (1975) Towards an analysis of discourse: The
English used by teachers and pupils. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Skinner, B. F. (1957), Verbal behavior. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Sluckin, A. (1981), Growing up in the playground: The social development of
children. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Smith, P. K. (1988), The cognitive demands of childrens social interaction with
peers. In R. W. Byrne and A. Whiten (eds), Machiavellian Intelligence: Social
expertise and the evolution of intellect in monkeys, apes and humans. Oxford:
Clarendon Press.
Sprott, R. A. (1992), Childrens use of discourse markers in disputes: Form-
function relations and discourse in child language. Discourse Processes, 15,
423-439.
Stalpers, J. (1995), The expression of disagreement. In K. Ehlich and J. Wagner
(eds), The discourse of business negotiation. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Strayer, F. F. and Strayer, J. (1976), An ethological analysis of social agonism
and dominance relations among preschool children. Child development, 47,
980-989.
Sudnow, D. (ed.) (1970), Studies in social interaction. New York: Free Press.
Taylor, A. R. and Trickett, P. K. (1989), Teacher preference and childrens
sociometric status in the classroom. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 35, 343-361.
Taylor, T. J. and Cameron, D. (1987), Analysing conversation: Rules and units in
the structure of talk. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
ten Have, P. (2007), Doing conversation analysis: A practical guide. Second
edition. London: Sage.
ten Have, P. and Psathas, G. (eds) (1995), Situated order: Studies in the social
organization of talk and embodied activites. Washington, DC: University Press
of America.
Terry, R. and Coie, J. D. (1991), A comparison of methods for defning sociometric
status among children. Developmental Psychology, 27, 876-880.
Thompson, L. (1997), The development of pragmatic competence: Past fndings
and future directions for research. In L. Thompson (ed.), Children talking:
Church Book.indb 269 13/01/2009 12:12:02
The development of pragmatic competence. Clevedon, England: Multilingual
Matters.
Toolan, M. (1989), Ruling out rules in the analysis of conversation. Journal of
Pragmatics, 13, 251-274.
Tracy, K. (1990), The many faces of facework. In H. Giles and W. P. Robinson
(eds), The handbook of language and social psychology. Chichester, England:
J ohn Wiley.
Trudge, J. and Rogoff, B. (1989), Peer infuences on cognitive development.
Piagetian and Vygotskian perspectives. In M. H. Bornstein and J . S. Bruner
(eds), Interaction in human development. Hillsdale, NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
van Dijk, T. A. (1985), Handbook of discourse Analysis, Volume 1. Orlando:
Academic Press.
van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., Blair, J. A. and Willard, C. A. (eds) (1991),
Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Argumentation.
Amsterdam: SISCAT International Society for the Study of Argumentation
(ISSA).
van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R. and Henkemans, A. F. S. (2002),
Argumentation: Analysis, evaluation, presentation. Mahwah, NJ : Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Vestal, A. and Jones, N. A. (2004), Peace Building and Confict Resolution in
Preschool Children. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 19, 131-142.
Vuchinich, S. (1984), Sequencing and social structure in family confict. Social
Psychology Quarterly, 47, 217-223.
Vuchinich, S. (1990), The sequential organization of closing in verbal family
confict. In A. D. Grimshaw (ed.), Confict talk: Sociolinguistic investigations
of arguments in conversations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Vuchinich, S. (1999), Problem solving in families: Research and practice.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Vygotsky, L. (1986), Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Waksler, F. C. (1991), Studying children: Phenomenological insights. In F. C.
Waksler (ed.), Studying the social worlds of children: Sociological readings.
Bristol, PA: The Falmer Press.
Walton, M. D. (2000), Say its a lie or Ill punch you: Naive epistomology in
classroom confict episodes. Discourse Processes, 29, 113-136.
Watson, G. and Seiler, R. M. (eds) (1992), Text in context: Contributions to
ethnomethodology. London: Sage.
Wilson, K. E. (1988), Development of confict and confict resolution among
preschool children. Unpublished masters thesis, Pacifc Oaks College,
Pasadena, CA.
Wilson, S. R. (1992), Face and facework in negotiation. In L. L. Putnam and M. E.
Roloff (eds), Communication and negotiation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Church Book.indb 270 13/01/2009 12:12:02
References 271
Wilson, S. R., Kim, M. and Meischke, H. (1991), Evaluating Brown and Levinsons
politeness theory: A revised analysis of directives and face. Research on
Language and Social Interaction, 25, 215-252.
Wood, B. S. and Gardner, R. (1980), How children get their way: Directives in
communication. Communication Education, 29, 264-272.
Woofftt, R. (2005) Conversation analysis and discourse analysis: A critical
introduction. London, Sage.
Zimmerman, D. H. (1988), On conversation: The conversation analytic perspective.
Communication Yearbook, 11, 406-432.
Church Book.indb 271 13/01/2009 12:12:02
abandoned disputes 120, 1223, 125, 127,
136, 164
abandonment 5, 27, 111, 120, 12330,
1401
failure to respond 1237
increasing volume 130
topic shifts 1279
acceptance 18, 245, 42, 44, 46, 11517,
1423
accountability 45, 47, 85
accounts
behavioural obligations 1047
continuum of objectivity 1759
in dispreferred turn shapes 95108
downgrading 17980, 1835
epistemological 1078
in fnal utterances of resolved disputes
15160
hierarchy of 1756, 17980
ownership rights 99102
preceding preferred turn shapes 16075
properties of objects, play spaces and
play scripts 1024
saliency in dispute resolution 1879
upgrading 17983
volition, necessity and personal
preference 959
acknowledgement 90, 92
actions
categories of 29, 47, 4951
dispreferred 43, 456, 49, 51
objectionable 98, 149, 164
preferred 45, 479, 51, 189
active resolution 123, 129
adjacency pairs 402, 46, 75, 155, 179
adult speech 2, 19, 75, 78, 109
adults 12, 5, 20, 36, 193
adversative discourse 25, 78, 10, 1819,
24, 5963, 1935
as productive interaction 3
adversative episodes 8, 11, 19, 234, 27, 57
age 2, 7, 13, 34, 53, 59, 13940
aggravation 17, 19
agreement 44, 46, 4951, 62, 111, 114,
18990
analysts 29, 349, 42, 177, 184
analytic research 32, 357, 55, 108
antecedent events 1012, 18
argumentation 3, 16
theory 2
argumentative sequences 19, 223, 26, 71,
125
Asher, R. 21
assertions 8, 1718, 234, 99, 133
Atkinson, J . M. 32, 367, 43, 457, 49, 189
atypical dispreferred turn shapes 934
atypical preferred turn shapes 758
atypicality 5, 759, 934, 193
authority 3, 1819, 23, 95, 102, 108, 130
teachers 182
Baker, C. D. 2, 26, 60
behavioural obligations 1047
Benoit, P. 89, 1213, 18, 21, 24, 136, 140
Berenz, N. 545
Bilmes, J . 468, 501
birthdays/birthday parties 113, 129,
13740, 1423, 179
Bloom, L. 3, 54
Boggs, S. T. 1819, 223, 61, 65
boundaries 89, 26, 31, 35, 41
of preference 136, 149
Boyle, R. 478, 501
boys 1516, 21, 57, 59, 91, 1834, 195
breakdowns in shared play/collaborative
activity 5, 123, 137, 141, 149, 180
Brenneis, D. 3, 10, 1718, 22, 28, 61, 65
brevity 634, 68, 71, 75, 130
CA, see conversation analysis
calendar 158, 182
Index
Church Book.indb 273 13/01/2009 12:12:02
challenges 16, 19, 58, 90, 1012, 107,
1889
child-initiated intervention 133
Chomsky, N. 3
claims 203, 956, 989, 1068, 1412,
1579, 1767
epistemological 151, 156, 163, 176
factual 95, 108, 1756
ownership 16970, 174
prior 99101, 115, 154, 163, 165
closings 12, 267, 11112, 115, 12930,
133, 1401, 149, see also
outcomes; resolutions
of resolved disputes 151, 1578, 160, 169
communicative competence 34
developing 2, 4, 6, 21, 193, 195
communities, speech 22
compliance 136, 142
compromise 1718, 268, 61, 73, 112,
11519, 179
conditional directives 17
conditional threats 138, 142, 145
confict
between children 1
closings, see closings
continuation 111, 176
defnition 2, 78, 13
episodes 9, 12, 17, 23, 267, 36, 78
frequency 1316, 579
openings 1012
outcomes 20, 269, 52, 78
resolution, see resolutions
situations 1, 21, 612, 108, 195
strategies, see strategies
types 1316, 579
verbal 2, 4, 10, 80, 109, 111
connected discourse 33, 193
connector pieces 120, 158, 182
constraints 40, 57, 103
behavioural 1045
context 9, 36, 45, 75, 18990, 194
local 33, 42, 47, 501, 120
sequential 4950, 136, 141, 152
social 45, 31, 37, 193
contiguity 44, 46, 71
continuation of confict 111, 133, 176,
18990
continuum of objectivity 1759, 195
contours, terminal 55, 197
contradicting routines 223
contradiction 8, 18, 223, 63, 70, 76, 126
contrived episodes/situations 13, 34
conversation
development of 356
features of 357
maxims of 42, 45
sequential organisation, see sequential
organisation
conversation analysis 5, 7, 3052, 55
applicability 52
emic perspective 367
methodological advantages 337
theory 47
conversational preference 489, 62, see
also preference
correction 12, 19, 39, 156
Corsaro, W. A. 24, 810, 13, 15, 19, 24,
589
Coulter, J . 89, 50, 64
counter insults 18, 223
counter threats 1, 18, 147
counters 17
cycles of threats 18, 147
Danby, S. 2, 26, 60, 138
data-driven analysis 356
data, introduction to 534
Davidson, J . 44
Dawe, H. C. 1315
delay 435, 501, 636, 746, 8092
markers 63, 80, 8592, 94, 108
pauses 805
prefatory 78, 92
denials 8, 1718, 23, 50, 61
development of conversation 356
development of disputes 5, 175, 193
developmental psychology 7, 13
Di Paolo, M. 1415, 1718, 26, 28, 589, 61
direct opposition 39, 65, 75, 173, 1901
markers 62
short 5, 190
direct threats 138
directness 63, 712, 75, 130
discourse analysis 29, 32, 35, see also
conversation analysis
discourse markers 44
Church Book.indb 274 13/01/2009 12:12:02
Index 275
discrepancies 10, 1415, 28, 567
dislike 95, 98, 159, 173, 177
dispreference 16, 44, 47
markers 85, 87, 109, 115, 149
dispreferred actions 43, 456, 49, 51
dispreferred responses 434, 467, 49, 149
dispreferred status 45, 50, 136
dispreferred turn shapes 5, 8093, 121,
149, 18990, 1923
accounts in 95108
atypical 934
disputes
abandoned 120, 1223, 125, 127, 136,
164
closing of, see dispute closings
closings, see closings
frequency 14, 57, 5960, 193
multi-party 246, 789, 109, 165
object 1415, 589, 144
outcomes, see outcomes
peer, see peer disputes
resolution, see resolutions
Ditchburn, S. 27
double-voice discourse 16
downgrading 17880, 1835
Du Bois, J . W. 54
Dunn, J . 11
dyads 245
Edwards, J . A. 54
effectiveness 99, 116, 160, 176, 1789
Eisenberg, A. R. 34, 811, 15, 1720, 23,
278, 59
emic perspective, conversation analysis
367
endings, see closings; outcomes;
resolutions
environments, observation 568, 60, 63,
91, 102, 106, 112
episodes
adversative 8, 11, 19, 234, 27, 57
resolved 112, 123, 168
epistemological accounts 1078, 1645
epistemological claims 151, 156, 163, 176
Ervin-Tripp, S. 54, 88
escalation 18, 42, 65, 134
pattern of 19, 22
ethnomethodology 31
events, antecedent 1012, 18
exchanged threats 162, 164
existing research 4, 7, 12, 18, 57, 62
limitations 29
expectations 16, 3942, 4650, 60, 95,
149, 157
social 48, 51, 58, 105
explanation requests 17
extended sequences 55, 1789, 191
external intervention 1302
facework 49, 195
factual claims 95, 108, 1756
failures to respond 41, 44, 51, 11925
fnal sequences 151, 160
fnal utterances 5, 112, 124, 1267, 136
resolved disputes 121, 149, 15160,
193
frst pair parts 401, 435, 51, 162
food 42, 70, 131, 172
format 9, 1516, 19, 51, 156
tying 24
Fraser, B. 19, 95
frequency, confict 1316, 5760, 193
friendship 3, 20, 60, 137, 146
relations 13
threats 179
gaps 22, 37, 634, 80
Garvey, C. 4, 811, 15, 1719, 23, 278,
33
gender 13, 15, 57, 59, 195
Genishi, C. 1415, 1718, 26, 28, 589, 61
Gilligan, C. 16, 21
girls 1516, 21, 57, 846, 1445, 1735,
1834
Goffman, E. 31, 35, 43, 49
Goodwin, C. 4, 1516, 19, 21, 235, 33, 51
Goodwin, M. H. 34, 1516, 19, 21, 235,
28, 33
Gumperz, J . 4, 545
Halliday, M. A. K. 4, 24
harm-threats 18, 24, 136
Hartup, W. W. 3, 11, 20
Haslett, B. 1718, 136, 147
Hay, D. F. 3, 89, 14, 59
hesitations 19, 35, 434, 51, 62, 80, 85
Church Book.indb 275 13/01/2009 12:12:02
hierarchy of accounts 1756, 17980
ignoring 17
immediate responses 637
indirect threats 1, 138, 143
initial opposition 1012, 1718, 23, 63
insertion sequences 8, 25, 401
insistence 17
insults 1718, 224, 61
counter 18, 223
intentions 3, 14, 16, 18, 29, 45, 601
inter-turn pauses 63, 7980, 84, 109
interrogatives 126, 1289
interruptions 44, 123
intervention 1, 1303
child-initiated 133
external 1302
strategies 5, 60, 195
teacher 5, 20, 11112, 130, 1328, 140,
1934
teacher attitudes 601
teacher-initiated 130, 1334
intonation 19, 73, 197
inversion 22, 634, 70, 136, 190
invitations 423, 456, 489, 13742, 179
Israeli children 9, 78
Italian children 15, 19
J ackson, S. 29, 42, 189
J acobs, S. 29, 42, 189
J efferson, G. 31, 369, 47, 556, 197
justifcations 17, 95, 1024, 1069, 1558,
1603, 17380
objective 193
quantifable 160
retrospective 54
subjective 1789, 188
justifed objections 87, 141, 153
justifed opposition 5, 162, 192
knowledge 27, 33, 58, 1078, 156
Koplas, A. L. 3, 20
Kotthoff, H. 501, 190
Labov, W. 9, 15, 19, 32, 53
Lampert, M. D. 54
language 34, 7, 32, 50, 53
acquisition 3
latched utterances 64
Laursen, B. 3, 11, 20
Lein, L. 3, 10, 1718, 22, 28, 61, 65
length, turn 63, 6874
Levinson, S. C. 19, 32, 35, 43, 45, 47, 49
Lewis, M. 41, 48
liking 99, 173, 181
linguistic markedness, see markedness
linguistic preference, see preference
local context 33, 42, 47, 501, 120
local rules 589, 95, 105
Lussier, C. 201, 130
markedness 435, 4750, 149, 187, 1923
markers 5, 434, 51, 73, 85, 878, 903
delay 63, 80, 945, 108
dispreference 85, 87, 109, 115, 149
maxims of conversation 42, 45
Maynard, D. W. 34, 812, 1819, 246,
28, 39, 78
McTear, M. 4, 73
methodology 13, 31, 337, 56, 62
mitigation 17, 1920, 95, 135
modifed acceptance 11519
motivation 15, 28, 345, 478, 601, 177,
184
multi-party disputes 246, 789, 109, 165
Murray, B. 201, 130
mutuality 89
necessity 955, 99, 155, 172
negotiation 201, 278, 58, 135, 141, 190,
194
Newman, R. S. 201, 130
next-turn opposition 146
non-opposition 136, 179
nonverbal actions 1011, 35, 668, 197
novel content 65, 76, 118, 124, 132, 1902
novel positions 11718
object disputes 1415, 589, 99102,
1434, 1514, 1613, 17680
objectionable actions 98, 149, 164
objections 89, 256, 99100, 1045,
1212, 1267, 1525
justifed 87, 141, 153
repeated 132
Church Book.indb 276 13/01/2009 12:12:03
Index 277
objectivity 17580, 184
continuum of 1759, 195
relative 1767, 179
in threats 1789
objects, see object disputes; properties of
objects
observation environments 568, 60, 63, 91,
102, 106, 112
observers 56, 94, 133, 168, 183, 197
Ochs, E. 4, 54
OKeefe, B. J . 2, 89, 1213, 18, 147
one-word objections/utterances 689, 71
openings, confict 1012
opposition 25, 812, 1419, 956,
98103, 1079, 18993
categories of 17
delayed and justifed 923
direct forms of 1901
initial 10, 12, 1718, 23, 63
initial statement of 1012
justifed 5, 162, 192
markers 62, 723, 93, 126
next-position 189
next-turn 146
organisation of 118, 134
overt 10, 12, 19, 136, 1756, 18990,
193
unjustifed 131
organisation
of opposition 118, 134
sequential, see sequential organisation
social 15, 28
organising principles 5, 24, 51, 53, 62, 160,
176
orientation 9, 16, 357, 42, 46
other-initiated repair 19, 39, 189
outcomes 56, 109, 11149
abandonment 12330
compromise 11519
dispute closings 149
intervention 1306
and preference 15185
resolutions 11223
threats 13649
topic shifts 1279
win/loss 11215
overt opposition 10, 12, 19, 136, 1756,
18990, 193
ownership 59, 99100, 106, 134, 169,
1778, 180
claims 16970, 174, 182
rights 95, 99102, 115, 1589, 1767
pair parts 43, 50, 52, 149, 189, 192
frst 401, 435, 51, 162
second 5, 405, 502, 136, 149, 162,
18990
pairs, adjacency 402, 46, 75, 155, 179
parents 7, 20, 53
part-Hawaiian children 18, 22
partial repetition 19
participant orientation, see orientation
party invitations, see invitations
patterns of discourse 25, 27, 59
patterns of escalation 19, 22
pauses 434, 624, 756, 805, 1089,
1425
inter-turn 63, 7980, 84, 109
peer disputes 53109
personal preferences, see preference,
personal
personal volition, see volition
persuasiveness 111, 145, 151, 157, 1757,
179, 187
physical force 17
Piaget, J . 3, 16
pitch 22, 55, 67
play scripts 27, 589, 1024, 1546,
1623, 171, 1757
play space 1314, 57, 99104, 1256, 132,
169, 1756
politeness 16, 19, 49, 195
Pomerantz, A. 32, 445, 478, 50, 85, 108,
189
possession 1415, 956, 989, 134, 145,
158, 170
power 15, 1401
preference 20, 39, 4252, 62, 75, 98, 189
boundaries 136, 149
categorisation of actions 4951
and dispute resolution 18991
features 5, 47, 49, 623, 1089, 187,
1923
Church Book.indb 277 13/01/2009 12:12:03
function of 18990
interpretation differences 479
linguistic 489, 194
organisation 5, 4253, 62, 78, 109,
1915
and outcomes 15185
personal 46, 489, 959
problems with concept 4751
psychological 489
and psychology 456
status 435, 47, 4951, 68, 84
structural nature of concept 456
preferred actions 45, 479, 51, 189
preferred responses 434, 467, 51, 80, 95,
136, 163
preferred status 49, 71, see also preference,
status
preferred turn shapes 6374, 1346
accounts preceding 16075
atypical 758
multi-party disputes 7880
prior claims 99101, 115, 154, 163, 165
prior rights 99, 132, 169
prior utterances 2, 12, 25, 55, 623, 668,
18990
productive interaction, adversative
discourse as 3
properties of objects 1024, 108, 160,
1756
Psathas, G. 312, 55
psychological inferences 478
psychological preference 489
real interaction, recording 335
reasons 17
recording of real interaction 335
referents 145, 151, 1767, 17980, 184
refusals 8, 1718, 24, 43, 102, 152, 155
rejections 18, 24, 446, 122, 144, 162
relative objectivity 1767, 179
repair 8, 12, 379
other-initiated 19, 39, 189
repeated objections 132
repetition 22, 41, 70, 132, 135, 157, 190
partial 19
research
analytic 32, 357, 55, 108
existing, see existing research
researchers 13, 16, 27, 336, 54, 56
resolutions 810, 278, 149, 1759, 1935
active 123, 129
compromise 11519
how to resolve disputes 18795
saliency of accounts 1879
sequence of turn shapes 1913
why preference? 18991
win/loss outcomes 11215
resolved disputes 28, 112, 11516, 123,
1512, 15961, 190
closings 151, 1578, 160, 169
fnal utterances 121, 149, 151, 160
resources 1, 14, 578
responses
dispreferred 434, 467, 49, 149
immediate 637
preferred 434, 467, 51, 80, 95, 136, 163
restarts 93, 100, 143, 151, 153, 160, 182
rights
ownership, see ownership rights
prior 99, 132, 169
Rizzo, T. A. 3, 8, 10, 13, 15, 1920, 589
Ross, H. S. 3, 78, 10, 1314, 59
rudeness 41, 105
rules 3, 334, 379, 1047, 1668, 1767
local 589, 95, 105
social 18
Sacks, H. 26, 31, 34, 3642, 449, 55, 62
Schegloff, E. 26, 312, 3642, 47, 55, 197
Schieffelin, B. 4
Schiffrin, D. 32, 44, 87
scripts, play 27, 589, 1023, 1546,
1623, 171, 1757
Searle, J . R. 32, 35
second pair parts 5, 405, 502, 136, 149,
162, 18990
self-repair 39
sequence of turn shapes
and dispute resolution 1913
sequences
argumentative 19, 223, 26, 71, 125
extended 55, 1789, 191
insertion 8, 25, 401
invitation 46, 49
Church Book.indb 278 13/01/2009 12:12:03
Index 279
side 8, 147, 162
of strategies 226
threats in 1419
sequential context 4950, 136, 141, 152
sequential organisation 33, 3742, 45, 52,
78, 121
Shantz, C. U. 89, 11, 1415, 33, 59
sharing 14, 17, 80, 89, 1668
rule 1067, 157
Sheldon, A. 16, 91
shifts 268, 31, 545, 58, 76, 117, 128
short utterances 68, 99, 191
repeated 166
shouting 60, 130, 134, 146, 194
side sequences 8, 147, 162
silence 44, 47, 64, 112, 119, 121
single utterances 29, 313, 35, 37, 55, 172,
193
social context 45, 31, 37, 193
social expectations 48, 51, 58, 105
social organisation 15, 28
social rules 18
social status 2, 194
social structure 3, 15
social worlds 23, 6, 195
space, play, see play space
speech
acts 5, 24, 323, 88
adult 2, 19, 75, 78, 109
communities 22
staff intervention 1312
stalemate 132, 144, 162
status
dispreferred 45, 50, 136
preference 435, 47, 4951, 68, 84
preferred 49, 71
social 2, 194
strategies 4, 7, 257, 11617, 1413
sequences of 226, 612
types of 612
verbal 1621
stress 19, 22, 35, 55, 197
structures
social 3, 15
syntactic 234, 64
subjective justifcations 1789, 188
subjectivity 16, 48, 177
submission 26, 11213, 136, 141, 149,
1778
syntactic structures 234, 64
talk-in-interaction 23, 5, 9, 334, 37,
534, 78
teacher-initiated intervention 130, 1334
teachers 601, 1078, 1305, 140, 166,
1712, 182
confict intervention attitudes 601
instructions 4, 106, 135
intervention 5, 20, 11112, 130, 1328,
140, 1934
tell-authority threats 24, 137, 140, 170
Thompson, S. A. 4, 32
threats 1718, 224, 94, 125, 13649,
1789
birthday party 143, 179
conditional 138, 142, 145
counter 1, 18, 147
direct 138
exchanged 162, 164
function 5, 125, 141, 149
harm 18, 24, 136
implied 114, 143
indirect 1, 138, 143
objectivity in 1789
in sequences 1419
tell-authority 24, 137, 140, 170
types 13641
unspecifed outcome 18, 24, 136
withholding actions/object 24, 1367,
141, 147
topic shifts 24, 11719, 1279, 144
mid-episode 139
topics, dispute 95, 117, 184, 195
toys 14, 79, 106, 113, 155, 164, 167
transcription 546
conventions 545, 197
transcripts 12, 345, 5464
truth 14, 589, 107
turn length 63, 6874
turn shapes
dispreferred, see dispreferred turn
shapes
preferred, see preferred turn shapes
sequence and dispute resolution 1913
turn-taking 379
Church Book.indb 279 13/01/2009 12:12:03
unspecifed outcome threats 18, 24, 136
upgrading 159, 1789, 187
utterances
short 68, 99, 191
single 29, 313, 35, 37, 55, 172, 193
verbal strategies 1621
video recordings 5, 53, 56, 58, 80
volition 955, 99100, 15960, 162, 1756
volume, increasing 22, 130, 170
Vuchinich, S. 2, 7, 27, 11112, 123, 127
win/loss outcomes 11215
withholding actions/object threats 24,
1367, 141, 147
Church Book.indb 280 13/01/2009 12:12:03

(Amelia Church) Preference Organisation and Peer D

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

(Amelia Church) Preference Organisation and Peer D

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PREFERENCE ORGANISATION

AND PEER DISPUTES

Rising terminal contour

You might also like