Dialogue in Children 9783110802078, 9789027977540

Table of contents :
Preface To The English Version
Table Of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Methods Of Investigation
3. Analysis And Interpretation Of The Material
4. Conclusions

Citation preview

JANUA LINGUARUM STUDIA M E M O R I A E N I C O L A I VAN W I J K D E D I C A T A edenda curai C. H. V A N

SCHOONEVELD

Indiana University

Series Minor,

149

Dialogue in Children

Tatiana Slama-Cazacu

Mouton Publishers The Hague • Paris • New York

ISBN 90 2 7 9 7 7 5 4 2

© Copyright 1977 Mouton Publishers, The Hague No part of this issue may be translated or reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, or any other means, without written permission from the publishers. Printed in Germany

To those children

PREFACE TO THE ENGLISH VERSION

In order to revise the translation, I carefully reread this little book. I must admit I enjoyed reading it. It was not a narcissistic crisis: in fact, if I had read it critically, I would have found many points to be corrected, sentences to be modified, and ideas to be added. But I could not help reading it uncritically (this very rarely happens with me): I was captivated by what CHILDRI.N say, by their dialogue. There is nothing to be modified or added: this is their true manner of speaking - and this is the best part of this book. I hope the English translation is able to render the original charm, and I am sure that many of the data correspond to some universals of child speech. The little girl Georgeta (2 years, 5 months), who tells her friend Silviu, caressing his cheek: "I love you! " , or Mihaela (2 years, 8 months), who is protesting that Nuti (2 years, 5 months) gave an 'injection' to Gina (2 years, 7 months): "Why did you give her an injection? ! " , and Zoe (4 years, 2 months), who tells Ileana (4 years, 8 months): "Your dress is pretty — so is your blouse", while Ileana answers, "It's a skirt, a pleated skirt" — corrected emphatically by Mihaela (4 years, 2 months): "Preated! " , or Ionita (5 years, 8 months) and Andu (5 years, 5 months), who entreat the others: "Let's be good! " , in order to get the 'doctor's instruments' from the experimenter, and Corina (3 years, 2 months), who says about a shy 'colleague': "Dear me, what a shame that he can't talk! " , or Emil (7 years, 1 month): "Come, let's bandage the child! Hey, you Mitica, please! " could they not have similar communications in any other language? ; and: are they speaking 'egocentrically', or are there more 'egocentrical' thoughts and feelings in these sentences than in very similar ones spoken by adults? The children demonstrate the thesis themselves. What more can the author (and, in fact, the editor of the authors who are the children themselves) ?

Bufteni, July 1972

T. S. - C.

Postscriptum to the Preface The English translation of this book (made by the translating team of the editor of the collection "Janua Linguarum", prof. C. H. Van Schooneveld, in

8 Bloomington, U. S. A.) was ready in 1972, as mentioned in the Preface (only slight revision changes were done afterwards by the author and by the translators). Due to organizing problems, the book is only printed in 1977, without it being possible, for technical reasons, to modify the text or to add new bibliography. However, I want to underline the fact that, in those last four years, many research began (mostly done in U. S. A. as well as in Irance, Jugoslavia etc., by young researchers), concerning communication in children. Consequently, this book — translated in a university center in U. S. A. — should be placed in the context of the flourishing of a longyears much neglected topic. I should also add that, though firstly published (in Romanian language) in 1961, it has not only the flavour of a pioneering work, but, as an author, I know how much of it is still "new" (or even announcing future research), despite its inevitable lack of up to date bibliography. For a more ample survey and discussion of this new bibliography, the reader is kindly asked to see the report I was invited to prepare for the 1975 international meeting of the "Association des Psychologues de Langue Française": "Verbal Exchanges among Children, and between Children and Adults", to appear in the volume Genèse de la parole (Paris, Presses Universitaires de France). The data were collected in several hundreds of children, native speakers of Romanian language, but I am firmly convinced of the generality value of the conclusions for other languages too. However, similar studies performed — with the same methodology and under similar educative conditions — in other languages would help to verify this hypothesis, and to add new valuable data and conclusions. 7 October 1976

TABLE O F CONTENTS

Preface

5

1. Introduction

11

2. Methods of Investigation

22

3. Analysis and Interpretation of the Material 3.1 Function of Communication, Soliloquy, Monologue, Dialogue 3.2 Premises of Dialogue and Evolution of its Various Forms . . 3.3 Statistical Poll 3.4 Aspects of the Relationships between Partners 3.5 Conditions of Development of Dialogue 3.6 Analysis of Dialogue Content 3.7 Analysis of Dialogue from the Point of View of the Form of Expression

29 29 45 52 55 85 90 104

4. Conclusions

149

1. INTRODUCTION

1.0. Langage1 in general, and particularly child's langage, is usually 2 studied in itself and for its own sake, from a unilateral point of view, which looks upon the speaker as if he spoke alone in a presumptive monologue. A study launched from this perspective is certainly necessary in order to make a more detailed analysis of speech, and to have a clearer image of langage — but it is not sufficient. Such an analysis proves artificial and narrow in the end. For langage, by its definition, by its own essence, does not only presume a monological situation: the basis of langage is constituted of a relationship between at least two persons who are speaking or, more precisely, between S P E A K E R S and L I S T E N E R S , exchanging information during a process of COMMUNICATION . Consequently, langage must be studied as an instrument of communication. In a perspective such as this, from which the bilateral relationship existing at the moment of communication is viewed, the speaker becomes a person addressing someone and is influenced by the interlocutor in his speech; at the same time, one cannot overlook the fact that the speaker will shortly become the listener, allowing his partner to speak. The genesis of langage itself, in which the function of communication had the definite role of an essential function, presumes from the outset the existence of partners, between whom an exchange of information has taken place. Showing that langage appeared in the process of work, due to the necessities of cooperation for the realization of a practical common goal, Fr. Engels stressed that the genesis of langage is linked to the fundamental aim of communication. Man did not start to speak for the gratuitous pleasure of speaking or to express his lyrical sentiments, but the practical necessities of a more complex qualitative adaption than that of a beast compelled him - in the course of more difficult operations to gain what is necessary for a continually improved life — to resort to the establishment of a more effective contact with partners, namely, to the human signals of langage. The beginning of langage also signified the beginning of an elementary dialogue. "The development of labor contributed in an essential way to strengthening the relations among the members of society, increasing the cases of mutual assistance, communal activity, clarifying to each in part the benefits of communal activity. In a word, humans in the making came to have something to say to one another". 3 Created by communication necessities for cooperation in the labor process,

12 langage has preserved the function of communication as a fundamental function 4 and thus it must be understood and studied with the results of this postulate especially in mind. Theoretically, these phenomena, bound to the essence of langage, are known and, in principle, their importance has been relatively well recognized. The theoretical implications, namely the particularities of langage which appear through the analysis of its two aspects — emission and reception have, however, been less discussed (we have attempted this in the work Langage et contexte [The Hague, Mouton, 1961], to which we refer in order not to enter into various details - NAEV). On the most concrete level of speech the practical situation of communication • - , the implications have been studied to an even lesser extent. The study of real langage, during the concrete moment of communication, leads, actually, to the study of DIALOGUE, which — we must say — has not been a matter of very great concern as an object of research for linguists and for psychologists. There are some works which look upon dialogue as a stylistic device in belletristic literature, 5 or as conversational devices in certain languages. 6 There are, however, fewer studies concerned with the general problems of dialogue or with factual interpretations collected from a language (in this direction, mention must be made of an earlier study by L. P. Jakubinskij and more recently that of N. Ju. Svedova). 7 Sonic authors who have devoted to langage general monographic works,8 or researchers in social psychology have been preoccupied, in passing, by 'conversation'. Most of these works, however, treat the problem rather superficially - without analyzing, strictly speaking, 'the dialogue' - and the position the authors frequently take is unscientific, or psychoanalytical, etc.9 As far as the majority of detailed research in this domain is concerned, they have proposed limited and frequently tendentious aims, as the ascertaining of frequency or of the nature of various themes of 'conversation', or the pursuit of 'the differences between the sexes', 'among nations', etc.

l . l . As far as dialogue among children is concerned, there is little research which has the elucidation of its aspects and peculiarities as an objective. 1 1 Studies undertaken until now have concentrated particularly upon the problem of the 'egocentrism in the child's language', and dialogue has often only tangentially been touched on in connection with this problem. Therefore, the study of children's dialogue seems to us important in part because it is necessary to analyze in detail the child's speech f r o m this essential perspective, which is nearly absent f r o m the literature dedicated to child speech; and on the other hand, because it is perhaps not without interest to add to the arguments

13 brought against the thesis of 'egocentrism', new arguments based particularly upon the presentation, analysis, and interpretation of a rich material, concretely observing the peculiarities and the function of dialogue in children. Indeed, the problem of the predominant existence of egocentrism in the child's langage leads in the last instance to the question: does there exist and, especially, does there exist as a predominant phenomenon - dialogue among children, or not? If we were to limit ourselves to old opinions on the thesis of 'egocentrism', we would have to begin the study of dialogue per se late, towards 7 or 8 years of age, because until this age langage would have a non-egocentric character (a particularity which opposes dialogued verbalization). Characterizing 'socialized langage' by contrast with 'egocentric' through the existence of the function of communication, J. Piaget specified that 'socialized langage' presumes an adapted exchange of information, a speech in which there would exist a concern for collaboration with the interlocutor, or a speech which would cause dialogue. 1 2 To the child, however — as J. Piaget affirmed, based upon observations made by his collaborators at The Children's Home in Geneva — , the essential function of langage, namely, that of communication, deviates or is even non-existent: the child would speak especially about and for himself, would 'monologize aloud', without actually addressing anyone. The child is not preoccupied with the need for communication with others through langage in order to act upon them, his language being an expression of his 'autistic' thinking. And, on the other hand, his speech does not have a social effectiveness, it does not influence the listeners, who usually do not even pay attention to their partners, (we specify that J. Piaget was actually referring to children themselves as listeners. 1 3 The forms of 'egocentric language' encountered in the child would be, according to J. Piaget: ecolallia, the monologue strictly speaking (namely, speech in the absence of an interlocutor), and the 'collective monologue'. 1 4 The latter form, which would be specifically for the child, consists of speech in the presence of others, without the speaker being concerned whether he is listened to or not, without awaiting an answer, without, in fact, having the intention to communicate, and without provoking a dialogue. The child "is not addressing anyone. He is speaking loudly for himself, in the presence of others". 1 -'' Considering that a 40 - 50 percent range 1 6 of'egocentric language' (established in special conditions — as we shall see) would permit an absolute characterization, the Swiss psychologist proceeded to a very broad generalization. Thus, he affirmed undeniably that the forms of 'egocentric langage' occupy a very important place in children's speech until the age of 7 to 8 years: "the child under the age of 7 years thinks and speaks in an egocentric mode even

14 while present in company". 1 7 Moreover, these conclusions have been interpreted by J. Piaget directly as one more argument for the unsociability of the child, maintaining that "a social life" strictly speaking does not exist among children before the age of 7 or 8 . ' 8 The thesis of 'the egocentrism in the child's langage' has been continually supported by some psychologists — due to a certain extent to its psychoanalytical implications, underlined by Jean Piaget himself. 19 Thus, J. Piaget's thesis has been supported, for example, by the American researcher Mary Fischer, who, in 1954, attempted a confirmation of this thesis based upon a totally arbitrary method of research. Adopting as a direct criterion of the form of egocentric expression the sentences which have as subject the English pronoun I (with its various inflection forms), she established for 'egocentric language' almost the same percentage as Piaget.20 Also, Adams, as well as Rugg, Krueger, and Sondergaard, have found an even larger percentage of references to the speaker himself, which has constituted for these different investigators an argument in support of the final conclusion that at this age the child is "a relatively unsociable being". 2 1 On the same basis, establishing that the utilization of the English pronoun / decreases with age, and the use of the pronoun you increases, the researcher Nice has also concluded that only gradually and rather late 'the little egoist' becomes 'a social b e i n g ' . 2 2 Moreover, the thesis concerning the predominantly egocentric character of the child's langage is prevalent, in diverse forms, even in studies or more recent [compared with 1961, when the Romanian version of this book was published - NAEV] treatises - especially of child psychology - , which express with certitude and confer upon the figure of 50 percent the value of an absolute majority: thus, it is affirmed, as a definitely established fact, that a characteristic feature of a child until the age of 7 to 8 would be egocentrism, and that "between 3 and 5 years of age, a child's speech is generally egocentric". 23 Even during the first years after the appearance of J. Piaget's work, the thesis of'egocentrism' was firmly combatted, or at least criticized, by known personalities in the domain of child psychology (L. S. Vygotskij and A. R. Luria, 2 4 Ch. Buhler, 25 H. Delacroix, W. Stern, D. Katz, 2 6 and others). The researchers who have disputed against J. Piaget over this problem have, first of all, brought evidence of the langage of children, observed by them in various scholastic mediums, from the Soviet Union, Germany, Spain, 27 etc. A number of these researchers have established that, even in the sense accorded by J. Piaget to the term 'egocentric langage', and preserving the same criteria of classification of facts pertaining to langage it is possible to obtain a much smaller percentage of'egocentric langage'. For example, D. MacCarthy, based upon investigations made with many more children than J. Piaget (working with 140 children from 3 years of age and older), has found a percentage of 'egocentric langage'

15 of only 6.5 percent, 2 8 Kuo has found 10 - 20 percent, 29 Huang and Chu have established 20 percent for children from 2V% to 5 years of age, 3 0 Elsa Köhler has found 18 percent, 3 1 etc. Criticism has also brought theoretical arguments referring to the methodological aspects of Piaget's investigation. Particular emphasis has been given to the special and unilateral conditions of observation of some children raised in an educational institution of the Montessori type - in which, until the age of 5 years, some conditions of SOLITARY activity were created for them - , at the same time excluding the children's speech in normal life surroundings, as, for example, during time of play, on the street, in the courtyard, e t c . 3 - T h u s , S. Q. Janus, studying the langage of children during play, has demonstrated, in opposition to J. Piaget's thesis, that active play leads to an increase in the frequency of the forms of 'socialized langage'' and to a decrease in those of 'egocentric langage\33 Also, Elsa Köhler has shown that, in 'normal' situations, namely with children not influenced by education of the Montessori type, the frequency of monologue is very low (variable also depending on the type of children). 3 4 L. S. Vygotskij and A. R. Luria have demonstrated experimentally that, by contrast, in a case in which difficult conditions of activity are created for the child, the quotient of 'egocentric' langage almost doubles, the child attempting t o resolve the problem verbally, that is, thinking aloud. 3 5 An important criticism — to which, as a matter of fact, we shall add new arguments later on - refers to the notion of 'egocentric langage' itself. D. MacCarthy has emphasized, first of all, that the notion is labile and that to find one percentage or another depends on what each researcher understands by this word. Other researchers, particularly L. S. Vygotskij, have emphasized the fact that the interpretation given by J. Piaget to the phenomena of monologue appearing in children is not justified. According t o L. S. Vygotskij, 'egocentric langage'' must be interpreted differently than J. Piaget did. The functional particularities of 'egocentric' langage do not represent in the least a reflection on 'egocentrism' in the child's thought; in favorable conditions, this langage becomes an instrument of realistic child's thought. The monologized langage of a child has, in fact, the function of future inner speech and contributes to the organization of the child's thought and action. Therefore, 'egocentric' langage represents a link from the external to the internal langage, playing a specific role in the child's activity. 3 6 The repercussions of J. Piaget's thesis, not only upon the general concept of children and of education, but also upon the understanding of the possibilities of langage, give particular importance to the verification of its validity, as much in principle and in practice. Therefore, through the ample critical studies of L. S. Vygotskij and through the investigations of his collaborators - A. R. Luria, A. N. Leontiev, R. E. Levina 3 7 — a position has been taken in Soviet

16

psychology and pedagogy (through many other works) against the thesis of 'egocentrism' in the language and thought of the child, as it was put forth by the school of J. Piaget. Thus, S. L. RubinStejn 3 8 has formulated, on the basis of critical examination of the langage egocentrism thesis, a conception about the development of a child's langage, opposed t o that of Jean Piaget. Also, A. A. Ljublinskaja, who has studied the connection between langage and activity, 3 9 or V. E. Syrkina, who has investigated the connection between egocentric langage and various aspects of activity, 4 0 as well as other researchers, 4 1 have contributed to the correct interpretation of langage phenomena called 'egocentric'. At the same time, Soviet linguistics has appeared preoccupied from the beginning with the problem of combatting the theory of egocentrism in the study of dialogue (for example, through L. P. Jakubinskij). 4 2 1.2. With all the firmness and virulence of the criticisms presented, the problem remains current [in 1961 — N A E V ] , not only because — as it was seen - the thesis of peremptory affirmation of the child's egocentrism in what concerns langage prevails in different works, but also because CONCRETE factual material has not been presented, nor sufficient elaboration and interpretation — through the analysis of form, content, motivation of DIALOGUE among children — has been offered, which would illustrate the predominant existence of a langage with a social function in children, 4 3 especially at younger ages, and which would show at the same time the diverse aspects of dialogued communication. 4 4 Therefore, a more ample investigation of this problem seemed to be absolutely necessary and interesting, as much for its general theoretical conclusions, with implications in general psychology and linguistics, as for the special aspects - some of practical pedagogical importance 4 5 - which can be elucidated by a more attentive analysis of the various modalities of the appearance of the communication function, properly speaking, in the langage of children. The hypothesis has been not only that 'socialized langage' occupies a predominant place in a child's speech, but that the majority of langage forms presented as argument by the supporters of the 'egocentrism' thesis have been gathered in the special conditions of a defective type of education — which did not stress the development of social relationships among children — and at the same time these forms have been incompletely observed, without paying attention to the whole context of speech and motives of action of the child; hence, their erroneous interpretation, as 'egocentric'. The first hypothesis has been, then, that the predominant function in a child's langage is that of communication, but that it depends as much upon the educational conditions as on the mode of observation and notation of the entire behavior, in order that this function become evident. Hence, it follows that the investigation, first of all,

17 has to gather richer and more completely recorded material referring to the speech of children raised not in isolation, but in normal conditions which favor the development of the communication function of langage46 The second hypothesis has been that the function of communication is manifested even with small children not only in the form of ADDRESSING someone or ANSWERING a formal solicitation, but that there exists with the latter a developed activity of 'inter-communication', of dialogue, in which children speak for others and answer at the same time to others, that children are integrated in the live and often dramatic dynamics of 'conversation', that they successively transpose the positions of speaker and listener, with all the implications created by this rather complex situation. I have considered that, by establishing the existence of dialogue, even from the tender age when so-called langage begins to develop, represented by a certain grammatical structure (namely, around the age of 2 years), the thesis of the child's predominantly egocentric langage will receive a powerful counter-argument. Finally, the third hypothesis, which will, in fact, constitute the most extended aspect of this investigation, has been that the concrete forms which the function of communication in the child take particularly dialogues have specific particularities of age. To the extent to which the contents expressed by the child — the ideas, his wishes —, as well as the mobility of verbal activity are relatively different from those of the adult, the forms of'inter-communication' will also vary. I presumed also that such an investigation, which adds to the already known facts material gathered from an ambience in which the problem has not yet been studied, could provide new arguments against the thesis of the 'children's egocentric langage', and, in the process, would confer a higher rank of generality to the proceding results. At the same time, starting with material gathered from Romanian, valid general principles would evolve for various languages insofar as the particularities of dialogue are concerned, that is, of the concrete modalities of manifestations of social function in the speech of children. In order to verify those hypotheses, I have proposed to follow the mode in which children of different ages behave verbally, as far as it concerns the utilization of langage as an instrument for reciprocal contact, the establishment of relationships among children, namely, the actualization of the social function of speech. From the point of view of my hypotheses and, in general, of the scope of this investigation, the stages prior to the age of 7 are the most interesting and the most significant. Therefore, we shall stop for the moment at this age, following with added observations concerning the modifications in the forms and content of children's dialogue determined by the period of instruction in school. 4 7

18

NOTES

1 Because in English there is no term corresponding to the French langage or Romanian limbaf (which designates the complex of human psychical processes that created languages and allows their use in each individual), the French word langage w ill be used in this translation for limbaj in the original version, especially as the author strongly differentiates between language (French langue) and what is understood in French by langage, and as language behavior has special connotations that make it difficult to identify it with langage. [Note of the author for the English version - NAEV] 2 Please see Preface and its Post-scriptum [NAEV]. 3 Fr. Engels, Anteil der Arbeit an der Menschwerdung des Affen, in Dialektik der Natur, Berlin, Dietz Verlag, 1952, 179-194. [Author's italics.] 4 Cf. for example, A. A. Reformackij, Vvedenie v jazykoznanije, [Introduction to Linguistics] (Moscow, 1955), 24. 5 E. g. , L. Dolezel, O stylu modernt leske prosy [On the Style of Modern Czech Prose] (Prague, 1960), 164 ff. , 168 ff. 6 L. Spitzer, Italienische Umgangssprache I (Bonn-Leipzig, 1922): W. Bcinhauer, Spanische Umgangssprache (Berlin-Bonn, 1930). 7 L. P. Jakubinskij, "O dialogiceskoj reci" ["On Dialogue Speech"], Russkaja reC' I (Petrograd, 1923); N. Ju. Svedova "K izuceniju russkoj dialogiceskoj reci" ["Toward a Study of Russian Dialogue Speech"], Voprosy jazykoznaija 2 (1956), 67-83; see also infra the discussion on egocentrism (ch. 43.1). In Romanian the problem of assertion in dialogue was raised by Fl. Dimitrescu, "Procedee de afirmafie in limba romänä" ["Procedures of Affirmation in Romanian"] in Studii $i cercetäri lingvistice 3-4 (1955), 265 ff. 8 E. g. Grace Andus de Laguna, Speech: Its Function and Development (New Haven, 1927), 278 f f . , 351 ff. 9 E. g. , G. Tarde, L'opinion et la foule, 4th ed. (Paris, 1922), 82-159; \ . H. Allport, Social Psychology (Cambridge, Mass. , 1924), 288 ff. ; D. Katz and L. Schank, Social Psychology (New York, 1938), 343 ff. ; Kimball Young, Social Psychology (New York, 1931), 203-33; E. A. Esper, A Handbook of Social Psychology, ed. C. Murchison (Worchester, Mass. , 1935), 455-57; in the last work much is said regarding langage as an organizer of thought and personal action, but very little mention is made of the role of conversation in the social context. In fact, in some social psychology treatises the problem of conversation is not even discussed, e. g. W. McDougall, An Introduction to Social Psychology (London, 1931). 10 H. Burtt, "Sex Differences in the Effect of Discussion", Journal of Experimental Psychology 1 (1920), 390-96; M. Landisand H. Burtt, "A Study of Conversations", Journal of Comparative Psychology 1 (1924), 81-90; C. Landis, "National Differences in Conversations", in Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 1 (1926), 354-58; S. Stoke and N. West, "Sex Differences in Conversational Interests", Journal of Social Psychology 2 (1931), 120-26; J. Spencer, S. Cook, E. Stromburg, "Sex Differences in Psychology", Journal of Applied Psychology 20 (1936), 727-36. 11 In Romanian neither the dialogue of the child nor that of the adult has been studied in the context of general linguistics; in a study now in progress we also deal with the

19 dialogue of adults in the Romanian language. See also Revista de psihologie 1 (1959), 69-95. 12 J. Piaget, Le langage et la pensée chez l'enfant, 2nd ed. (Neuchâtel-Paris, 1930), 33-34. 13 J. Piaget, Le langage, 18, 30, 51. 14 J. Piaget, Le langage, 19. 15 J. Piaget, Le langage, 30. 16 J. Piaget, Le langage, 53, 68; (average: at age 6V4 the Figure would be 38 percent, and between 3 and 5 years it would be much higher.) 17 J. Piaget, Le langage, 58. 18 J. Piaget, Le langage, 53, 58. Discussing the criticism, in 1930 J. Piaget announced in the preface to the second edition of Le langage et la pensée chez l'enfant that he would resume his investigations; while my present work was being printed in Romanian, however, he completely renounced this thesis (at an interesting conference. "Les stades de développement de l'intelligence", held at the University of Bucharest on 4 November 1961), specifying that the egocentrism thesis in the langage of the child is indeed not justified, especially since the presence of egocentrism depends greatly on the environment and the conditions of education. This attitude of the renowned Swiss psychologist is in itself a strong argument against a thesis not verified by facts. 19 J. Piaget, Le langage, 61 ff. ; sec R. R. Willoughby, "The Functions of Conversation", Journal of Social Psychology III; 2 (1932), 159; conversation is considered by psychoanalysts as a 'transference situation', as the satisfaction of the will to dominate, etc. 20 D. MaeCarthy ("Le développement du langage chez l'enfant", in Manuel de psychologie de l'enfant II, éd. L. Carmichael [Paris, 1952], 847), reporting these statistics and critically commenting on them, considers that the results of the investigation are predictable, since the English word I, followed by the forms my and me, is the one most frequently used by preschool children. (Another researcher shows that among the personal pronouns the first person singular / is used most frequently, i. e. 38 percent: see F. M. Young, "Development as Indicated by a Study of Pronouns", Journal of Genetic Psychology 61 [1942], 132.) Also, M. Henle and M. Hubbell (" 'Egocentricity' in Adult Conversation" Journal of Social Psychology 2 [1939], 229) observe justly that a sentence with the pronoun J as subject does not reflect an egocentric attitude. 21 Cf. M. Henle and M. Hubbell, " 'Egocentricity' in Adult Conversation", 228; G. Murphy and L. B. Murphy, Experimental Social Psychology (New-York-London, 1931), 277; S. Q. Janus, "An Investigation of the Relationship between Children's Language and Their Play ", Journal of Genetic Psychology 62 (1943), 10 ff. 22 S. Q. Janus, "An Investigation". 23 M. Violet-Conil and N. Canivet, L'exploration de la mentalité infantile (Paris, 1956), 192 ff. 24 L. S. Vygotskij and A. R. Lurija, "The Function and Fate of Egocentric Speech", Proceedings and Papers of the Ninth International Congress of Psychology, Yale University, 1929 (Princeton, 1930), 464-65; L. S. Vygotskij, Lzbrannye psixologiceskie issledovanija. Myslenie i rec' [Selected Psychological Investigations. Thought and Speech] (Moscow, 1956), especially pp. 56-110, 137, 341 ff. ; see also D. B. Èl'konin, Razvitie reci v doskol'noj vozraste [Development of Speech at Preschool Age] (Moscow, 1958), 19. 25 Ch. Buhler, Kindheit undJugend, 2nd ed. (Leipzig, 19 JO), 180 ff. 26 Ch. Delacroix, Le langage et la pensée, 2nd ed. (Paris, 1930), 322 ff. ; cf. J. Piaget, Le langage, 7; D. MacCarthy, "Le développement", 757 ff. 27 Cf. J. Piaget, Le langage, 7; D. MacCarthy, "Le développement", 757 ff. ; Ch. Buhler, Kindheit und Jugend, 180 ff. 28 D. MacCarthy, "Le développement", 841-42.

20 29 D. MacCaithy, "Le développement", 849. 30 I. Huang and Y. J. Chu, "The Social Function of Children's Language", Chuang Hua Educational Review 23: 7 (1936), (Cf. D. MacCarthy, "Le développement", 849). 31 Cf. D. MacCarthy, "Le développement", 850. Also, M. E. Smith ("A Study of Some Factors Influencing the Development of the Sentence in Preschool Children", Journal of Genetic Psychology 46 [ 1935 ], 194) found in 2-year-olds 40 percent egocentric language, in 3-year-olds 33 percent and in 4 and 5-year-olds 26 percent. 32 H. Delacroix, Le langage, 323; cf. also J. Piaget, Le langage, 59; L. S. Vygotskij, Izbrannye psixologiieskie, 108-09. 33 S. Q. Janus, "Investigation of the Relationship", 39. 34 Elsa Köhler, "Die Leistung der Sprache in der Gesamtaktivität 5 bis 6 jähriger Kinder", Bericht über den XII Kongress der deutschen Gesellschaft für Psychologie (Hamburg, 1931) (Jena, 1932), 370 ff. 35 L. S. Vygotskij, Izbrannye psixologiieskie, 79; on the contrary, under certain other experimental conditions the co-efficient decreases - see 352-53; see also L. S. Vygotskij and A. R. Lurija, "Function and Fate", 465. 36 L. S. Vygotskij, Izbrannye psixologiieskie, 79-80, 84, 87, 136-37, 354, etc. 37 Cf. D. B. Èl'konin, Razvitie refi, 19. 38 S. L. RubinStcjn, Osnovy obiée/ psixologii (Moscow, 1946), 432 ff. (See also D. B. Èl'konin, Razvitie reci, 19.) 39 S. L. Rubinstejn, Osnovy ob$Sejpsixologii, 25. 40 S. L. Rubinstejn, Osnovy obSiej psixologii, 20 ff. 41 In a work referring to child langage development, D. B. Èl'konin has shown the results of the various Soviet works which have refuted the thesis of langage egocentrism: see D. B. Èl'konin, Razvitie iici, 11, 14 ff. 42 L. P. Jakubinskij, "O dialogiceskoj re£i", 130; see also N. Ju. Svedova, "K izucéniju russkoj", 68. 43 The works devoted to children's conversation and in general to the social function of child langage (e. g. Claire T. Zygve, "Conversation among Children", Teachers College Record 29: 1 [1927-28], 46-61, or I. Huang and Y. Chu, "The Social Function" [cf. D. MacCarthy, "Le développement" p. 49] ) are relatively few in number and the scope was limited. Claire T. Zygve's work, devoted to older, school-age children, presented an interesting experience from a pedagogic viewpoint, concerning the practice and discipline of conversation; on a psychological level, however, she did not cast any light on normal and spontaneous dialogue. The conversation, based on a comparatively artificial situation, developed as a school activity in which the children chose a 'discussion topic', were led by a 'chairman' (who asked, for example, if anyone had a comment to make), and so forth. 44 Studies dealing with the statistical problem of 'egocentric forms or 'socialized langage' are in abundance, while works of qualitative analysis, description, and interpretation of actual forms of dialogue tend to be scarce. A number of works in which detailed analyses are made cannot fill this cap, as either the perspective is strictly formal or the criteria for appreciation are unilateral or simply subjective. For example, the social indicators (of 'social adaptation in speech') were considered to be represented - as in the aforementioned work of M. E. Fisher - by the frequency of forms such as exclamatory and non-exclamatory syllables or simple affirmation and negation (yes, etc.) or laughter, etc. (see F. M. Young, "Certain Social Indices in the Langage of Preschool Subjects", Journal of Genetic Psychology 61 [1942], 109-23). 45 In addition, the material gathered and a number of observations based on it could be of interest to the writer who creates literature for and about children, often without sufficient concern for the real conversational style of children.

21 46 Consequently our hypothesis differs fundamentally from views expressed by certain investigators who assumed, for example, in the controversy over t h j predominance of 'socialized' or 'egocentric' language, that the differences would be settled, since they were merely due to variations in investigation methods (see D. V. McGranahan, "The Psychology of Language", Psychological Bulletin 33 [1936], 202; D. Katz and R. L. Schank, Social Psychology, 370) or to the 'superiority' of a language: for example, the small percentage of egocentric langage would be due to the 'superiority' of the English language 'as an instrument of logical thinking', in contrast to French (! ) (according to E. Johnson and Ch. Josey, "A Note on the Development of the Thought Forms of Children as Described by J. Piaget", Journal of Abnormal Psychology, vol. 26: 1 [1931], 339). 47 In the last few years (especially after 1972-73), much research developed concerning verbal exchanges among children, and among child and adult; for these new developments, see the author's recent study: Echanges verbaux entre les enfants, et entre enfants et adultes (invited report at the international meeting on Genesis of Speech, Barcelona, 1975), in press in: Genèse de la parole, Paris, Presses Universitaires de France [ - N A E V ] .

2. METHODS O F INVESTIGATION

2.0. The METHODS used in the present investigation consist of free observation, as well as a form of experiment combined with observation and discussion with subjects.

2.1. The children were observed on the one hand during habitual 'free' activities in the setting of a boarding nursery or a Kindergarten 1 (in the washroom — at sinks or basins while washing hands or waiting their turn — , at the table, in the cloakroom, but especially during play — in the classroom or outside, particularly while playing on the swing, in groups of approximately five or six children). These conversations were noted either in writing or recorded on tape (see Figures 1 and 2). In addition, groups of children formed spontaneously were observed on the beach (of the Black Sea) playing with sand or in sandboxes, or in parks. 1 watched especially 'the children's corner' in Cismigiu Park, Bucharest, where as many as eighty children gathered in the sand at the same time.

2.2. On the other hand, however, situations were also created under completely natural conditions — that is, not in the laboratory or outside the children's usual ambiance — , where between two and five children 2 were brought together in a small room within the crèche. The groups were homogeneous (children of the same age) except in the cases where I particularly intended to observe discussions among children of different ages or from different 'groups'. Usually the same groups were observed in two or three sessions. Seated on chairs at the beginning, the children were generally left to relate to one another or to speak spontaneously to the experimenter. The latter did not intervene, except in special situations when the experimenter intended t o observe dialogue with the adult or when it was necessary to invite children to play together, or to draw into the group those who moved away (to look at the tape recorder, for example, or to play at the sink), or to encourage the more timid ones to speak.

23

®f §«a

The entire session, which lasted approximately 30 to 45 minutes, was recorded on tape; the tape recorder ('Grundig' or 'Smaragd') was placed on a small table near the children (see Figure 3) a n d , far f r o m inhibiting speech, it provided an o p p o r t u n i t y for interesting dialogue, especially during the first session. Under these conditions seven different situations were created: (a) FREE DISCUSSION among children, in the course of which they talked among themselves about surrounding objects, particularly the tape recorder or what they saw through the window, etc. For the most part discussion developed during the first session, which was also designed to adapt the children to conditions around t h e m and to acquaint t h e m with partners in their group. (b) Dialogue b e t w e e n two children ON THE 'TELEPHONE' (sometimes in the presence of the others), using t w o small t o y telephones made of colored w o o d (see Figure 4). Children were first asked if they also had one at h o m e , real or a t o y , and if they ever speak on the telephone. Then it was suggested that they speak on these telephones (in contrast t o the actual play situations, the children

24

were encouraged to converse with one another, thus creating a dialogue, which was in itself the aim of the activity). (c) Various GROUP GAMES, which required cooperation and, indirectly, conversation. One of the games was 'playing house'. The children were provided with kitchen utensils, a stove, a pair of scales for provisions, plates, cutlery, etc., and were invited to play. Due to the fact that in most cases they were given fixed roles from the beginning - for example, 'the mother' who cooks, 'the child' who goes to the market with his 'grandmother' or sets the table, 'the father' who comes to dinner - children were indirectly requested to play together and consequently to talk among themselves (see Figure 5). We might add that the last part of the game consisted of serving an imaginary 'meal', in which the children themselves, and not dolls, participated, resulting in very lively dialogue. Another game was 'playing doctor': children received an imaginary thermometer, a bandage for dressing, paper for 'prescriptions', and had roles of 'doctor', 'nurse', 'child', 'mother' or 'father', etc. The action took

25

place, as they wished, either at the 'hospital' or in the 'consultation room' or even at 'home'. The game of 'bathing' grouped the children around a miniature bathroom with bathtub, basin, boiler, bench, all detachable, where a plastic doll was given a bath. Finally, for small children one single toy was generally used - a large doll in particular, dressed in a skirt, blouse and apron - and they were told to play together, without suggesting to them any role. As a rule the children dressed and undressed the doll, and in general performed her toilet. (d) One child was invited to TELL A STORY, and while the speaker was narrating the rest listened, ready to supplement if necessary. In this way the reactions of the child-speaker and the child-listener, as well as interruptions and dialogue in the course of the story, were recorded. (e) The DIALOGUE between a CHILD AND ADULT was also recorded in various situations (initiative left either to the adult or child, and dialogue guided or not by the adult, etc.). (f) The children were left completely alone for a time, while DIALOGUE IN THE ABSENCE OF THE ADULT was recorded on tape (the experimenter was able to watch them from behind a partition).

26

(g)

One last experimental situation was as follows: while the experimenter

was talking with one child, another, who had made known his habit o f TALKING TO HIMSELF WHILE PLAYING, was left t o play ' b a t h r o o m ' by himself in a more remote corner o f the r o o m . Without stressing the point, he was told that he could talk to himself if he wished. During the whole game a mini-recorder taped the entire verbal activity o f the child.

2.3.

Finally, various observations or comparative experimental verifications

were also made with reference t o dialogue, between children RAISED IN THE FAMILY only, and these who ATTENDED PRESCHOOL INSTITUTIONS, between SINGLE children raised in the family and those from crèches or boarding nurseries, between the behavior o f various children in a PRESCHOOL INSTITUTION and at HOME, or, in the case o f children who had never attended a PRESCHOOL INSTITUTION ( c r è c h e ) , between their behavior during the first few days following their admittance t o a boarding nursery and at certain time intervals after-

27

wards. These experiments and observations were accomplished for the most part, under our supervision, by educator Elena Marcus at a boarding nursery in Bucharest, starting on October 10, 1960. The results obtained will be discussed in the present study only for the purpose of underlining and verifying some of our hypotheses.

2.4. The material for this investigation has been gathered from the conversations of over 300 preschool and 61 pre-preschool children, that is to say, over 360 children between the ages of two and seven years. However, results gathered with other children in the course of different investigations (used in my previous book Relafiile dintre gindire si limbaj in ontogenezd [Relations between thought and language in ontogenesis], Bucharest, Ed. Academiei, 1957 NAEV), and recorded by me on tape for additional topics, were also used. The great majority of the children were residents of Bucharest (children ob-

28 served on the beach were from various parts of the country). I have worked in special experimental situations with 2 6 of the 61 pre-preschool children observed in 1958 and 1959 (namely 9 children between 1 year 11 months and 2 years 3 months, and 17 children between 2 years 4 months and 2 years 8 months). 3 I used free discussion, and dialogue on the telephone and playing with a doll, simultaneously tape recording them. In 1959 and 1960 I worked with preschoolers. Simple observations were made with approximately 80 children, in the sandbox, in Cismigiu Park, Bucharest, or on the beach (Black Sea), and approximately 170 children were observed in various independent situations within the setting of the Kindergarten or the boarding nursery (here tapes were made with a mini-recorder, in the courtyard, at the table, bathing, dressing and so forth). In the various experimental situations in which recordings were made, I worked regularly with 52 children — 5 per half year, starting at the age of 3 — and 7 children were added as a means of further verification.

NOTES 1. The investigation took place in Bucharest, in a series of units grouped in a crèche and boarding nurseries of the Health Ministry. [The boarding nursery is a Kindergarten for children aged 3 to 7 (now 6), open from 8 a. m. to 4 p. m. ; the crèche is a day nursery for children up to 2-3 years - NAEV]. 2. Pre-preschoolers (an average of 3 children) and preschoolers (an average of 4 children) [Pre-preschoolers are children under 3 years - generally 2 to 3; preschoolers were children from 3 to 7 years at the time, since school age began at 7 and not 6, as it is now - NAEV.] 3 The reduced number of children up to the age of 2Vï is explained by the true distribution of those children who talked better in the two groups: until the age of 2 years 4 months a smaller number of children talked sufficiently clearly to enable one to follow 'discussion' among them.

3. ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF THE MATERIAL

3.0. In order to analyze the material gathered, we shall first proceed (3.1) by DEFINING the terms, determining our CRITERIA for tracing the function of communication in the expressions of children, as well as evaluating the VARIOUS langage FORMS from the point of view of the existence of the communication function and the fundamental relationship involved in langage (speaker-listener). We shall then follow (3.2) the EVOLUTION of the various langage forms and dialogue premises: next we shall make (3.3) a quantitative summary presentation (a STATISTICAL POLL), in order to go on (3.4) to a presentation of the material from the point of view of the aspects of the RELATIONSHIP between partners, (3.5) to a comparative discussion of the CONDITIONS OF DIALOGUE DEVELOPMENT and in general of the function of communication in children, (3.6) to an analysis of the dialogue content, and (3.7) to the children's FORM OF EXPRESSION in dialogue.

3.1.

FUNCTION OF COMMUNICATION, SOLILOQUY, MONOLOGUE, DIALOGUE

3.1.1. First, we shall try to clarify the general problem of dialogue DEFINITION and specify the terms: function of communication, dialogue, soliloquy, monologue. The primary and fundamental FUNCTION of langage is communication. The criterion for establishing if in an expression through langage the function of communication plays the principal role is defined by the PURPOSE the expression serves (namely, the communication of a psychic state) and by the intention of the one expressing himself (to address someone, to communicate material for reflection - an idea, an affectionate state, an order, etc.). The function of communication is present and consequently we are dealing with a fact of langage as such (in the terminology of J. Piaget, with a 'socialized langage'), even if the intended effect of the communication is not achieved, if some disturbances appear on the transmission trajectory — on the 'channel' — of the 'message', or if the listener is not attentive, 1 if he does not respond for various reasons although he has received the 'message', or if an imaginary partner or one incapable of giving a reply is involved. (For instance, the function of

30 communication can be present - although the effect is very limited — in speech addressed to a deaf-mute who cannot reply; also, speech addressed to a doll by a child can nevertheless have as motivation the desire to communicate — not mere gratuitous 'expression' — in spite of the fact that the doll cannot answer.) Although the effect upon the listener has a great deal of importance in the act of communication, it does not, however, represent an essential criterion for the establishment of the communication function in a certain speaker's langage. The strictly formal aspect of expression (for example the fact that the pronoun / is used to a great extent) or even its content (for example the fact that the speaker transmits information about himself), cannot represent sure and certain criteria for the evaluation or negation of the existence of the communication function. The presence of speech 'about oneself does not necessarily coincide with the absence of the communication function, as follows from J. Piaget's definition of 'egocentric' speech. A child or an adult can talk about himself and still communicate in this way with others, indeed even to cause dialogue. Moreover, he can speak about an action he performs, particularly to initiate dialogue: thus his expression contains the function of communication to a very high degree. In our opinion, under no circumstances can one speak of 'egocentric' langage as defined by Piaget, if the function of communication is present, even if the speaker is referring to himself. The very fact that speech about oneself occupies a large part of and is a natural phenomenon in the langage of a normal adult caused the incorrect affirmation that 'egocentrism' characterizes the langage of the adult as well. 2 Supposing a technician discusses with his work team the manner in which he puts a complicated machine in motion, and in order to explain more concretely speaks in the first person: in so doing does he use 'egocentric' langagel Or, if the weaver explains to the mechanic who came to repair the weaving loom how she worked until the machine became defective, does she adopt an 'egocentric' position? Surely not. As such, we consider that 'egocentrism' can only be defined firstly by the non-existence of the communication function, as in those cases — quite rare in the normal adult and also infrequent among children — when the person speaks only to express himself, without the preoccupations of being understood, or even to communicate with an imaginary partner; also when he speaks ONLY or PREDOMINANTLY about himself, indifferent to what his partners communicate to him and what they understand f r o m his utterance. Such situations in which contact with reality is in fact lost (through indifferences vis-à-vis the partners and the purpose of the utterance) are frequent in pathological cases; they do not constitute in any way a general human trait or a characteristic of a particular age group.

31 We shall discuss briefly the existence of the communication function in monologue and even in soliloquy, or simply in addressing. Although dialogue constitutes our main preoccupation, we shall dwell upon some forms of langage in which the existence of the communication function was questioned, since a just interpretation of these forms will result in a clearer and more correct understanding not only of dialogue but also of its roots and derivatives in the langage of the child. 3.1.2. There are certain phases in the development of the child when a type of SOLILOQUY - vocal expressions apparently not directed towards a partner - is observed; these soliloquies can also appear later in certain children or under particular conditions, as in the case of children who 'talk to themselves'. 3 Babbling — the phase prior to the appearance of langage — is a vocal exercise, which the child does not direct towards anyone. At a certain time, of course, the sounds or syllable combinations which become a signal for the nearby adults and which the child begins to use can also be distinguished, even before the appearance of langage proper, on the basis of an elementary conditioned mechanism for securing food, a fallen toy, etc. After the appearance of langage, however, actual soliloquies are observed, in the course of which the child emits word or even phraseological series, in spite of the fact that he is alone or believes himself to be so, excluding the partner nearby. For instance, a sort of 'game with words', especially new words recently learned, has been observed in small children, in some cases particularly before falling asleep while alone in bed. 4 A bilingual girl between 2 and 2Vi years of age whom I observed a long time ago recited before going to sleep, in long ecolallia lines, new Romanian words she had learned recently ( [ r \ a d i o , for example) or onomatopoeia (bau-bau) or people's names ([$er] ban), etc. In any case, it cannot be stated that this form of soliloquy has an "egocentric' character, denoting an 'autistic' thinking: it is a matter of 'exercises' or even 'sonorous games', 5 the child appearing to repeat these words with evident pleasure, probably as much for their auditory effect as for the satisfaction of a motor order, or the movement of the various phonetic organs which he can constantly put in new positions. Although in part they are a remainder of old habits from the babbling period, nevertheless these vocal exercises probably also have a motivation which distinguishes them from babbling, because we should not forget that they are produced AFTI R the child has acquired an awareness of the communication function of langage. For a two-year-old child who knows that langage serves as a means of communication, these exercises can also constitute an imitation of the communication situation an imitation of the dialogue situation which he constantly hears and experiences during the course of the day.

32 The fact that we speak of an evolved soliloquy, shaded by the existence of the communication function in all the other verbal manifestations of the child, is proved as much by the peculiarities of this vocal activity as by the manner in which these soliloquies unfold in the course of the child's development. I have followed soliloquies in children of varying ages and have attempted to see under what circumstances they are manifested, how they appear and especially what attitude the children themselves have towards their own soliloquies. While making investigations at the crèche or boarding nursery where the majority of the research was undertaken, I was informed by the teacher that 'not one child talks to himself and that in fact they were not permitted to do so (then, however, one girl, lea P. , 3 years 6 months of age, was pointed out to me). Nevertheless, while following the boarding nursery children before they fell asleep, in dormitories, or observing them at play, or through asking various questions, I found a number of children who used to 'talk to themselves' (though very few, in fact). We should not forget that the observations were conducted in a boarding nursery where an interdiction against 'talking to oneself was in force and where generally the children were advised to fell asleep quickly and not to disturb the others. Here, for instance, are observations of soliloquies of some older children before falling asleep: a little girl, Toni R. (3 years 8 months), moves her lips 'mutely' while playing with the sheets; Eugenia V. (4 years 8 months) whispers something, moving her hand along the bed bars and occasionally smiling — she is silent when the teacher appears or when she notices that I am looking, but after I turn her around to face the wall, she begins to talk in a whisper again while continuing to play with the bars; Andu (6 years 4 months) whispers something, of which is heard "Do-re-mi. . . " , then he performs incipient gymnastic movements lying in bed. Ica (3 years 6 months) always talks before felling asleep, according to the nurse, and her mother confirms that she stays awake and talks to herself until nearly one o'clock in the morning, which causes her to be very sleepy the next day at the nursery; in fact I personally observed that this little girl, usually standing alone in a corner during regular activities, whispered while playing, for instance in games with cubes, but turned silent the minute she noticed that she was being watched. Once I surprised her timidly whispering what another child had said: "7"up, (up, fup, {up (pronounced t z u p ) " . If I did not clearly determine the contents of these children's soliloquies (and I am only assuming that they are not a mere vestige of vocal exercises but constitute an imitation of the dialogue situation with other children), however, I was able to note in detail or record these soliloquies, and in so doing to analyze them. There exists in children, in some cases until quite late, a form of soliloquy of the type characterized by J. Piaget as 'egocentric langage', which accom-

33 panies their various activities. Suddenly remaining alone at the hopscotch game in the courtyard, Doina M. (6 years 8 months) begins to talk during the course of the action: "/ - am jumping [tosses the stone] Aa! I'm out of bounds! . . . So . . . It doesn't matter. . . Good! ". Very absorbed in the game, the intervention of another child who wants to play angers her: Adrian B. (6 years 11 months): "Let me have a go. - Doina [calls out to the teacher who is at a distance]: . . . . Comrade, look at Buzatu, he won't leave mealonel [Adrian leaves and she continues]: . . . . With the stone you have to . . . Still without the stone. . . Criss-cross is easy . . ." (taped on minirecorder).

I was able to record the same girl's soliloquy in an experimental situation: I brought her into the room where the experiments were usually conducted and while talking to another child I left her alone in a corner 4 or 5 metres away, standing with her back to me and separated by a partition. I gave her a toy ('bathroom', see above) and suggested that she play and talk to herself if she wanted to (on a previous occasion she had stated that she was in the habit of talking to herself while playing). The entire soliloquy was taped on a minirecorder nearby. Her soliloquy, from which I give some excerpts below, lasted throughout the game — approximately half an hour — after which I interrupted her. Some parts of the soliloquy were not distinguishable because the child talked too softly or not clearly enough and even the part which was distinctly recorded has a fragmentary aspect, with many ellipses, interjections and allusions to performed actions, 6 or actions imagined in the course of the game. The general character of the content appears very clearly, however, i. e. connection with the action, her comments in the sense of planning, description or appreciation, and at the same time the peculiarities of dialogued speech are distinguishable (direct addressing and sometimes even changed replies, with intonations and varied timbre for imaginary partners): '7'm looking in the mirror. . . Hey, thank you . . . Well • what can I do? I am talking [ . . . ] I'm dressed and I want to go home, [sings] Tralalala [ . .. ] Tell stories, you! Hey, I want to go home, [sings] Tralalalala.... "Iam going to take a bath. I'm playing. I think I'll have it in the big bath, [clear intonation of dialogue, talks with another person] I don't like to bathe in the big tub . . . Oh dear, my bath is full! Ow! Because I bathed here! . . . Let me get in the water. . . Look . . . Wait, I'll go in the bathroom and wash them quickly . . . In this big room because it fits [ . . .] Areyou going home? [ . . . ] [finicky, like a small child! ] I'm not taking a bath! I don't want to take a bath! [ .. . ] Oops! I'll climb into the basin to look in the mirror! Opaa! Hey! .Do you know her? [ . . . ] Hey, what did you say? Beat her? . . . Look in the mirror! . . . Wait a little! Hey, look! Hit her with this! . . . Hey, she does'nt want to! Wait a bit! . . . I turned the water on. Take a bath. Oh, I'm drying myself.

. . Dry myself, take the

34 towel, dry myself. . . Sooo. - Now to look in the mirror. Look, I'm putting this little chair here. Opaa • opaa.. . Arrange the towel nicely . .. Hey! What am I to do? Put the chair back, because • mother will beat me! Poor me - I left the tap of the bath on! " Under what conditions do these soliloquies appear? While Doina M. 's mother was frequently away, she left the girl with a woman w h o had a speech impediment and preferred to be silent; the child now has a two-year-old sister. I asked the girl, when I first observed the soliloquy at the hopscotch game, why and when she talked to herself: T. S. -C. "Doina, to whom did you say 'Criss-cross is easy? ' [She smiles and answers with difficulty, after encouragement: ] - D. M. Alone. - T. S. - C. Whom did you tell? D. M. I talked to myself. [A little later I asked her again, in the presence of another little girl, Doina F. 7 years 1 month: ] - T. S. - C. Doina, do you talk to yourself often? D. M. [after prompting, timidly: ] Not very often, Just sometimes. - T. S. - C. When do you talk? - D. M. When . .. I'm alone and I am playing with my dolls and I talk to myself. - T. S. - C. Yes? - Doina F. [intervenes] With dolls. - T. S. - C. Yes? - Doina F. Me too. [laughs] - T. S. - C. Yes, you too? - Doina F. When I'm in the house when I'm in the house alone I sing. [A little later she says very clearly: ] I only talk to myself when there is no one on the street and I am playing". After the soliloquy recorded during the game "bathroom", I again asked D. M. : - T. S. - C. "When do you talk to yourself? - D. M. When there is no one at home and - I am left alone in the house to play, then I talk to myself. [ . . . ] - T. S. - C. Haven't you ever talked to yourself at the nursery? - D. M. [without hesitation] No, at the nursery there are children and I don't talk to myself. - T. S. - C. Why don't you talk to yourself at the nursery? - D. M. Because there are a lot of children and. . . they come and play with me and - then I talk to them. [Later I tell her that she talked at the nursery as well while playing hopscotch and she answers that she talks to herself when she isn't with all the children. ] T. S. - C. And why do you talk to yourself at home? - D. M. Because there is no one at 'ome, because they let me play by myself, because ... I play all alone at home. Andrei B. (7 years 2 months) [intervenes] I don't talk to myself at home because I have so many children in the yard. . . / " Doina M. also told me that she had talked to herself "since I was five years old when I had my tonsils out". (This was probably when soliloquies appeared in more evident forms, fostered by the fact that she was not allowed to talk with those around her, whereas alone she could talk quietly to herself.) Andrei B. (7 years 2 months), an only child, remembered that he talked to himself between the age of 2 and 5, "when I learned French" (with a teacher, therefore without the benefit of having someone else to converse with). " When I was little I learned French and I played with the toys and instead of speaking in Romanian I spoke in French" with "the teddybear, the deer..." (In the case of the author herself — also an only child, who started learning French at the age of 5 V2 in school - , soliloquies were suddenly apparent at the age of during vacation, while she was playing with dolls whom she delegated to 'discuss'

35 French.) One child, whose soliloquies at the age of 3 years 6 months I have already mentioned, lea P . , had developed langage very well before the age of 2 and was very communicative; at about the age of 2 she fell sick, suffering from an infectious inflammation, among other symptoms. She was absent from the nursery for a long time and returned completely changed; very withdrawn and reserved, she rarely spoke with those around her. In the beginning she was very scared of 'injections' and the soliloquies began to appear. In general, soliloquies are more frequently noted in children raised as an only child in the family, or even in those separated by a large age difference with older brothers and sisters who exclude the younger child f r o m a true collective life on account of their different activities — school, homework, etc. Sometimes they might play a role and imitate an older sibling who had acquired the habit of talking to himself before the birth of the older children. Soliloquies, therefore, are fostered by the various circumstances which in themselves constitute a separation of the child f r o m the collective. This is the reason why soliloquies cease under certain conditions, especially when children who habitually talk to themselves are surrounded by others, or when they begin to attend a preschool institution where they also encounter the rule against soliloquies. As I have already emphasized, particularly in the analysis of Doina M.'s soliloquies, far f r o m offering proof of the predominance of the expressive function of langage over that of communication, these verbal activities are in fact a surrogate of communication, compensatory forms of dialogue which the child considers indispensable. 7 At the same time, however, soliloquy also presents the premise of inner speech, still insufficiently developed in these age groups. The f o r m of the soliloquy — succinct, lacunose, allusive — , as well as the manner in which it evolves, causes it to resemble inner speech more and more, as demonstrated also by L. S. Vygotskij. 8 As we have seen, at about the age of 2 years the child is not shy about talking loudly in the course of soliloquy. Particularly in the cases of preschool institutions where the ban against talking to oneself is in force, the children gradually begin to be careful, hide their heads under the pillow, whisper and then " m u t e l y " move their lips, followed by jaw movement only, thus appearing to be silent; in this way inner speech is developed. (These children will probably have a rich "inner life" and a well-developed and dialogued inner speech later). 9 As the general capacities for voluntary inhibition develop, this exteriorized thought exercise, "thinking aloud", gradually internalizes and appears in even more elliptical, succinct and rapid forms which characterize inner speech. 3.1.3.

Inner speech has varying degrees of rapidity, of dialogued dynamics

36 — which can sometimes be imperceptible - and conciseness; but from a certain viewpoint inner speech is definitely tailored to the pattern of langage-dialogue in the majority of the cases. Not only does inner speech feature incipient gestures, muscular tensions of the tongue, lips, jaws, 10 visceral tensions,! 1 e t c . , which have been recorded by various means (mechanical or by modification of currents and so forth), but it usually takes the form of addressing or, more precisely, of dialogue. Generally it would appear to be a contradictory discussion in which the person asks himself questions, provides answers, and seeks solutions. Inner speech is in fact an application of the social mode of relating to the internal psychic life, playing an important gnoseological role in clarification, in organizing t h o u g h t 1 2 and in the general dynamics of cognition. Like soliloquy, internal language seems to be a 'langage for its own sake', which, however, means something other than language of an egocentric nature, that is to say, with domination of, and focusing on, the 'I'. On the surface, inner speech may seem 'egocentric' but it has characteristics which bring it close to language proper, in which the function of communication coexists with the cognitive and that of thought organization. Man arrives at i n n e r s p e e c h o n t o g e n e t i c a l l y AFTER HE HAS KNOWN DIALOGUE a n d a f t e r h e

has acquired the consciousness of the communication function of langage. One last remark that we wish to add with respect to the role of soliloquies is that in small children, approximately 2 years old, one especially encounters soliloquies as vocal exercises whereas soliloquies in the course of action — in which I have also recognized features of dialogue — appear particularly after the age of 3 in older children. At the age of 2 not only is langage insufficiently developed, but also the necessity of thinking for oneself or planning action is not especially strong; in contrast, in the preschooler the need to define thought through langage is developed, the gnosiological function of langage appears in more evolved forms and conversation with himself is made with this object. (This also leads to the development of inner speech). Finally we might mention that under some circumstances soliloquy apparently takes the form of direct dialogue. For instance, Emil (7 years 3 months) running across the yard with a toy revolver, stops and exclaims, "Hey, nut! " (When he notices me he smiles and is silent.) On occasion it is not merely a case of an imaginary dialogue but a deliberate dialogue with a 'partner' which is a doll, a certain toy or an animal. 13 (The child may be talking directly to the toy or even answer in its stead.) When Doina M. (6 years 8 months) and Doina F. (7 years 1 m o n t h ) told me that they talked to themselves with the dolls, I asked them what they said to them: D. M. "J tell them to be good. - D. F. [ simultaneously with D. M. ] I scold them. D. M. I get them to quarrel - me too - I always — ugh - I beat them, scold them, arrange them [...]/always tell what I want to do at home, all to the dolls".

37 I was able to note similar examples of dialogue-soliloquy: Evi St. (3 years 6 months) "[talks 'on the telephone', holding a cube to her ear:] Hello, mama! Who? ". Corina ( 2 years) "[playing with a doll] Dolly, hush-a-hye!. . . Hush-a-buy, dolly! . . . You have a small nose. Yes, mama [w]ashed \pre\tty . . .". Gina (2 years 7 months) " [ to the doll] Sit down so I can put you to bed. . . Hush-a-buy, mummy's dolly". Stela ( 2 years 8 months " [ t o the doll) Sra[vj [ni]cely . . . so . . . stays [«( ]cely. So .. . ". Lucia (2 years) "(talkes to a stuffed doggy, then she addresses someone imaginary and wags a finger] I'll beat you! ". Doina T. ( 2 years 3 months) " [ t o the toy truck] Come 'ere [you] truck! ".

Moreover, some verbal manifestations of children may appear to be soliloquies if they are not correctly observed in their entire context. A form of speech which J. Piaget considered 'collective monologue' and an example of egocentric langage, but which is an evident form of communication, is addressing others in order to inform them of what the speaker is doing or to invite them to look at what he is doing. The CORRECT observation of these commentaries on the action itself, in their true context, shows in the great majority of cases that in fact it is a matter of communicating with someone and that one must not omit a gesture or a significant look, which denotes that the speaker IS ADDRESSING someone. For example, Georgeta (2 years 5 months) "[playing with a small cart, says to another little girl who is standing further away:] I'm standing in the cart". ; Stefanel (2 years 4 months) "[playing with sand in the yard, comments to T. S. - C.: ] I'm putting sand in the bucket". ; Sandu B. (2 years 7 months) "[playing with Cristi at the edge of the basin] I'm getting down too". Nadia (4 years 7 months) gathers trucks together in the corner of the yard and talks a lot at the same time, apparently to herself (standing with her back to Cornel, aged 4 years 4 months); however, she does turn towards him and even when she is not doing so he carries out all that she tells him, so in fact communication which leads to cooperation does take place. For example, she says: " You ring! [he complies]"; or: "Let's clean the garage, [he clears up the dust]", etc. Vali (4 years 3 months) was playing in the yard with Cornel (4 years 4 months) with the trucks; now Cornel is running and Vali shouts, raising his hand in the direction Cornel went: "Mine is going in the garage! ". Similarly, Eugen (4Vi years) yells in boastful fashion from a distance (there is nobody near him): "As if I don't have a sunhat too! - Jeana (4 years 8 months) [receives the message' and shouts:] Aha, you mean to say, a necktie! ". Sometimes the mode of address is clear, even though the expression is not evidently directed towards a specific individual: Gina (2 years 7 months) "[standing on a bench], Look how big I am! ".

38 3.1.4. In order to eliminate the confusion that usually arises, we have distinguished between SOLILOQUY — where a person talks to himself without the presence of a partner, although the communication function may be present — and MONOLOGUE. Verbal monologued activity takes place in the presence of one or more partners, but in a unilateral manner; only one person speaks for varying lengths of time with the intention of being listened to by another or others. Monologue has various features, including some forms of apparent soliloquy, like those described above, (p. 37) which are not necessarily 'collective monologues' with an 'egocentric' function, as considered by J. Piaget. In the course of these monologues only one child talks (see, for instance, Nadia, in the aforementioned example), but intentionally addressing another person. Also, another form of monologue is story telling (the speaker tells a story or narrates an incident from his life) or in later forms, with the beginning of school, 'lesson recitation' and in general 'exposition' in the framework of the educational system. Later on evolved forms develop: discourse, conference, etc. Even more, on the level of belletristic literature monologue becomes a literary genre, which can either consist of addressed monologue - in which the character, speaking alone, is in fact addressing the public, as in some of V. Alecsandri's 14 'monologues', Barbu Lautaru, for example (where an old famous folklore violinist speaks to the public - NAEV), or of monologues which express inner speech, for example the famous monologue of Hamlet, "To be or not to be . . .".15 Any one of the monologue forms is secondary, however, on an ontogenetic level to the emerging of dialogue and carries in it the characteristics of dialogued speech. In the course of the monologue the speaker is addressing someone directly, or in any case pays attention to the fundamental relationship which is at the base of langage. Also, the listener, hearing the partner's monologue, is ready at any time to ask a question or give an answer and that which usually holds him back is the interdiction originating in social discipline: for instance, in the course of the exposition of a 'lesson' or a conference, the listener knows that he must remain silent until it is his turn to speak. Otherwise, the relation of dialogue is maintained for virtually the entire duration of the monologue, which in fact can be considered as the hyperthrophy of a reply or of the speech of one of the partners in general. In children up to seven years of age the normal form of monologue (in the sense established by us, as opposed to soliloquy) is of course that of story telling. For this reason, in the course of the present investigation we have also followed the form in which this mode of expression develops, concentrating my interest on the indications of latent existence of dialogue (in that which concerns either the speaker or the listener) in these monologues. When the

39 child tells a story, not only does he use dialogue as a 'literary genre' — causing the story characters to discuss among themselves - , but in fact he is addressing the listener, and when the listener is a child he is usually ready to intervene with a reply, question or completion, if the interdiction against speaking is not too strict. For instance, Adriana (4 years 11 months) saying in the course of a story ".. .so he can hear the songs of birds", I 8 her sister Margareta (6 years 7 and later Adriana: " T h e months) intervenes to correct her: "Of the birds\ child went together. . . - Margareta After she listened. - Adriana Leave me! Went together with the doggy ... " 20 Even in the course of a longer story narrated by a child — therefore somewhat more difficult to follow - various partners intervene: Cristi (3 years 11 months) "[narrates] And. . . and the groat left. - Gigi (4 years 10 months) [intervenes] The goat, not groat! — Carmen (3 years 9 months) Goata! "; or Cristi: "Open up quickly, mother's dears! says the wolf. — Gigi [interrupts] Because he is lying! "; [later] - Cristi ". . . and the youngest [child of the nannygoat] crawled under the stove. — Gigi No, under the cabinet! ". In the course of the stories followed experimentally, situations of the following type were often encountered: Zoe (4 years 4 months) tells a story: " . . . [the little niece] was called -. - Gina (4 years) [interrupts her] Maienka! - Zoe No, no, other. . . she didn't have. . . Andthey had a little boy too. The little boy was called Ali Col [? ] And then said d-. - G i n a [interrupts vivaciously] No, the little girl was called Gina\ . . .". Another time, Zoe: ". . . You tell a story too! - Gina [begins calmly] "Once upon a time there was - an old woman and an old man. The old man had a rooster and the old w - old woman aa - • - Zoe What, you're taking breaths? [small pause] - Gina And the old woman a hen. And then the hen laid eggs every day. - Zoe "No, only when she beat her... - Gina When the old woman beat her - the old woman, on the bottom ..."

With some older children up to five years of age, the conscious need to inhibit their reply quite often appears more clearly: for instance, while Lena (4 years 8 months) is telling a story, Traian (4 years 10 months) does not interrupt her; when she stops and Traian is asked if he knows the story, he answers: "I know a little. When-she doen't tell any more, I . ..". Nevertheless, probably because the experimenter's question had shown him, that he can interrupt, when Lena begins the story again, Traian intervenes: — Lena " [ . . . ] And she gathered flowers and mushrooms. And wild strawberries and blackbe - and strawberries - and blackberries . . . — Traian And she had a - she had a brother, more - . - Lena No! ". In any case, with older children interruption in the course of the story is much rarer usually. For instance, although Andrei (7 years 2 months) told Doina M. (6 years 8 months): "Butyou help me to tell [the story]! ",

40 nevertheless Doina does not interrupt him at all. When they are attentive and like the story, young children often arrive at dialogue in the course of monologue, because the listening discipline is not completely formed (in school, on the other hand, this practice will be strengthened, though disregarded sometimes even by the adult). Some investigators have considered a true form of 'collective monologue', - thus 'egocentric' speech — the situation in which more speakers in fact repeat simultaneously or successively the same assertion, 2 1 apparently without introducing any new information. This form, which is also manisfested among children, 2 2 and to which we shall return, is not monologue, however, but a form of collective speech which is much closer to dialogue because the REINFORCEMENT of the reply of one of the partners, which is made through its repetition by the others, is a form of communication of concurrence, approbation, etc. A certain transmission of information takes place, because participation - at least with an affective function - in a remark made by one of the partners is specified. 3.1.5. In all these forms, therefore, the function of communication exists and even more so the dialogue situation may be present, at least in a latent state or even vaguely outlined. What then does so-called DIALOGUE; mean; what are the criteria which indicate its existence? First of all dialogue is signified by the real and active presence of at least two partners who alternately have the role of speaker and listener and who by their replies help the quantity of information transmitted through langage to progress, no matter how little and under what form (as we shall see, under some circumstances, especially among children, this quantity can be very low, in the case of continuing repetitions of the same replies). Also, dialogue is based on directing each partner towards the other, on interest in what the partner is saying and at the same time on the adaptation of the speaker to the listener's abilities to comprehend. The function of communication can be realized through any expression to ANOTHER person, real or imaginary (that is, through simple ADDRESSING), while dialogue also presupposes the REPLY, that is, the acceptance of the situation of 'interlocutor', of 'active listener', who answers or retorts to the speaking partner. This situation creates the DIALOGUE RELATION of 'speech between' two or more persons, beginning with the simplest form, of address-answer, to complex conversation, in a group, between more than two partners. Simple addressing, not even followed by a reply, must, however, be considered as an element and even as a premise, on a genetic level, of dialogue; simple addressing, not followed by an answer, is in fact due to the speaker's intention and part of the dialogue situation. Surely, however, dialogue as such, in its complete structure, contains as much

41 of the element of address as of answer-retort. In order to better determine the criteria for appreciation of dialogue in children, we must make some specifications with regard to concatenation and the minimum number of replies in dialogue. When we refer to the langage of adults, the simple relation address-answer is sufficient to denote the existence of a dialogue in its most elementary form. When one speaks of a child, however, the fact that the adult RESPONDS to an expression of the child does not seem to us sufficient to appreciate that dialogue exists in this case, because the adult can interpret any vocal expression of the child (for example, prattling), no matter how little, as true 'address', and can 'answer' him. That is why, in the case of the relationship between adult and child, we consider that dialogue as such exists when a concatenation of replies appears, namely a response to a response (schematically, marking the child's intervention by italics, it would be: A -> R R, i. e. child's address, answer, child's retort; or S -> R - R 2 - R ^ , i. e. the child's answer to the adult's solicitation, then the response of the latter and another response from the child). In the case of the verbal relationship between children, in order to indicate dialogue we shall consider the appearance of a child's answer to the address of another child (A -> R) sufficient. In any case, we shall also further discuss addressing an adult as a premise for dialogue. Dialogue also presumes a proportionate 'dosage' (length) of replies: exceeding a maximum limit of extension of one of them can cause the dialogue to be transformed into a monologue, with eventual dialogued interludes. N. Ju. Svedova 2 3 shows that between monologue and dialogue there are differences not only of content, but also of linguistic form. The characteristic phenomenon of dialogue is, as L. P. Jakubinskij 2 4 emphasized, the retort of the various partners, alternate and at the same time concatenated speech, carried upon a common theme: from a linguistic point of view, the partners' replies can be connected in the same measure and can depend reciprocally upon one an other in such a degree, that they often form a single syntactic unit. 2 5 A connection as much of content as form does exist, i. e . , a logical and natural concatenation between the replies of the dialogue partners. Understanding this phenomenon will help us in the analysis of children's dialogue from a formal point of view. Dialogue is characterized, therefore, by THE PRESENCE OF BOTH PARTNERS a n d b y DIRECTING ONESELF TOWARDS THE PARTNER, b y t h e ALTERNATE CHANGE OF REPLIES, b y t h e p r o p o r t i o n a t e 'DOSAGE' (LENGTH) o f t h e REPLIES, b y t h e ( r e l a t i v e ) CHANGE O F INFORMATION a n d b y t h e LINGUISTIC

FORM in which it sometimes appears, namely the syntactic-contextual concatenation between replies. From a psychological, and in the final analysis, from a physiological point

42 o f v i e w , dialogue presumes, t h r o u g h the rapid change o f replies, the possibility o f a m o b i l e succession o f the processes on the c o r t e x , a rapid association and a reactivity easily adaptable t o the various n e w situations w h i c h the replies express. Dialogue is based o n the possibility, f o r the listener, that in the interval in w h i c h he perceives and interprets the partner's r e p l y , he can prepare his o w n e x p r e s s i o n . A t the same time dialogue also presumes, n e x t t o the possibility o f answering, the c a p a c i t y f o r w i t h h o l d i n g the answer until the o p p o t u n e m o m e n t . As L. P. J a k u b i n s k i j stressed, it is natural t o i n t e r r u p t s o m e o n e ' s s p e e c h , but it is less natural t o listen, the latter being a habit that is f o r m e d w i t h t i m e . 2 6 A l s o f r o m the point o f view o f these m e c h a n i s m s w e shall be interested in f o l l o w i n g the dialogue o f children. The f u n d a m e n t a l m e c h a n i s m o f dialogue p r o b a b l y consists o f a chain r e a c t i o n , in w h i c h the partner's r e p l y , a c t i n g as a stimulus, i m m e d i a t e l y a w a k e n s in the listener an a n s w e r elaborate on the basis o f the p r e c e d i n g r e p l y . T h i s is precisely w h y there exists the possibility f o r the speaker t o adapt w h a t he says t o his partner. A s far as the listener's a t t i t u d e is c o n c e r n e d — v e r y i m p o r t a n t in dialogue — w e must still stress that in the course o f the dialogue there m a y b e m o m e n t s o f inattentiveness on the part o f the p a r t n e r , m o m e n t s w h e n a listener is preo c c u p i e d b y s o m e t h i n g m o r e 'interesting' f o r h i m . N o r m a l l y , h o w e v e r , in the adult these ' a c c i d e n t s ' either pass u n o b s e r v e d or the listener tries t o re-enter q u i c k l y i n t o the dialogue ( t h r o u g h a politeness f o r m u l a or t h r o u g h various means b y w h i c h he finds o u t the c o n t e n t s o f t h e lost replies). It can also h a p p e n that a partner can 'remain b e h i n d ' , interested in the i n f o r m a t i o n t r a n s m i t t e d t h r o u g h o n e o f the replies, w h i c h s o m e t i m e s a w a k e n s various o t h e r associations and even causes h i m t o t r y t o steer the dialogue t o w a r d s the t h e m e that preo c c u p i e s h i m at that time ( h e n c e the a p p e a r a n c e o f 'parallel lines' in dialogue, w h e n the partner is still c o n t i n u i n g the t h r e a d o f the initial discussion, w i t h each partner t a l k i n g a b o u t s o m e t h i n g d i f f e r e n t . ) 2 7 N o r m a l l y these situations are o f short d u r a t i o n , because o n e o f the partners cedes in o n e sense or ano t h e r , or it can h a p p e n that a n o t h e r discussion is started, caused particularly b y deviation f r o m the dialogue n o r m represented b y the b e h a v i o r o f the respective partner. Finally w e m i g h t add that o n the o n e h a n d the t h e m e o f the dialogue can change o f t e n o r , o n the c o n t r a r y , m o r e can be discussed o n the same t h e m e , and o n the o t h e r h a n d the partners themselves can change — especially w h e n it is a case o f dialogue in a larger g r o u p — , can leave the g r o u p or e n t e r i n t o it, can pass t o a n o t h e r g r o u p , e t c . We shall see h o w these situations f u r t h e r present themselves in children, w h e n w e shall talk a b o u t the RELATIONSHIP aspects BETWEEN PARTNERS in t h e dialogue o f children. F i n a l l y , w e shall t o u c h here u p o n the p r o b l e m o f the s c o p e o f d i a l o g u e , w h i c h is directly c o n n e c t e d t o that o f t h e c o n t e n t s as s u c h , o f t h e t h e m e s

43 in comprised in dialogue. Dialogue is a form of social contact through verbal means. Some investigators have shown with much 'ease' that dialogue (referring in fact to 'conversation') has no scope other than the pleasure of auto-affirmation or of personal 'expansion'. F. H. Allport said that in dialogue the effort of two persons towards expansion and reciprocal control through langage meets. A tries to control B, to impart his knowledge and beliefs, and B tries to do the same thing to A. To this thesis, which stresses an egocentric conception, F. H. Allport also adds a masked skepticism and even agnosticism, for he concluded that in the final analysis neither one of the partners succeeds in his attempt.28 In other words, each one talks without making himself understood to the other and without being able to demonstrate the validity of the knowledge he possesses. Furthermore, R. R. Willoughby even proposed, next to the thesis of'langage egocentrism' (see above, p. 30), the hedonistic solution of 'gratuitous' conversation or of conversation made for the simple pleasure - frivolous - of talking. 29 Unable to extend here an argument which we shall return to in another study devoted especially to this p r o b l e m , w e again stress that dialogue, appearing in the work process as a team activity, preserves as an essential function that of communication for cooperation in the various human activities. It is probable that in certain periods or social structures, or in certain moments of decadence of social strata with no preoccupation for work activity, dialogue can also have the unique or predominant function of procuring pleasure, without the intention of facilitating collective activity or conveying ideas (which also constitutes an aspect of social cooperation). In the course of dialogue the thinking of the partners is transmitted f r o m one to the other. But this in itself is not the scope of dialogue. Dialogue also has the function of conveying thought (besides fixing and expressing it), but normally this function is in its turn subordinated to the purpose of finding a solution - in general on a practical level — through COOPERATION, through collective action. The gnoseologic function of dialogue is implied in its essential function, that of communication, the scope of which is not attained through communication itself, but through the realization of cooperation. The observations which we shall further present concerning dialogue among children will bring one more argument in favor of the thesis that cooperation is primary in dialogue. Dialogue serves in superior adaptation as much directly — for instance through implementation into activity of collective projects — , as indirectly through its cognitive function, due to the fact that ideas or sentiments awakened in the listener — in accord with those of the speaker, or to the contrary, arising as a reaction against the previous reply — cause a progress in knowledge and ultimately an improvement in the partner's activity. Of course, wrong ideas, on the path of which the other partner can enter too, can also be conveyed

44 through dialogue at any given time; however, particularly on the basis of the link between the dialogue and activity, on the basis of confrontation between the content of thought contained in dialogue and concrete reality, in the final analysis an erroneous conviction can sometimes be corrected more rapidly and effectively by means of dialogue. As such, the dominant topics in dialogue are those for which interaction is necessary: either it is expressed through an immediate physical activity, or it materializes in the meantime in an accord of ideas, which can later serve in a collective activity. These themes can vary according to the age of the interlocutors, and cooperation can also consist of a unilateral contribution from one of the partners (for example, the child dialogizes with the adult to ask for his HELP). From the necessity for cooperation derives the importance of the content of dialogue as such and consequently of its true understanding. From here it follows, however, that the form of expression is not totally unaffected either: in common dialogue, the form is adapted in such a way as to be productive to a maximum, through more economical usage of the means of expression, but at the same time without omitting that which is strictly necessary. Probably the least 'redundant' langage (in which very few superfluous elements appear), but in which of necessity there must also exist an effective organization, is that which appears in dialogue. In any case, the sanction of understanding or not understanding the partner, consequently also the possibility of prompt self-correction, appears almost instantaneously in oral dialogue, which cannot happen in written langage or in conference-monologue, etc. A last remark refers to the frequency of dialogue in the life of the normal adult, in order to then establish a comparison with the situation of the child. Written langage is through its excellence a type of monologue-language, in which dialogue is eventually implicit (one can give a 'reply' in writing also, with delay, however, in contrast to the possibilities of oral language) or it is an imitated form, literarily transposed in an artistic work, as a means of expression of the personages. The. usual langage form - the most frequent and natural - is, however, oral langage. Oral langage is present in the great majority of cases in the form of dialogue. Langage itself, through the fundamental relationship on which it is based, implies dialogue as its natural form of manifestation and at the same time as the most efficient form on a concrete level of everyday activity. Dialogue is the most effective means to directly influence the activities of others and due to this fact is the most usual instrument — still unsurpassed by any means of automatized signalization — for cooperation. In essence, therefore, the criteria of dialogue is constituted by the presence of the function of communication and the clear relationship of RESPONSE

45 (reply). However, the detailed peculiarities of dialogue in psychology and in general linguistics will be clearly described, as far as the adult's langage is concerned, only through the examination of child's dialogue, not only because a comparison also throws light on the general phenomenon of dialogue, but also to be able to emphasize the specific peculiarities of dialogue in the child.

3.2.

P R I M I S I - S O P D I A L O G U E A N D INVOLUTION 0 1 ITS V A R I O U S 1 0 R M S

If many a u t h o r s 3 1 show that on the animal level certain means of communication - in any case of a completely elementary type — do exist, in contrast those who would affirm that there is even a communication of a dialogue form (cf. 'concerting' preceding an action) are very rare. The assertion of some investigators 3 2 that in the calls and appeals of animals there is something similar to interhuman 'conversation' is totally unconvincing, and proves an anthropomorphic conception, for a prerequisite of dialogue is a relatively stable and complex system of signs, on the basis of which a reciprocal understanding can be realized: this is a stage at which not even the more developed thinking - and yet still elementary, ' c o n c r e t e ' 3 3 — of superior anthropoids could arrive. Two investigators made the following experiment: putting 8 monkeys and 8 preschool children in an identical situation, in which for the solution of the problem in the respective situation cooperation was necessary, it was observed that while the monkeys did not communicate among themselves and did not succeed in resolving the problem through cooperation, the children resorted to dialogue, by which they achieved cooperation and solved the problem (of course, with the peculiarities inherent in each stage of age). 3 4 Dialogue represents an evolved stage in the development of langage, which appears on the one hand before monologue, 3 5 and on the other hand is preceded by certain preparatory phenomena. In any case dialogue does not appear suddenly in the child's evolution: in a first phase, when one cannot yet speak of langage as such, the premises of human communication begin to develop, which will gradually evolve into a precise form of answering and addressing. Even f r o m the first months of life the child reacts to verbal stimuli, through a general orientation towards a sonorous source or through the fact, for instance, that he stops crying, or at a later stage through an even more distinct reaction — through a certain facial expression, through laughter, 3 6 through a gesture, through the sonorous imitation of a verbal stimulus. These premises of communication, which appear even before the end of the first year of life, are achieved on the basis of the conditioned-reflex mechanism. Due to more or less intentional intervention of the adult in creating some

46 temporary connection between the words said by the adult and an action of the child, the latter succeeds in having stereotyped answers, but largely differentiated in some verbal stimuli, before the appearance of langage However, communication is achieved in the beginning through quite diffuse answers, to stimuli likewise not yet clearly differentiated. The young child responds at first to the general melody of the stimulus, to intonation, which also remains at a later stage a stronger means of influence in the course of communication. E. I. Lebedinskaja and A. G. Poliakova showed that in ontogeny the conditional connections are elaborated faster for intonation than for the word meaning. 3 8 Past experiments have also shown that in the German phrase Wo ist das Fcnster'! Where is the window? , in the French Où est la fenêtre? Where is the window? , and also in the German phrase Wo ist die Tiirl Where is the door? , the child answered the same way, showing the window, because he reacted to the interrogative melodic contour common in various questions, indifferent to their contained sense. Also, in experiments made in Romanian, the child around the age of 9 to 12 months reacted positively to the phrase Nu e voie! It is forbidden! , spoken with a positive intonation.39 Often relatively unilateral verbal relations between the adult and the child take place, in which either the adult talks and the child listens or answers by gesture, through general orientation (reactions of the type V — D, verbal stimulus — direct reaction) 4 0 , or the child makes vocal manifestations — for example, articulation of some syllables or even of a 'word', through which, on the basis of the same conditioned-reflex mechanism, he asks for something (reactions D — V, direct stimulus - verbal reaction). A further step, with the emerging of langage as such, is marked by the establishment of relationships of the type V - V (in which the child responds to the verbal stimulus through a verbal reaction which is no longer a simple ecolallia but an adapted answer, transmitter of information). In discussing the general problem of children's dialogue the premises of dialogue should not be omitted — as was traditionally done: that is, the existence of ANSWERS to verbal solicitations, usually of the adult (therefore the acceptance of the situation of verbal inter-relationship) as well as the forms of a child's spontaneous ADDRESS towards others (forms which denote that consciousness of a verbal relationship does exist and, even more, presume the necessity of a partner to whom something be 'communicated'). The forms of verbal ANSWER to the verbal solicitation of the adult as well (which A. G. Ivanov-Smolenski synthesized in the formula of conditioned relationships of the type V — V) are long established in the verbal activity of the c h i l d , 4 ! but they must not be confused with simple answers, which still do not prove the presence of 'langage' as such, to stereotype questions (e. g. "Where is the nose? " to which the child answers, for instance, " N o s e " ,

47 pointing it out with his finger). Long before the age of 2 even, children are capable of giving a short answer having the sense adequate to a new situation. For example: T. S. - C. [the experimenter] "Where did you put the doll? - Doina (2 years 3 months) On the table", or T. S. - C. "Come here, Adi\ Adi (2 years 3 months) A/b/1 don't w\a\nt to\ ", or T. S. - C. " W h o didn't letyoul - lea (1 year 11 months) That"-, T. S. - C. "Does it have ears? [the doll] - lea Yes. It has ears. - T. S. - C. What does it have? [the doll] - lea Mouth it has". When we speak about ADDRESSING, we must also keep in mind the fact that this form is very early, because the child needs to ask, to solicit something, vocally; however, the primary forms of address (often also manifested in the beginning through unarticulated cries, weeping or a simple gesture) are radically different from the addressing which appears with the development of dialogue and which denotes the child's initiative in the forms of active langage. The forms of unilateral communication develop gradually, as the phonetic, lexical and grammatical structure of langage is enriched: thus the more complex and differentiated forms of answering and addressing are developed — the latter characterized in the child nearing the age of 2, by the appearance of question. The following stage, and the most important, is however that of the appearance of dialogue as such, namely the concatenation of replies. Consequently, the need for communication appears long before the development of langage as such, which is prepared not only as form but also as function - by various modalities of elementary communication. The appearance of dialogue is preceded as much by the rudiments of addressing or answering, as by the rudiments of dialogue itself, in very elementary forms. Dialogue, in the sense previously established by us (see above 3.1.5.) definitely appears around the age of 2. Of course, its form and content develop gradually but in any case we need not wait for the age of 7 or 8 in order to observe the appearance of discussion as such, as J. Piaget considered. At the same time this fact is an argument in favor of the thesis that in any case soliloquy and monologue are not more primitive forms, antecedent to dialogue, and thus prove the absence of weak manifestation of the function of communication at a certain stage of the child's development. However, an evolution in dialogue exists which we shall follow, marked by the growing complexity of the dialogue relationship, through the growing of the number of replies and partners, through the amplification and multiplication of themes, through the improvement of the linguistic form, as well as through the accentuation of the role of cooperation of dialogue. Before passing on to the analysis of dialogue as such, we shall dwell a little longer on the manner in which addressing appears after the age of 2, as a premise and at the same time an element of dialogue, in its most evolved stage,

48 c h a r a c t e r i z e d b y t h e INITIATIVE o f t h e s p e a k e r a n d t h r o u g h e x p r e s s i o n in t h e c o m m o n linguistic f o r m s of t h e respective l a n g u a g e .

What in general is the scope of these spontaneous verbal reactions, of these premises of communication through dialogue? We shall especially follow the addressing of small children, under 3 years of age, in order to demonstrate that even at this age the 'egocentric' forms do not dominate. The child is addressing not only the adult — to ask for or advertise something, or to put a question to him or to inform him of what he is doing —, but he is also addressing the other children, to invite them to participate in the conversation, a game or a personal action, or to ask them to do something, to make an affectionate declaration or even to communicate to them a simple finding. (a) Next to the SIMPLE ADDRESSING-CALLING, by name or otherwise (e. g. Stefanel and Dan P., aged 2 years 4 months, call out to each other from a distance: "Hey! ", or Mihaela, aged 2 years 8 months, calls "Rodica Cioclooov! more developed calls can also be noted, e. g. Gina (2 years 7 months) "Mihaela! Come here! ". These forms of address in general have a scope of cooperation, even if this is more or less implicit: Adi C. (4 years 1 month) "In the sun! [invites the others to come over to the sunny side and they all follow him], Traian (4 years 9 months) "Come, Caragiale! [he beckons him to play with him] ", Cornelia M. (5 years 9 months) "Tania Pocloleanu! [Come] to the toys! "

(b) Other forms of address contain: DENUNCIATIONS to the adult (Mihaela, 2 years 8 months, repeats, almost crying, "He won't give me the doll! "); or a REQUEST (Mihaela "I don't have a doll! [with a begging intonation, almost in tears:] Gina, give me the doll too, Gina! [repeats] Give me the doll! 'Cause it's mine! ... If the doll is mine. .."; Corina A . , 3 years 2 months, "Comrade teacher-look what Svelinda Nicola is doing! "); or an ORDER or an INTERDICTION (lea, 1 year 11 months, "It has a blemish [the doll]. Don't pull her! Tay [=stay] so! Tay here! "; or Cristi, 2 years 7 months, to Nuti 4 2 , 2 years 5 months, who wants to take her doll "Ugh! Leave her here", or [still to Nuti] "Don't come here with that chair, [repeats] Go 'way from here with this chair. Look, you've messed up the rug - see? . . . Stand on it and look! "); or finally a sentimental 'DECLARATION' (Georgeta, 2 years 5 months, "Silviu! Silviu! [caressing his cheek] I (Ijove you! "). (c)

Sometimes the address has the character of communicating simple

information or an OBJECTIVE FINDING :

"),

49 Georgeta " [to a girl with blemishes on her face] Be good! You have blemishes here."', or Doina T. (2 years 3 months) "[when the tape recorder stopped] It st(o)pped! "; and Cristi (2 years 2 months) "[when the tape recorder turns once more] It turned! ";43 Doina D. (2 years 3 months) " H f e j a r how it ra' [=rains] outside.. .! Ra' outside! "; Stela (2 years 3 months) to Cornelia (2 years 3 months) "The're no more pictures! No more pictures! "; Dan (2 years 4 months) "[about the tape recorder] L(o)ok how it runs, children/ [ they all come near the tape recorder, very a t t e n t i v e ] D a n "[discovering a bar of soap] L(o)ok the soap, children! "; Victoria (5 years 10 months) "[spontaneously to T. S. -C.] My name is Petre Victorifa! ".

We must mention that many expressions noted by various authors as 'ego centric', as only having the role of accompanying a personal action, are in fact addresses through which the child invites someone to look, for instance, at what he is doing (see also above, p. 37). For instance, Camelia (3 years 10 months) says " l a m building a house [with cubes]", but the other two little girls nearby listen to her, participate in the game and then they also say something. Also, Eva (3 years 6 months) announces, CALLING OUT "The train is leaving! " and a boy at distance also CALLS OUT "Look, that's the train! " . Therefore, the simple intentional address often provokes dialogue (sometimes even in a partner to whom the address was not actually intended); for example, Traian (4 years 9 months) [to T. S. - C.] "Auntie, Lena is the biggest cry-baby! - Lena (4 years 7 months) [to Traian] But I'm not! ". (d)

More c o m p l e x forms o f address usually have as their m o t i v a t i o n an

EXPLICIT INVITATION TO COOPERATE or in any case refer t o COLLECTIVE ACTIONS: Cristi (2 years 2 months) "[to Sandu (2 years 7 months)] Sa(n)dule! . . . Let(s) play in the water! [later] Sa'tule! [=Sandule] Come here to the water! Come, let's play.. . 'cause the water pou(r)s on me! [the water, however, is not flowing in the basin] Come, let's (g)o! L(o)ok, the water is runfnjing! "; Georgeta (2 years 5 months) "[playing by herself, suddenly says to Silviu] Come, let's (g)o that way and make fofojd! "; Doina F. (4 years 2 months) "[sitting on the swing in the yard, addresses Valeria (4 years 7 months)] Come, come 'ere, in the tram! "; Ghita44 (4 years 8 months) "[going under a tree] It's sunny, let's stay! "; Traian (4 years 9 months) [playing in the yard] "Cornele,45 I'm not going to play with you any more - I'm playing with Caragiale! "

(e) Finally, I have recorded - quite frequently for some children who repeated them with pleasure — relatively mechanical FORMULAE, usually imitations of orders given by the adult to the children. These formulae were addressed either as a game to an imaginary interlocutor or directly to the children around him or even to a specific partner: Dan (2 years 4 months) "Come, Anca, to the table. . . Come, children, to the table! Come to. . . Children, come here children - or the cat will get you! "; Cristi (2 years 2

50 m o n t h s ) " [ p l a y i n g at the basin with Sandu (2 years 7 m o n t h s ) ] (S)tay there, old man! 4 6 Lfejave here, old man! No! Come 'ere, old man! Georgeta (2 years 5 m o n t h s ) " [ i m i tating the teacher] That's enough! Quiet please! [ t h e n playing, suddenly shouts] Fofojd is here! Let's go to the table!; Fofojd is he(r)e! Let's go to the table! Fofojd is hefrje! Fofojd is hefrje . . . L.et's go to the table! ".

The Q U E S T I O N is a more evolved form, from a certain point of view, than address. It is intended to release direct dialogue and to mark the importance which the child attributes to the partner, proposing to intervene in order to solve a problem or, in general, to request information, thus including him in the circuit of his thinking, his affection or his activity (we emphasize that we refer here to the initial question, in addressing, and not to the question which appears within, in the course of the dialogue). The multiplication of questions, particularly after the age of 2 id, and their addressing especially towards the adult marks a specific phase in the intellectual development of the child, in which on the one hand the development of the capacity to think awakens problems, and on the other hand he feels the necessity of adult intervention, in order to solve them for him. Through the discovery of the role of the question, the child finds the means to supplement the lack of personal information or in general to resolve a situation. Therefore, the evolution of the verbal means of questioning is significant for the intellectual development of the child. From the hesitant, unsure and diffuse forms the child proceeds to the differentiation of special words for questioning (Romanian ce, cine, cind, uncle, and then dece, pentru ce, i. e. what, who, when, where, and then why, what for), a clearly universal order, the same for all languages, has not been established. 47 The question then has an important cognitive function, but at the same time it plays the role, no less important, on which depends the fulfilment of its cognitive function, of releasing dialogue. Often, the child also asks questions for the pleasure of receiving an answer, from the necessity to feel as concretized the existence of the social relationship with the other and at the same time to check the power of langage for creating this relationship. Therefore, we do not believe that any abuse of questions on the part of the child would be a sign of pathological anxiety, as affirmed for a long time by H. Wallon. 48 If some authors establish that the number of questions decreases with age, this may be due to the fact that some educators forbid children to ask too many questions. Although older children have personal means to resolve some problems, and for this purpose use inner speech to a greater extent, they continue, nevertheless, to ask questions, especially because of the wish to establish in a concrete manner a relationship with the partner. From the point of view of dialogued relationship, I was able to observe even immediately after the age of 2 years significant questions for the release (f)

51

of dialogue, for the invitation to dialogue not only with the adult but also with other children (therefore the social role of questioning appears early, at least at the same time as the cognitive one). Through certain questions, the child asks the opinion of someone: Gina (2 years 7 months) "[sings a song, then asks Rodica] Do you like it? ". Through other questions, information of an objective character is requested directly, but at the same time the circumstances in which I recorded them show that often they in fact also constitute an invitation to conversation: Stela (2 years 3 months) " [ t o T. S. - C., before starting the tape recorder, in the first minutes after she entered the experimenting room] It's turning? "; Gina (2 years 7 months) "We're gofijng to the 'wing [=swing] .49 [to Rodica:] Are you gofijng to the 'wing too? [to T. S. - C.] Are you also gofijng to the 'wing in the wagon? ";50 Andrei F. (4 years 4 months) "[to T. S. - C.] Comrade, what is this for? "; Vlad S. (5 years 3 months) "[to T. S. - C. ] Why are you making work again? ".

The questions can also play a direct role in collective action: for instance, Corina (3 years 2 months) in the game of 'kitchen and dining room', takes the role seriously, serving the 'food': "Who wants food? Who wants food? " [then directly to Seicu 51 (3 years 3 months)] "Doyou? ". Sometimes the question does not even have the role of interrogation as such, but constitutes a surrogate of address-protest, in the course of an action; for example: Seicu (3 years 2 months) "[angry, protests to Marian who took one of his papers] Why do you take me it? "; in the following example, the intonation at the beginning of interrogation is gradually transformed - without the pause indicated by us through punctuation — into exclamation and the accent is in fact placed on the exclamatory sense: $>eicu (3 years 2 months) "[to other children] Why do you fool with the socket - 'cause it'll give you a shock! ". Frequently, when a question does not elicit an answer or the answer is delayed or appears insufficient, the question assumes a dramatic character, developing in varied morphological-syntactical forms. These questions usually perservere (however only as a general mechanism and as far as their content is concerned, because in the formal-linguistic details or in intonation, etc. they are modified in nearly every repetition). They express the gnoseologic necessity of receiving an answer, but through their insistence show the consciousness of the role and the communication function of langage: the irritation of the child who insists on being answered shows his surprise that the question did not release dialogue. In my investigations I have provoked such reactions experimentally, through the fact that sometimes I did not answer the questions: Mihaela (2 years 8 months) "[to T. S. - C. , about the tape recorder] It's not singing? It's not singing? - Gina (2 years 7 months)" [also repeats, still to T. S. - C.] Doesn't the radio

52 sing? - M. Doesn't the radio sing. . . The radio doesn't sing? - G. The radio doesn't play? - M. The radio doesn't sing? [they repeat until they are answered]"; or Gina " [ t o T . S . - C . ] Whose (c)oat is this? Whose (c)oat is this? [repeats insistently until she is answered]"; Zoe (4 years 4 months) "[to T. S. - C.] Auntie, comrade, what is your name? - Gina (4 years) [repeats with her] What is your name? [then both of them repeat together in unison]".

In older children the form of question is quite modified in repetition: For instance, Emil (7 years 1 month) "[playing with Dan Z. (7 years 2 months) and with Andrei B. (7 years), with the 'bathroom', suddenly addresses T. S. - C.] Comrade, why don't you put the water here - in - ugh - this big box? - Dan Why don't you put water? - Andrei Why don't you put water - in the box? - Emil Comrade, why don't you put water? - Andrei -in this box. - Emil In this big, long one? So there will be water! [etc.]"; later they will ask again: Emil "Comrade -. - Dan - why don't you put water in the thub [tub], here, in this big one? Why? - Emil Why don't you put water • here? - Andrei [almost simultaneously] Why don't you put water here in the thub? - Emil In this—in this big box from here. Why don't you put it? [the repetitions continue, until Dan intervenes] " S t o p bothering the comrade! First let her write there; then she'll put it.. . [the rest are silent]".

Besides this initial question, which has the role of releasing dialogue, eventually, we shall also further follow the question in the COURSE OF DIALOGUE, as a future propelling force.

3.3.

STATISTICAL POLL

A strictly STATISTICAL processing of the results, with absolute value, seemed to us inopportune in the context of this investigation: on the one hand, because of the great variation in the conditions which the various children encounter (although they all belong to the same nursery, some may be timid, others may not know each other well enough, etc.), on the other hand because an attempt to establish some criteria of classification FOR STATISTICS of the expressions of children at this age is very difficult and in the final analysis would remain approximate. 5 2 This is why I felt that a qualitative analysis of the results is more fruitful on account of the certainty of the facts, as well as the interest which such an attempt — of also presenting and analyzing the dialogue itself, and in general the forms of verbal intercommunication at this age — can have. The observation of quite a large number of children permits, even without proceeding to an quantitative analysis of the material gathered, to make the synthesis affirmation — to me fundamental - that, in the conditions under which my investigations developed and with the method applied by me, 'socialized' langage occupied an absolutely dominant role, and dialogue proper

53 existed to a great extent even between 2 and 3 years of age. In the framework of the crèche or boarding nursery, I have very rarely met children who resorted to soliloquies (the majority were accustomed to playing in groups and to dialogeize). Observing a 'group' (as a unit of the respective preschool institution) for a few days, in its classroom during 'free' activity (the children were 3Vi years old), I found a single child (lea P . , whom we discussed as a special case), who sometimes moved her lips playing alone; the other children played in groups or when they played alone were either silent or hummed, or very often addressed a remark to others, who sometimes answered verbally or through their activity. Nevertheless, in order t o answer the statistical argument presented by J. Piaget and supporters of the langage egocentrism' theory in this problem, I have also performed a number of statistical polls in the 2 to 3 year old range, supplemented with polls of 4Vi and 7 year-olds, keeping in mind the following goals: (a) to establish in what proportion the child's expressions between these ages can be incorporated in forms of 'socialized' langage (the criterion being the existence of a child's address toward someone or of an answer by the child A or B f r o m the scheme A — B; I calculated the percentage on the basis of 50 phrases taken consecutively at one time from the recordings made with a certain child; (b) to establish how many expressions are properly part of more developed dialogue (constituting a reply and not a simple address or an answer: /12 from the scheme k - R — A ^ - B j , calculation being made on the groups of phrases of the same child); (c) what stability the various dialogued sequences have as far as it concerns the theme to which they refer {A—B—A*, . . . [group of replies containing the same idea] B - A - B 2 - A 2 [another group of replies containing the same ideas], calculation, therefore, being made on groups of REPLIES from the various children, referring to a common idea). 5 3 The calculations were made on the material which resulted from the recording of the children's speech under the aforementioned conditions in the experiment room, and the majority of replies among children are given (very rarely interrupted by an adult's reply). In this manner the conditions are uniform for all the children; on the other hand the langage forms which enter in the statistical calculations are those appearing collectively (the majority even in collective games), because we were concerned that the percentage should not be established in situations of solitary life. In any case, however, I do not attribute to these polls an absolute and general character valid for the respective ages, since they are merely suggestive indications for the general line of development. (a) The poll shows that beginning with the age of 1 year 10 months (Dorel Dr.) over 90 percent of the utterances are ADDRESSED to SOMEONE or constitute AN ANSWER given to someone (the remaining 10 percent expressions could not be interpreted as address and answer, or consisted of vocal games,

54 etc.). (The polls on other age groups are almost superfluous: The percentage, I repeat, under these circumstances, is 100 percent, as well at the age of 414 — in the child Stela C. [4 years 7 months] — , and at the age of 7 — in Emil S. [7 years 1 m o n t h ] ). Another poll — that of Andrei B. (7 years) — , with regard to children's langage at the beginning of the first meeting, when the children were left complete free to organize their conduct, still gives 100 percent. Let me mention, for instance, that with Emil S. an expression such as Oh boy! 5 4 is still an indication of communication under these conditions, because the child signals the falling of a kitchen utensil in this way and the others react to his exclamation by laughing. The large difference vis-à-vis the percentage indicated by J. Piaget has a substratum, not of a quantitative but of a qualitative order, originating from the conditions of education and at the same time f r o m the existing situation at the moment of recording, as well as f r o m the interpretation given to the various children's expressions, from the fact that I noted the context in which they appear as well as the person to w h o m they are addressed, etc. (b) The majority of a child's expressions prior to the age of 2 years consists of simple addresses or answers, dialogue occupying a secondary place (in Dorel Dr. — a lively child with well-developed langage, at the age of 1 year 10 months — the percentage of dialogue is 11 percent). After 2 years of age the number of dialogue replies increases quite rapidly (in a child aged 2 years 1 month, Marian S . , 68 percent; and in Ali [2 years 2 months] out of 100 groups of phrases, 42 contain replies of dialogue). And especially after 21k, dialogue develops: the approximate average can be established at 80 percent (Gabi N. 86 percent, Sanda P. 78 percent, Gabi M. 85 percent). What grows especially around the age of 3 years is the number of replies belonging to the same sequence, dialogue consisting of many more replies from the same child, and entering in the same dialogue of many more children. In other children we sometimes observe very long sequences of dialogued replies (while younger children are often satisfied with a simple address or an answer, or they more frequently interrupt a hardly begun line of dialogue; to this is also added the more frequent changing of the 'discussion' themes). In the course of the 'telephone' game, Stela C. (4 years 7 months) has 4 3 phrases included in dialogue, out of the total of 50; and Doina M. (6 years 7 months), in the course of the same game, has 50 dialogued replies, without pauses. (c) Finally, the poll shows that more replies are constantly grouped around the same theme, as the children near 7 years of age (in other words, older children carry a conversation for a longer period of time on the same theme). At the age of 2 years there are approximately 30 groups of themes in 100 replies; while at the age of 2Vi to 3, they decrease to 21 to 25 groups. At the

55 age of 4Vz, the dialogue between Lena G. (4 years 6 months) and Andrei F. (4 years 6 months) is composed of 97 phrases, in 8 groups of ideas; and at 7 years, the dialogue between Otilia (6 years 11 months), Andrei B. (7 years), Emil S. (7 years 1 month), Dan Z. (7 years 2 months) and Adrian (7 years 3 months) is composed of 112 replies, in 5 groups of ideas (a factor which can modify the percentages is the fact that as they advance in age, many children intervene in dialogue, hence the possibility that the themes will vary more often). At the same time the number of groups including a single reply decreases with age, and the number of groups including over 10 replies grows, the maximum even arriving at 30 replies around the same theme, in children of 2 to 3 years of age (where, however, the average is 3 to 5 replies), and even 71 replies — in this poll — at the age of 7. Representing schematically each idea by a square, in which we note by number how many replies are grouped around each idea, it is observed that in a group the older the children are the more the replies; and in 100 replies there are fewer groups of ideas:

Age

The number of replies in a group of ideas

2 years 2'/i- 3 years 4>/i years 7 years

3.4.

0 • 0 • 0 0 00 H0 00 • 0 0 0.

Per 100 replies 30 groups 21 to 25 groups

.

8 groups ->•

5 groups

ASPECTS OF THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN PARTNERS

I have not placed a great deal of importance on the statistical aspects, because they can vary greatly depending on the various conditions (therefore an absolute percentage cannot be established) and at the same time they are not as significant as the qualitative and interpretative analysis of the data; also because there are quite a few investigations in bibliography — even less recent —, which centered on this concern and countered the thesis of langage 'egocentrism' through this argument. For this reason, once the fact that dialogue in children exists and that it occupies a very important place, even f r o m an early age, is established, we shall try to pass beyond this aspect and show HOW the dialogue of children IS REALIZED. We shall first dwell on the general ASPECT

56 o f the verbal RELATIONSHIPS b e t w e e n partners — on the c o m p l e x i t y and mobility o f these relationships, as well as on the important problem o f 'adaptation to the partner'.

3.4.1. An interesting index of dialogue development in children constitutes dialogue COMPLEXITY from the point of view of the number of replies in a sequence and at the same time the number of partners. We have previously discussed the simple relationship of addrsss (or question)-answer; also, the statistical poll sketched dialogue evolution through growth, concurrent with children's age, of the number of replies through which the children can sustain a 'conversation'. Usually, when address is specifically oriented towards a certain child and when special conditions do not intervene (e. g. the fact that the partners do not know each other or they are intimidated, etc.), the child-listener answers promptly, entering into the dialogue relationship. We shall first analyze DIALOGUE -either simple (a), or more complex (b)—BETWEEN TWO PERSONS (A to B, B to A . . .). The replies can have sense, containing a real progressive answer, bringing more or less new information vis-à-vis the previous speaker's expression or they can be repeated responses, which will introduce new information in small measure. We shall deal with this problem, however, in the chapter where we shall discuss dialogue content. (a) Various forms of SIMPLE DIALOGUE (address-answer) can be noted of the type: Nuti (2 years 5 months) "It'syours? - Cristi (2 years 7 months) Yes"; or: Gina (2 years 7 months) "What is this? - Cristi This is a picture"; or: Rodica (2 years 7 months) " I t ' s co(l)d. - Gina Yes, it's co(l)d".55

Sometimes, especially in young children, the reply REPEATS the address, eventually with a small variation, in order to express an AFFIRMATION in this way: Gina (2 years 7 months) "Mihaela, we're g[o\ing5(> to the swing? Mihaela (2 years 8 months) We're g[o] ing to the swing"; Nuti (2 years 7 months) "Is the chair yours? — Mihaela The chair is mine". Often, in small children, the reply has the character of NEGATION, either simple: Corina 2 years 3 months old "[refusing to hand over the doll] No, Yes! No, Yes! No, Yes! [= oh no! ] . - Ica (1 year 11 months) Yes! [=oh yes! ] "; Lucica (2 years) "A [= at] 57 the table! - Ica Not a' the table! "; Cristi (2 years 7 months) and Nuti (2 years 5 months) "Ad[r] iana! — Adriana (2 years 4 months) [refusing to give the doll] No! "; Nuti D. (2 years 7 months) "Gimme [the doll] ! - Daniela (2 years 2 months) Ugh! "; Marian S. (3 years 3 months)

57 "All the children sit on the bench! — Sveli (3 years 2 months) No! — Marian Oh yes! - Sveli Oh no! ". Or more complex: Daniela "[looking at a picture] The doggy goes bow-wow! - Nuti The doggy doen't go bow-wow. That goes bow! [points to another picture]"; T. S. - C. " T h e doll is mine. — Dan (2 years 4 months) The doll isn't yours, it's mine. Is it yours? "; T. S. - C. "Come, Adi, here [from near the tape recorder]. — Adi (2 years 3 months) Afo/ I don't w[a] nt to. Sings, lok [=look] 5 8 sings! ". These forms, frequent until 3Vi years, become more and more rare after this age. ( b ) Even in young children MORE COMPLEX, SUSTAINED DIALOGUE: forms also exist, consisting o f a succession o f phrases from the same speaker or even o f many more replies between partners.

Such 'discussions' can be carried out on the one hand between an adult and a child. For instance, with a younger child: T. S. - C. " What should I do? [=what should I draw? ] - lea (1 year 11 months) A -a chick. Come make a chick! Make 'ere! - T. S. - C. What? - I . Here. - T . S. - C. What should I do? - I. Poc, poc . . . no, smoke. - T. S. - C. What is the smoke like? - I . So, small. I w[a\nt^ lea pecil [= pencil] look here. Put, put there, come, put there! - T. S. - C. Look, I put it. - I. Yes? "; Georgeta (2 years 5 months) "Who hit t\h]is doll? " - T. S. - C. "A child, and he broke its head.- G. He bro[k j e & 1 its head! [nods her head] Poo/62 d o n , ». Rodica (2 years 7 months) "Mummy went to work. - T. S. - C. Where did she go? - R. To wo'k went mummy . . . went with Marin she went. - T. S. - C. Who went? - R. Went mummy with uncle Marin went to work".

1 have also followed the dialogue between adult and child in experimental situations, in order to establish under uniform conditions the manner in which this dialogue develops. The dialogue between the children and myself was recorded: Dorel D. (3 years 4 months), Zoe (4 years 4 months), Traian (4 years 10 months), Doina M. (6 years 8 months) and Andrei B. (7 years 2 months). At the beginning of the dialogue the child was left for a certain period, which was timed, to start the discussion. The new situation created - that of suddenly remaining alone with an adult, although familiar, face to face, sitting on chairs — somewhat intimidated them (Traian, for instance, who in the first moment had addressed the adult saying: "/ caught an ant, an'I killed it, so it won't bite", no longer continues, seeing that the adult is silent, and waits in a well-behaved manner). The dialogue with Dorel (3 years 4 months) is initiated by me, because after 30 seconds he has still not addressed me; likewise, after 10 seconds I also start the dialogue with Andrei B. (7 years 2 months). In contrast, Zoe (4 years 4 months) starts the discussion after 16 seconds [showing me the hole in the sole of her shoe] Mine is torn. — T. S. - C. Why did it

58 tear? Weren't you good? — Z. 'Cause I dragged my feet". Once the dialogue was started, the children entered easily into discussion relationships, and the older ones guided the discussion to the same extent as the adult. As far as the discussion with Dorel (3 years 4 months) is concerned, guiding of the dialogue was conducted almost entirely by the adult: T. S. - C. "['on the telephone'] Did you play at the nursery today? - Dorel Ye-es. T. S. - C. Yes? What did you play with? - D. [hesitates] Alone. - T. S. - C. Did you play alone? - D. [pauses] I also went to the yard, I played with 'Osttel [=Costel-]. - T. S. - C. What did you do? - D. W[i] th Ostel I played. - T. S. - C. Did you play with Costel? - D. Yes, with the sieve".

In the dialogue between the adult and the other children, however, the initiative belonged almost equally to the children, often modifying the course of the dialogue. In the course of the half-hour dialogue between the adult and Traian (4 years 10 months) the child took the initiative in changing the course of the discussion 25 times and the adult 26 times; and in the dialogue with Andrei B. (7 years 2 months) the child changed the discussion course 7 times and the adult 8 times. As such, the complexity of the dialogue is not due only to the adult's intervention. For instance: T. S. - C. "Do you like it here, Traienel? - Traian (4 years 10 months) Yes, and / also like those telephones. - T. S. - C. You'd like to play with them? - Tr. Yes. [Traian says that he is also 'bad' sometimes] - T. S. - C. Why do people say that you are bad? What do you do? - Traian [as a concession] I'm also bad. . . [small pause] Gheorghitfi got a bicycle. - T. S. -C. Who's Gheorghifa? - Tr. A boy from the - . - T. S. -C. From here, from the nursery? - Tr. Yes -. . a boy from the school - from the second grade . . . [continues to talk about Gheorghifa] "; T. S. - C. "Surely, they should not be torn up [the flowers] - Zoe O. (4 years 4 months) I was in Bra§ov in the fall - bu' there it was [emphasizes] O. K. to pick the flowers. - T. S. - C. Yes? Well, they were in the field, weren't they? - Z. Yes. - T. S. - C. Yes? And what flowers did you tear up there, in Bra$ov? - Z. Many bunches. - T. S. - C. Yes? What? Z. Er. . . There were chickens too . . . and chicks. - T. S. - C. Yes? - Z. Yes. And there was a big lake too, and some ducks were splashing in the water. - T. S. - C. Soo . . . - Z. There were many b - Zoe (4 years 2 months) Earrings. - Gabi M. (4 years) Which ones are earrings? — I. [simultaneously] Ealings with Z. [loudly] Earrings! - G. Bu'you said ealings. - 1. [corrects herself] How are the earrings put on? "; Zoe O. (4 years 2 months) "[narrating about a duck] . . . and it arranges its feathers. - Adi D. (3 years 9 months) Yes. And nods its head. - Z. -so. - A. -the feathers. - Z. -so. .. yes. [both laugh softly] - Z. [smiling] It likes to swim. - A. Yes. And it swam and-. - Mihaela Fo. (4 years 2 months) And the water became black. - A. Yes-and she pulled 'er out and-found-. - Z. It ate grass and salad. - A. Yes—yes, yes— and— and leaves, so, opened its mouth wide . . . - Gabi M. (4 years) But-also ate the grass. - Z. And the grass. A. And leaves. - M. And leaves. - G. [seriously] No-not leaves. Salad. - A. Yes, and salad. Salad of leavesCornelia M. (5 years 7 months) "[. . .] We have a little longer and we're going to school. - T. S. - C. Yes? - Dorin B. (5 years 5 months) Yess- er- no- we have still-. - Tania (5 years 4 months) [intervenes and interrupts] The big group is at

93 school. - D. [continues] -two years-. two more years till we go to school."

- T. —and finished. - D. The group . . . We have

S o m e t i m e s the children intervene jointly in order t o receive i n f o r m a t i o n , usually f r o m the adult; thus each one brings his o w n contribution alternately, in order t o persuade the adult t o answer: Zoe O. (4 years 2 months) "Bu' what is this? [the tape recorder) - Adi D. (3 years 9 months) Bu'what's this? - Zoe Comrade, what's this? Gabi M. (4 years) What's this? - Z. What's this? - G. What's this? - Z. What's this? [they repeat again in t u r n ] " ; Gabi M. (4 years) "Comrade, when are you going outside? - Zoe (4 years 2 months) [at the end she says together with him in unison] 'Oing outside? - G. When are we going out? — Z. [idem] -outside? - G. Comrade, when are we going outside? - Z. [idem, perfectly synchronized] When are we going outside? ;" Emil (7 years 1 month) "[in the game of 'bathroom'] Comrade, bu' why don't you put some water here, in-er, this big box? Dan Z. (7 years 2 months) Why- don't you put water:? - Andrei B. (7 years) Why don't you put water in the box? - Emil Comrade, why don't you put water:? - A. in this box. - E. -in this big, long box? So there'll be water! - D. So it'll pour water in the bathtub. - A. So he can have a real bath. - E. Yes". Cooperation o n the level o f concrete ACTION, reflected in dialogue and helped by it, is very frequent. Dialogue serves, for instance, to COMMUNICATE information meant to awaken the INTEREST o f the others towards an object, a person, a fact or as an INVITATION TO AN ACTION w h i c h the child wishes the others also to participate in effectively: Andu (5 years 5 months) " A n d look here, Jonas, how this is turning! [the tape recorder cartridge] - IonitaA. (5 years 8 months) Look! - Laura I. (6 years 1 month) Pay attention to how it turns! "; Adrian R. (7 years 3 months) [in the game o f ' d o c t o r ' ] Come, come, let's bandage the chil'! - Emil (7 years 1 month) Aha, you're right, because . . . [later] - Adrian 'Ome, let's bandage the child! Come, let's bandage the child! Come, let's bandage the child! Hey you, Milica, please! ". The appeal to a c o m m o n action or the reference t o interaction, b e f o r e the beginning o f the action or during its course, can be concretized ( a ) through an ORDER, ( p ) a REQUEST, ( Y ) ADVICE, o r ( 6 ) a demand or an o f f e r o f HELP: ( a ) Seicu (3 years 3 months) "[in the game of 'dining'] Hey, you, the pitcher fell! Hey you! The pitcher fell. Wait! " ; Mariana F. (3 years 2 months) "[idem] Dear me! You spilled [the pitcher]. You shouldn't put this! ; Mariana [idem] Give me the plate, so I can put the meat."-, Seicu [idem] "Give me a little water too. ; Mariana [idem] In[e]ed a ladale [= ladle'57] [ n\e\ed 158 io pUt in the food. . . Take - take this! ". Florin D. (6 years 3 months) " [ p u t s his ear to the microphone] Shut your mouths now! "; ( p ) Malina (5 years 2 months) "[in the game of'telephone' teaches Liliana to dial a number]

94 Stick- your little finger. - Olga (5 years 2 months) Stick your little finger, because the little finger fits": (Y) Dan V. (7 years 1 month) "[playing hopscotch] Hopscotch isn't so, it isn't so! - Mariana C. (6 years 8 months) Hopscotch isn't so. [later:] Doina M. (6 years 8 months) Come, you. Look, so, one jumps on one foot." ', ( 6 ) iimil (7 years 1 month) " [ i n the game of 'bathroom'] Wait, I'll repair the tub, you, wait, I'll repair your tub."

Also dialogue serves to COORDINATK or to simply COMMENT - in the framework of collective action - on personal action or of that of the partner: Corina A. (3 years 2 months) "[in the game of 'dining'] Who wants cocoa? — Sveli (3 years 2 months) Me, me! . . . I want cocoa. - C. No, go away from here, you're cooking the food. . . Who wants cocoaa? " ; Seicu (3 years 3 months) " [ t o Corina] I'm making cocoa, me. - Corina (3 years 2 months) I'm making cocoa, you're making noise"; Zoe (4 years 2 months) "[in the game of 'telephone'] You don't have to repeat after me, too. - Adi D. (3 years 9 months) Oh yes. - Z. Comrade, Adi Dumitrescu said that he mus[t] repeat after me. - A. Bu' whatt... - Gabi M. (4 years) You - you say something else! "; Gabi M. (4 years) " [ t h e game of 'dining'] No, with the ladle, don't you know that? I to each one I'll put water. Yes? Yes? - Tea. - Zoe (4 years 2 months) Do you have any? - Mihaela (4 years 2 months) Come I'll put a tea spoon to each of you [. . .] - Z. Please. I'll put to each one a plate. - G. No, I'll put to each one of you a- a glass! " ; Gabi M. (4 years) " [ i n the game o f ' d i n i n g ' ] No, no, no. Two - four. This is for me, yes?- Mihaela l o. (4 years 2 months) Yes. Zoe O. (4 years 2 months) This- give me too, Mihaela? Look how I sit. - lleana T. (4 years 8 months) She's not giving me either! Mihaela [imperatively] Enough, wait on the bench! — because I'm not giving you any more, if you're not good. - Gabi [yells, angrily] Bu' I'm not sitting- But well then but then I can sit at the table! Let's wait for the food! - Mihaela Wait, but. . . " ; Dorin B. (5 years 5 months) "in the game o f ' d i n i n g ' ] Cornelia, don't roll all the glasses on the floor! - Cornelia M. (5 years 7 months) Wait I'll give you a little milk! - D. No, don't give me anything more! " ; Laura I. (6 years 1 month) " [ i n the game of 'dining'] Andu, come so I can wash you . . . Dear me-the water is too hot! - Ionita A. (5 years 8 months) Wait I'll put some cold water! Wait! " ; Dan V. (7 years 1 month) " [ i n the yard, at hopscotch] Soo, me first. - Mariana C. (6 years 8 months) No, me - Doina F. (7 years 1 month) Come, come, you-. - Mariana Until I miss."

- Mariana First I begin. - Moses (7 years) I - I begin first.

In other situations cooperation appears even more clearly through the utilization of dialogue for the PLANNING of action collectively, before starting it or in the course of its development: Dan H. (3 years 5 months) " [ i n the game of 'dining'] Leave it, because it's - now let's change the game . . . Vegetables... [ to T. S. - C. ] I am making food, and she .. . mother takes vegetables"', Laura I. (6 years 1 month) "Wait, wait - I'll tell you something! We pretended that we worked and... [the others continue laughing and talk about something else]. - L. [insists and makes them listen] He was - he was outside in the yard and he was playing - and some guests came to us. It was Florin Doinea, yes? - Ionita A. (5 years 8 months) Yes. Let's go. - L. Hey, bu' he wasn't talking. The kid was playing. ..

95 around here - so it was. - I. Wait, wait, wait - so I can shake the chair, [beats the chair] - Florin D. (6 years 8 months) [knocks on the 'door' like a guest] - I. Come in! "; Dan Z. (7 years 2 months) "[in the game of 'bathroom'] And I had to use boiled water! - Emil (7 years 1 month) Shshsh - Ooh! The whole tub is full, of - boiled water. And I let it go. And it poured from here - and I couln 't jump from the tub anymore, because the tub was too big! - D. Yes, let's go. E. Fsh - ugh - ow! - ow! It's burning me here too! ; Adrian R. (7 years 3 months) [to Emil] Tell me what to do, tell me what to do and I'll do it. - Dan Z. (7 years 2 months) You were letting the water out, you - er - closed it. Come! "

In relatively superior forms in older children complicated situations in the framework of cooperation are resolved on a verbal level: Doina M. (6 years 7 months) "I'm taking the yellow one [telephone]. - Mariana C. (6 years 7 months) I, the bleu one. - Relu (6 years 6 months) I too the blue one. . . Stop messing with-. - Mariana Bu' I too the blue one. - Relu But there are only two telephones. - Doina P. (6 years 5 months) If there were as many as we are... - Doina M. We are four kids. Yes. [etc.] - Relu Both of them at the yellow - and two at the blue. - Doina P. Bu'how can you talk if: say two - then it means that two parents-. - Relu Oh no: two at the yellow, and. . . and a boy and a girl the

yellow."

Does dialogue occupy an important place as a means of cooperation, in confront with the other scopes which it fulfills? The purpose which dialogue serves varies in relation to education, to the situation in which the children are, to their a g e . 1 5 9 The motive - as far as it concerns the objects as such or the mental state of the children — which determines the release of dialogue is connected in young children especially to the immediate needs of cognition or to the realization of wish (for instance, the possession of an object or the demonstration of a personal capacity). In older children dialogue satisfies to a greater extent the needs of a more detailed knowledge (even of some technical details) or at a higher level of abstracting, next to the needs of collective participation in an action. Following one of the experimental situations in which five 4 year-old children participated, it is observed that dialogue has a purpose, when dealing with the game of 'telephone': requests and spontaneous communications or information, formulations of wishes (what mother, father should bring, etc.); in the course of collective play, dialogue especially contains commentary and replies for the coordination of the action, or complaints to the adult, reciprocal orders, an 'imaginary' cliché dialogue (for the purchasing of 'vegetables', 'at the market') and rarely a very vague planning; in free discussion spontaneous information appears as well, especially concerning the person himself (what he has, what each one is usually doing), commentaries on the action and spontaneous narrating of a happening, made COLLECTIVELY to the adult.

96 At the age of 6 years, in one of the meetings in which 4 children participated, free discussion referred especially to reciprocal information about the tape recorder, about the experimenter's watch, about what each one had at home (as ANSWERS , however, to the partners' questions), then a few orders and a single protest to the adult; 'on the telephone', information is given as an ANSWER to questions (about the family, about birthdates) and calls or proposals are transmitted (of going to a certain place); collective play shows that dialogue especially includes commentary and the coordination of action, 'imaginary' cliché dialogue( between the 'doctor' and 'patients') and a clear planning; also jokes appear frequently. At the age of 7 years, the 4 boys in the course of the collective game dialoguize almost exclusively for cooperation (with commentary on the action, orders and clear forms of planning); information necessary to the game is also communicated, JOINT REQUESTS to the experimenter and jokes, often of a critical nature, are made; also, the same boys, followed in the yard at the game of hopscotch, dialoguize only in order to coordinate their action, and STANDING on the swing with facing benches, they reciprocally transmit information, with an important role of cognition. The role of dialogue in the general activity of the child is therefore very great. It first of all makes possible the relationships with the adult, serving on the one hand for the satisfaction of the needs and wishes of the child, and on the other hand facilitating the educational action of the adult. At the same time, however, the dialogue also has the role — either concerning the relationships between the adult and child or the reciprocal relationships between children - of reciprocal regulation of actions and at the same time of increasing knowledge (as much through the conveying of knowledge from one partner to the other, as through the clarification of personal ideas due to their expression towards the interlocutor). The two purposes of dialogue — that of serving for the transmission of knowledge and that of facilitating cooperation — appear closely related, especially in older children. The great importance of dialogue for cooperation and implicitly for the development of a proper adaptation of the children to the group makes it imperative that in preschool institutions the accent be put on the simultaneous development and also through reciprocal action of both aspects. The development of activity through cooperation in children, and implicitly the dialogue, depends on the educational conditions, as we have shown above. But also inverse action is not less important: educational efforts for the development of conversation and its channeling towards certain themes lead at the same time to a development of the relations of collective activity and strengthen the relationships in the framework of children's groups. 1 6 0 3.6.2.

The content

of

dialogue, i. e . , the

THEMES

upon which the discussion

97 is carried, are varied, but of course they vary depending on the various factors and firstly they depend on the children's age - on their intellectual level, their interests, their knowledge, etc. In general, the themes are connected to the development of the child's thought and an evolution by ages can be followed — significant for the development of thought — of the number, nature, frequency, dynamics of the themes. At 2 to 3 years of age, the themes are much fewer and are usually directly connected to vital needs or present interests, which concern the children at the actual moment; the content is also very much permeated with affectivity. That is why small children often utilize dialogue in order to PROTEST, in order to make various denunciations to the adult, in order to brag about what each one possesses (clothing, toys, etc.). In the experimental games, the discussion contents as such are very poor ('on the telephone' — therefore in a dialogue outside of immediate needs — they say almost nothing, apart from the stereotype "How are you ? " ) and especially the mirroring of the superficial aspects of the various situations dominates (for instance, in the game of 'kitchen' and 'dining', nothing appears regarding the buying of provisions from the 'market', the dialogue reflecting the direct passing to the 'eating of the meal' - the occasion of which particularly emphasizes the various incidents or elementary actions: a child informs that another "spills the water" or "breaks the spoon", or says "I want water", "give compote", etc.); 1 6 1 also the NAMING of different OBJECTS predominates in dialogue and not so much the specific actions which are fulfilled by them. It is interesting to underline that the 'technical' aspects only occupy a place in their dialogue for the purpose of reflecting fear, usually signaling danger (for instance, with reference to the socket, a child warns the other, yelling frightened: "It shocks! ")162 Following the content of the conversations further, 1&3 at the age of 316 years it is observed first of all that the discussions are more united, less scattered on different lines, from the point of view of the themes, than at 2 to 3 years of age; nevertheless, the discussion still reveals a great mobility from one idea to the other and a high level of affectivity (the children Q U A R R E L for certain objects or certain roles, DENOUNCE the others to the adult, pointing out to him different forbidden actions). At the same time they begin TO U N D E R L I N E , critically, that which is 'ugly' to do (for instance, the group constantly points out the "ugly" LAUGHTER of a child). The themes are few in the dialogue 'on the telephone', but more COMMENTARIES appear on the fringes of the conversations. In the game of 'kitchen', as before, the preoccupation with details - less directly known of the procurement of food does not appear; in contrast, the children begin to discuss some details which are known from their experience, like the fact that "dishes are washed" (and 'at the doctor', although discussion is carried superficially, upon a general illness — usually,

98 a "bruise" - certain details with respect to TREATMENT also appear). At the age of 4 years, although the children discuss a great deal on various themes, they continue to have a poor dialogue 'on the telephone', accompanied by many COMMENTARIES and CORRECTIONS, they continue to DENOUNCE and to brag (adding various explanations, as for instance NAMES O f PLACES they have been to). Dialogue is also carried, however, to make reciprocal compliments or to manifest CARE for the partners (for instance, in order to serve them at the table, to ask them what they want, etc.). In collective games during discussion many names of objects, and the observation of many details (not always essential) can be noted; the preoccupation with the 'market' appears (even an insistence with respect to the fact that everything "costs money"), and in the game of 'doctor', the discussion reminiscent of the HOSPITAL gives indications about certain illnesses (chicken pox), certain symptoms (throat pain) and about the treatment. For instance, there is general discussion about bandaging, about the thermometer and about the taking of temperature: 7-oc (4 years 2 months) " [ t o T. S. - C. , in the game 'at the doctor's':] Do you have a watch? - so we can see when - we have to see the thomemeter [= thermometer] ": Zoc (4 years 2 months) "[in the game 'at the doctor's' about the bandage] Soo - Come, let me do something! - with it-. - Adi D. (3 years 9 months) It doesn't tie any more? - /.. Look, see? look, what I'm doing, how comrade Mia did with the dolls. . . Look, see? [talks rarely, pedantically: ] You leave an edge, and on the edge you do this Look so. - Gabi M. ( 4 years) [simultaneously] Yes, yes, I know, I know, I know. — Z. Leave it, I'll do it! - G. So - bu'bu' me - me .. . - Ileana (4 years 8 months) Then you tie! - Z. But I'm tying, I'm tying! bu'I'll make a bow. - I. Yes, and then - I'll put this, and

What appears more different at 4V£ years of age are details with respect to provisioning (for example, during discussion in the 'kitchen' or in the 'market' the following are mentioned: carrots, garlic, onions, cabbage, potatoes), or with respect to certain spectacles (circus, movies). The children continue to manifest fear towards machines ( t h e tape recorder is presumed to "burn") and in general do not notice what is essential (the tape recorder, for instance, is "a white machine") or at most they are concerned with clarifying in group elementary 'technical' aspects connected to familiar objects, "not dangerous" (for example, in connection with the 'bathroom', they discuss the way in which the water must flow through the pipes). At 5 and 5!/S years of age, the imitation of many of the adult's actions is reflected in dialogue (for instance, the situation at home: the father comes to the table, the telephone rings, the mother serves the food, the children are not being good or they are doing their homework, etc.); the imitation is main-

99 tained, however, at the surface of the actions or many things are interpreted in dialogue without actually being understood (for example, although concern for the preparation of food begins to appear, the details are missing; or, 'at the doctor's', the action is limited to using the thermometer, to lying down, to bandaging). An important place is occupied by jokes, which often cause the line of dialogue to deviate. Between 5 and 6 years of age great changes gradually take place, which appear clearly in dialogue, especially in children 6 years of age. They no longer discuss usual toys very much; in contrast, preoccupation with the bicycle (and with its repair) appears and in general with the TECHNICAL ASPECTS of the toys or of other objects: they discuss - without the adult having explained - the manner in which the tape recorder 'functions' (for example, they show how "the current passes"), or the radio, television set, etc. They are very preoccupied by the place where their parents work ('the water plant', the 'polyclinic , etc.), and give details about the characteristics of their profession. They like to talk about the places they go to (circus, theater, museum, football, match, restaurant, etc. ), many times, however, imitating the adults in conversations about these places. In general, in dialogues during games, they imitate the parents' situation a lot (they assume the role of'husband', of 'wife1, stand 'guard at the poly clinic','take care of the children', have 'guests'; in their conversations they discuss in detail family life, and the number of children , in the game of 'kitchen', finally, is reflected quite clearly and in detail the process of preparing food (the meat can spoil, is washed, it is fried or is put in the oven, etc.). Among the preoccupations — some of which will be accentuated - begins to appear the school and the time. Toward GVi years of age, the preoccupation for falling of teeth and for their growth is accentuated in dialogue, and in the game of 'doctor' they give details about current illnesses at this age (like measles) or new symptoms (such as more localized pain of stomach or teeth). In their criticism they reciprocally attribute more abstract epithets (laggard, good, industrious) or they boast about the profession they will choose for themselves (for example, "engineer of aeroplanes and tractors", a profession for which they know that "you must take so many books and read", "scientific and technical books"), the girls declare that they will marry and know why they will choose a certain boy (for instance, the one who will become "engineer of aeroplanes and tractors"). The discussion gains precision through the correct use in practical situations, also of the guidelines recently learned more systematically: the days of the week (Monday, Tuesday, etc. ; for instance: Mariana C. (6 years 7 months) " [ ' o n the telephone'] When we'll have time [we will go]. - Doina M. (6 years 7 months) [impatiently]. Hey, ah, when we'll have time! Say what

100 day [emphasizes], Mariana! Monday, Tuesday-. come Tuesday. - M. Then Monday."),

- M. Tuesday [etc.]. - D o i n a / c a n ' t

or the colors (for instance, in the dialogue for the distribution of'telephones'; it is interesting to note that, for example, at 3 l h years of age I recorded repetition in unison of the names of certain colors - pink, blue, yellow, black—, however, not with a practical purpose, but rather for the pleasure of repeating more recently learned words, or to 'boast' with them). Finally, at the age of 7 years, the dialogue — which gradually has become more coherent — has a content different than at the other ages, particularly therough the DETAILS of the themes and through the expression of a more elaborated knowledge of certain situations; the technical explanations, which occupy a very important place, denote detailed knowledge about the radio, for example (the children talk about "the magic eye", etc.), and the child's attempt to resolve certain problemes through his own means (for example, Emil [7 years 1 month] explains the operation of the tape recorder in this way, to the other children: "When we talked then, the word was left in the machine"). Concerning each situation many details appear in the discussion: in connection with family life, in connection with the objects with which the parents work (for example, discussions about the make of various automobiles - Zim, Pobeda — , about seals, recording machine, etc.), in connection with the different manners of eating each food (with the spoon, with the tea spoon, etc.), in connection with film subjects, with the symptoms of different illnesses or with hospitalization. Numbers also often awaken discussion wherever they appear (it is interesting to note that if at the age of 4 we record, referring to 'temperature', the expression "has three eight six", and at the age of AVi years we noted "twentwo",i64 at the age of 5 years " t h i r f o u r " , at the age of 5Vi years "twenysix", at the age of 616 years "fiftynine degrees", at the age of 7 years we note the correct information concerning the temperature declared "high": "Has thirty-nine! "). If the imitation of certain adult situations persists, in contrast the children also discuss a lot outside these imitated situations, sometimes with great seriousness — in order to reciprocally resolve confusions, for instance — other times joking, reciprocally teasing each other or establishing various relations or attributes in the collective. I noted more rarely at this age conversations about toys; in contrast, in spontaneous discussions, general events from reality are often reflected. For example: Laurentiu (7 years 1 m o n t h ) " [ i n the course of spontaneous dialogue, recorded in the court yard of the nursery; about the arrival of some delegation] They came like this:

101 Vietnam, China. - Marian (7 years 1 month) I have all the flags, I have all the flags. L. Indonesia came, you. M. Indonesians? - Ernil (7 years 1 month) It came! ".

The reflection of reality in dialogue is also observed in younger children; however, towards 7 years of age it occupies a more important place and it has the character of some experiences directly lived and relatively better assimilated. The children prove, as they advance in age, a spontaneous interest more and more accentuated for knowing reality and for its discussion in the collective, to the extent of their reasoning abilities and sometimes taking over purely verbal knowledge, incompletely assimilated. In discussions appear references to political events, to technical discoveries — rockets, satellites, the "flight to the moon", etc. This interest, also awakened to a large extent due to discussions of the adults around them, reflects, through its concrete manifestation in dialogue, the level of development of child thought at different ages, the evolution in the course of which all sorts of information from their environment are selected, assimilated, or remade for discussion. To these are added the intervention of the adults who, in the educational process, intentionally deliver to the child CERTAIN knowledge, discuss with him CERTAIN things, keeping count of the level of age reached. Not only the nature of the themes as such vary with age, but also their frequency. (From approximately 100 replies recorded in the game of'telephone', at 4'/i years of age there are: 25 replies about mother, 13 about the parents' occupation, 1 0 C O M M E N T A R I E S on the mode of speaking on the telephone, 8 about dialing of the number, 8 about "who is on the phone", 8 indicate the theme - "about what to talk about" —, and the rest contain commentaries on the action as such; while at the age of 7 years, 71 replies are about the functioning of the tape recorder, 13 about age, 9 about the game of 'automobile', the rest are questions to the adult about the tape recorder). The dominant themes also give longer sequences of replies; in other words, the dialogue structure itself varies with the themes and in fact with the interests mirrored in their selection. It is observed as well that the lower number of themes at young ages is correlated also with a more frequent mechanical repetition of the replies, while at older ages, next to the variety as such of the themes, fewer repetitions of the partner's replies are noted. At the same time, the limitation of the themes in young children's dialogue is correlated with their greater mobility (and the changing of the theme often trains the modification of the subgroup, because either the launching of a new theme in another subgroup causes new partners to intervene, or the changing of the theme itself is provoked by the fact new partners enter into the discussion). While in older children, although in general the dialogue includes more themes, nevertheless if each particular situation is considered,

102

a greater constancy of the same theme is observed. Of course, however, even the dialogue of 7 year-old children differs, from the point of view of the content, from that of school children and more so from adult's dialogue, first of all due to the amount of knowledge which the children can possess, but also due to interests specific to the age, as well as the strong domination of affectivity. Even in older children, dialogue deviation is not only rarely observed under the impression of a new fact more INTKRLSTING for children at that moment: Anca L. (5 years 8 months) "[was talking on the 'telephone' with Vlad 1'. (5 years 5 months), but suddenly: Comrade, there's a cockroach, a small glow worm, leave it here, so he can light your way! [they all sit on the carpet, following the little bug!".

Because the content of the child's dialogue is closely connected with the level of development of his thought, the discussions are maintained especially on a concrete level, connected, particularly in small children, to present situations; therefore, the discussions are carried on some rather superficial aspects (they are only gradually enriched through details which in time become the important ones). The children rarely discuss on an abstract level and even more so the discussion themes are rarely abstract in themselves; generally, they prefer not to depart from the concrete level. Andrei B. (7 years 2 months) " [ a b o u t the indicator of the number of revolutions on the tape recorder| Hey! it goes [emphasizes). This clock, it's not broken! - Doina M. (6 years 8 months) How do you know? - A. You can see! - D. How do you see? - A. But - if I can see - er -. [then changes the subject]".

In discussions with an adult, the children sometimes try to touch the abstract level which their partners propose, without always succeeding in expressing themselves coherently or still arriving at a concrete level. For instance, Traian (4 years 10 months), asked by the experimenter if he knows what it means to be 'bad' — as he sais before, that he is - , cannot explain and avoids the answer, diverting the discussion: "Gheorghita got a bicycle"; or, telling how he speaks 'alone', in fact looses the logical train of thought: "Sometimes, when I don't want at the nursery . . . I tell myself: 'Leave it, I'll make it for mommy - when - if I come late one day and the comrade nurse isn't here'. . . " ; in contrast, Andrei B. (7 years 1 month) can discuss quite logically and can reason clearly to the adult why he said that he wishes to have a brother, and not a sister (because mother says that she will give him his clothes to wear), or why he doesn't like it at the beach (because there are small flies and he cannot sit with his eyes open in the sun, etc.).

103 The powerful infiltration of affectivity provokes to a great extent the mobility of the conversation themes and at the same time the contradictory discussions - sometimes shaded by negativism in younger children — or organized dialogued quarrels in older children. Also to the level of the development of thought — as well as to the influence of affectivity - are due the discussions with a purely 'verbal' character, which sometimes degenerate into digressions or jokes or absurdities on certain objects or facts which the children do not know directly, but which they wish to discuss like 'grown up people', out of vanity and imitation. Such an attitude appears, for instance, in the following parody of the reaction of spectators at a 'match': Ionita A. (5 years 8 months) "Shall we watch the game on television? \ the television set is imaginary]. - l r iorin D. (6 years 3 months) Come here! - Laura I. (6 years 1 month) That one was the television set, yes? - lv. The score is three to one in favor o f . . . [the voices overlap; it is heard: ] - Andrei B. (6 years 2 months) For ala bala the orange! 165 [laughs]. - I. In favor of Dinamo Bucurefti. - F. No! The score is three to one in favor of the Army. Finished - the Army heat them! [laughs]. - A. The Army! - I. The Army heat! The Central House of the Army beat them . . . I-', [contradicts himself: ] The score is seven to eight in favor of Dinamo Bacure$ri. Hurrah! Hurrah!. . . ".

The logical thread of the sequences of replies, as well as the force of argument through dialogue appear in a more consistent manner only in older children. In younger ages, 'argumentation' is realized particularly through the succession or reinforcement of affirmations and negations (Yes indeed! —No indeed.'), 166 or through the intensification of the voice rising to yells, or even by passing, through using force, to actions contrary to the partner's wishes. In older children, the development of thought, and, moreover, the general development, make logical argumentation possible through accumulations of content, through the expression of some ideas which will convince the partner. In the following example, Liliana, emotional, cannot clearly sustain her argument, that she should not continually be given, in the game of 'dining', the role of a 'kid' who must 'go into the yard'; in return, Ghita and especially Malina bring arguments which, also being clearly expressed, convince her: Liliana B. (4 years 9 months) "Bu' do you know that good. . . that the girls who - do you know that the girls who don't - who don't - who buy food do not go to play outside? - Olga R. (5 years 2 months) Yes indeed - because school girls play, isn't that so? Ghita ( 4 years 11 months) You did your homework - and now you must go outside, so you can play! - O. Sleeps a little [L. interrupts her] . . . Sleeps a little and so she goes outside. - Malina (5 years 2 months) Dear-. - L. Bu' it means that I'm a kid! M. Dear, you know that my sister is big and goes to school, and then goes for a walk with the girls who go to school - Do you know? - er - on the street, through apartment

104 houses-. - O. Yes, through apartment the house."

houses. - M. Yes, but they don't stay only in

Also, in the dialogue of older children some precision in the expression (and in defining) of the notions utilized begins to appear — precision which in their turn they expect from the partners: Mariana C. (6 years 7 months) "[in the game o f ' d o c t o r ' ] Bu' still he has [emphasized] temperature. Has, has - a little. - Doina P. (6 years 5 months) How, a little? - M. But - he has! - D. Then say that I have [emphasizes] -I have - not a 'little'! ". Doina M. (6 years 8 months) " [ t o Andrei, w h o had shown her the numbers o n the revolution indicator of the tape recorder] . . . Numbers are made. — Andrei B. (7 years 2 months) Look! - D. Hmmm. A. Numbers are not made [stresses] - D. Hey - there are! [emphasizes] . . . there are - er - soo! ".

If, therefore, analyzing the relations between dialogue and general activity, or between dialogue and the development of social relationships among children, we were able to observe that they develop reciprocally, likewise, discussion of dialogue content has shown us the close connection between the development of dialogue and that of thought and generally of cognition. Consequently, on a practical level, dialogue and thought can be developed reciprocally, through an action upon each one of them.

3.7.

ANALYSIS OP DIALOGUE FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF THE FORM OF

EXPRESSION

The study of dialogue cannot be completely considered without also making an ANALYSIS o f t h e ASPECTS o f a FORMAL o r d e r o f c h i l d r e n ' s dialogue.

We shall concern ourselves here only with PROCEDURES SPECIFIC TO DIALOGUE and with all that is characteristic of the child's langage in general. There exist certain aspects of langage which are more utilized in dialogue — which have a certain function in dialogued speech, or which are quite indispensable to this, or which only appear in dialogue. We shall be interested here to follow on a broad scale particularly the level, and eventually the specific manner, in which children adopt the constructions inherent in the dialogue or the stereotyped formulae (important for communication economy and for eliciting reactions as much in the listener as also in the speaker himself); we shall also be interested to establish the existence of certain procedures specific to children or through which they substitute certain verbal means and general strategy of the adult's dialogue.

105 3.7.1.

Certain grammatical forms or formulae - or ev«n w o r d s w h i c h also

have other f u n c t i o n s in speech — are usually utilized in dialogue in order t o mark ADDRESS, that is, the direct relationship w i t h the listener, either in order t o signal t o h i m in this w a y the start o f a conversation, or in order to s p e c i f y or reinforce in the course o f the conversation the direct appeal to the interlocutor, or t o emphasize the close o f the discussion or the rapport at a certain quality (age, f u n c t i o n , e t c . ) o f the partner.

(a) The forms of expression characteristic of the child for the starting of a conversation are usually some formulae of direct interpellation such as: look, hey you, hello167 ('on the telephone') etc. , or the vocative of a proper or even common name (examples have also been given on the occasion of the analysis of ADDRESS, pp. 47, 56). Sometimes, especially with the names of individualized persons, the articulate nominative is utilized in the function of the vocative (probably, on the one hand because, the nominative being the first case learned and the most frequent, a generalization takes place, and on the other hand because the nominative — inarticulate, however — appears with this function also in colloquial Romanian: see, for example, Driver! Porter! 168): Andrei M. (3 years 6 months) "[imperatively, in the course of a game] Driver, driver,169 [et's go to the doctor! [to another child] Come, child, 1 7 0 come, let's go to the doctor! ". Younger children, however, also resort to dialogue (especially in the form of questions) without utilizing special introductory formulae. The invitation to dialogue is sometimes marked by an apparently insignificant detail, as for instance a pause — according to the formulae utilized as an appellative — through which the speaker appears to await the answer of the partner, i. e . , his signal of'reception', in order to then continue the 'message' (Emil [7 years 1 month] " [ t o T. S. - C.] Comrade - [waits] - Why don't you put some water? "). (b) The noting of DIRECT appeal to the INTERLOCUTOR IN THE COURSE OF THE DIALOGUE is a procedure very much utilized by children, who feel the need of strengthening the concrete connection with the partner. One of the fundamental procedures of dialogue in general, not only in children, is the utilization of the 2nd person of the verbs and its alternation — in order to indicate the different levels of the conversation situation - with the 1st person and, more rarely, the 3rd person. This characteristic dialogue procedure appears early in children and we can consider it a criterion as much of the appearance of dialogue as also of the existence of the communication function (therefore as an argument against the 'egocentrism' thesis). For example: Dan H. (3 years 5 months) "[to Mihaela] Close the telephone

- and wait until I've

106 dialing m(.v] number.": Stela C. (4 years 7 months) " [ ' o n the telephone'] And what are you doing there? Why don't. . . don't we go with you too? " ; Vlad S. (5 years 3 months) " [ t o Stela about T. S. - C.[ Look, see - [she 1 writes, writes - See? ". Or here is an example with a longer sequence of replies: Dan H. (3 years 5 months) " [in the game of 'doctor', to Lucica] Give me the bandage. - Mihaela Fr. (3 years 7 months) Let me undo it, because there is a knot here. I'll undo it, because there's a knot. - D. Until then, I'll keep this. - M. No, no. - D. [conciliating! Leave it, because you - you want to be the mo - you the mother and with the child." The alternation o f the f o r m o f expressing the person is an i m p o r t a n t procedure for the proper d e v e l o p m e n t o f dialogue and appears early ( s o m e t i m e s the procedures being c o n s c i o u s l y e m p h a s i z e d b y the children): Corina A. (3 years 2 months) "Do you have^-H toys? Do you? Say - do you have, do you have? - Felicia (3 years 2 months) Do you have? - C. No, I [emphasized] am asking you! - Mariana 11. (3 years 2 months) Seicu hit me! - Seicu(3 years 3 months) Oh no, you hit yourself. — M. No, you [stressed] hit me, with your foot - yours! "; Rodica C. (4 years 4 months) "[in the game o f ' d i n i n g ' to Lena] Give me wine. - Andrei F. (4 years 6 months) I want some too! - Lena G. (4 years 6 months) But if I give you this! "; Stela C. (4 years 7 months) " [ i n the game o f ' t e l e p h o n e ' ] Rodica talks after you, and I speak alone [...]; [then] She comes first, because she's smaller, then he follows, then me because I'm bigger. - Vlad S. (5 years 3 months) Then, I'm going here. - Rodica L. (4 years 6 months) Hey I [emphasized-] am going." The 3rd person appears especially in order t o indicate t h e situation t o the o t h e r partners, t h u s marking a level o f indirect relationship t o w a r d s t h e o n e in w h i c h the partners designated b y the 1st and 3rd persons are s i t u a t e d . (Andrei B. [7 years] " [ t e l l s the others a b o u t Emil w h o 'bandaged' h i m ] How he knotted

me - it's so tight that I can't bear it!

As if he had

Ooh!

choked

me! ".) H o w e v e r , a procedure s p e c i f i c t o child's dialogue consists in the fact that s o m e t i m e s during the game w i t h roles, the speaker uses the 3rd person instead o f the 1st person in order t o designate the personage w h i c h he represents ( t h u s disassociating h i m s e l f temporarily f r o m the 'role' w h i c h he has and at the same time wishing t o s p e c i f y that in the real situation the imaginary personage w h i c h he is e m b o d y i n g really a c c o m p l i s h e s the a c t i o n s or has the qualities o f w h i c h h e is speaking): Andrei F. (4 years 6 months) " [ i n the game of 'dining' he is the 'father'; addressing Rodica, the 'child' ] Do you know that the girl doesn 't pour water for the father? The father pours for himself. - Lena G. (4 years 6 months) [the 'mother'] Yes - and then I pour for myself, and then I'll pour for you-"; or Andrei: "The father was sitting at the table"; Liliana B. (4 years 9 months) " [ t h e 'nurse' in the game of 'doctor'] Now I — I was bandaging him. - Malina (5 years 2 months) [the 'doctor'] Yes - bu' now I was putting the ban - er - the thermometer. - Olga R. (5 years 2 months) [the 'sick child'] Yes, bu' mother [emphasized-] was bandaging her son, wasn't she? "

107 But next to this basic procedure of marking the various levels of the situation in the course of the dialogue by the alternation of the verb's persons, children utilize — to a greater extent than adults - other means of striking insistence, also in order to invite the partner to pay attention, to listen, etc. In particular the cliché-formulae of attracting attention are used, or of inciting {look, hear, come, let's go), I 7 2 or direct interpellation (the partner's name in the vocative or nominative or the interjections hey you, look here,m various affective formulae such as dear, I 7 4 etc.) next to other more concrete procedures such as gestures towards the partner: §eicu (3 years 3 months) "(brusquely, like a threat, in jest] Hey you! 1 7 5 |all laugh] - Sveli (3 years 2 months) Hey you! [they laugh loudly and all repeat: "Hey you! "] ; Andrei F. (4 years 6 months) "['on the telephone'] Come home faster! - Rodica C. (4 years 4 months) Noo - because I'm going to the nursery, dear", Stela (4 years 7 months) "Leave 'em, Vlad Silea, stop doing that. Vlad Silea, stop messing there! "; Doina M. (6 years 8 months) "[to Doina P.] Don't move, girl! "1 7 6; Otilia (6 years 11 months-) "Child, child! '77 Why are you tearing the thread of the bandage? "; Andrei B. (7 years) "Hey you, it must be put in the tub! "; Emil (7 years 1 month) "Look - this is how you fix it! "

But the emphasizing of the various persons especially appears as a frequent procedure in children - for instance, indicating the addresses - through the utilization of the personal pronouns (a procedure less usual in the conjugation of verbs in Romanian): Corina (2 years) "You [ s ] / f l 7 8 on (¡¡e hench! "; Mihaela Fr. (3 years 7 months) "Who is sitting on this chair? - Dan H. (3 years 5 months) Me. - M. Wait, you [emphasized] sir."; Gabi M. (4 years) "['on the telephone'] You - you say something else. - Zoe (4 years 2 months) Yes . . . er. . . me, daddy, I'm doing fine . . . And how are you? Fine too? "; Andrei F. (4 years 6 months) "Now I was giving you the potatoes - and you were frying them, and I was eating fried potatoes".

(c) For the closing of discussion, the children rarely use special formulae of politeness, in order to excuse themselves, in order to postpone the conversation, etc. , dialogue usually being ended abruptly by the speaker, or even through interruption by the listener, without any excuse. Usual formulae, noted especially in the conversations 'on the telephone', are those of parting, such as so long, bye-bye179 (sometimes both together), learned very early: even a smaller child, Dorel (3 years), who could discuss hardly anything 'on the telephone', knew that he must end the conversation by saying "So long"l&° (also, he knew that he must begin by saying "Hello! " ) . 1 8 1 These formulae are also used when addressing adults or in the games where the children have the roles of adult persons (for example, children aged 5 years say "So long,

108

bye-bye,\l&2 addressing the 'doctor'). By way of exception (and the children have expressed themselves by laughing at the fact that there were formulae unusual among children), the dialogue ends with "Cheerio! " I 8 3 or "Cheerio, good luck! " I 8 4 (Ueana I. , 5 years 11 months old). (d) Through certain forms of address children indicate the fact that they pay attention to a particular QUALITY IN THE PARTNER (age, function). Thus, they utilize the formulae of politeness which we have noted previously (see above, pp. 75-78) or talking with the educators they address them through the formula "Comrade (educator/';185 also, they address the doctor saying: "Comrade" or "Mister Doctor" (see also the observations concerning the way of expressing the vocative function on p. 105). Also in this respect we meet, however, a peculiarity specific to the child, especially younger ones, namely — except for the cases where cliches are used -- avoiding address through the specification of function (first of all because usually they do not know it). Nevertheless, the children are conscious that they must address the adult with special formulae, such as comrade, auntie, uncle,186 etc. , which they know they do not have to utilize for child-partners (for example, Florin D. [6 years 3 months] "['on the telephone'] My name is comradeDoinea. Ionita A. [5 years 8 months] Say that your name is Florin [emphasized] Doinea, not comrade Doinea! "). In general they feel that they need to differentiate partners in a certain way and therefore they frequently use their name or they are concerned to know the names of the new partners, even when speaking of adults (in order to note the specific differences between the various 'comrades', for instance, they want to know the 'name' of each one: Gina (4 years) " [ t o Zoe, about T. S. - C.] What is her name? - Zoe (4 years 4 months) Call 'er how you know. - G. [ t o T . S . - C . ] What is your name? - [Zoe repeats] - G. Auntie. - Z. Auntiee . . . . comrade, what is your name? ").187

Also the children know from an early age the caressing function which the diminutive of the name has and they use it to mark a certain attitude towards the partner: for example, Gabi (4 years) " [ t o Ileana] Do you want water, Ilenufa [diminutive of Ileana - NAEV] ? 3.7.2. The expression also varies depending on what is ASKED of the partners: hence, formulae or constructions of the QUESTION, ORDER or the modalities o f c o - o r d i n a t i o n o f a n ACTION, ENTREATIES, REQUESTS FOR HELP o r THANKS, as w e l l as COMMUNICATION o f INFORMATION as s u c h .

(a) THE QUESTION in its most simple form and with the sense quite diffusely expressed, appears already in very young children, being marked

109 primarily through the form of expression easiest to imitate, namely, the melody of the question. Gradually, especially after 2 years of age, the question is expressed quite grammatically and clearly nuanced through the various adverbs, pronouns or adjectives. 1 8 8 It is an interesting fact that still at an early age the varied means of formulating questions are adopted — among which there are also certain clichés, as for example: Seicu (2 years 1 months) "Wat is tis [= what is this] ? "; 1 8 9 Dorel B. (2 years 2 months) "Auntie, what is et [= what is that] ? ";190 "What there [= what is there] ? "; "What thet, t' ontonton [= magnetophone] ? "191 It's radio, isn't it'! ", Ali (2 years 2 months) "Auntie, what's thuru [= what's there] ? ";192 Ad i D. (2 years 7 months) "Where do you see the light? Andrei M. (3 years 6 months) "This, what's this? "; Lucica "['on the telephone'] But how are you, Dan? - Dan H. (3 years 5 months) I'm fine, bu' how are you? "; Lucica "[to Dan] Bu'I'm the mommy, aren't I? - Dan Yes."\ Lena (4 years 6 months) "[about Rodica] She is washing, she is dressing. - Andrei F. 94 years 6 months) I wonder why? "; Vlad S. (5 years 3 months) "How will you go there, let's see, can I? "; Emil (7 years 1 month) "Do you know what the doctor said? "; Adrian B. (7 years 3 months) "['on the telephone' ] Father, how are you? ". (See also other examples above, pp. 51, 56). Also, it is an interesting fact that while the questions per se are put especially to adults, in the conversations between children the form o f question with an exclamatory sense (as an interdiction, protest, wonder) or with the sense of pleading, also appears a great deal, expressed especially through the change of intonation which in this way plays a diacritical role: Sveli (3 years 2 months) "Seicu, why do you put your hand on it [= the socket] ? ! "; Seicu (3 years 3 months) "You spit? Why do you spit? / "; "Why do you touch the socket with your head, Mariana? ! [the interrogation is very weak, it is more an exclamation of reproach]", "Why do you mess with the socket, because it'll shock you! [with question intonation only at the beginning; after socket there is no pause, and the accent falls on the exclamation]"; Otilia (6 years 11 months) "Why do you talk nonsense? ! ";193 Dan Z. (7 years 2 months) "Why did you take that? ! ". In older children this false interrogation is presented in more complex construction, or expressed in more subtle forms o f opposition or various nuances, such as irony, reproach, etc. : Dorin B. (5 years 5 months) "[in the game of 'dining'] Now we were washing 194 the dishes. . . Here. - Tania (5 years 4 months) Bu' next to the girl's bed? ! "; Mariana C. (6 years 7 months) "Stay on the scales, dear, stay on the scales? / "; Kmil (7 years 1 month) "Hey you, bu' where is the bath? ! [expresses the opposite of the interlocutor's affirmation, with the sense of 'but there isn't any bath! ' ] " ; Dan Z. (7 years 2 months) "Who's ever heard, in the bathroom, such a big stove, for cooking? / ".

110 The children shortly adopt the elliptical forms of question — forms which are possible particularly because of dialogue, which creates the context in which such lacunose expressions acquire sense (for example: Mariana F. [3 years 2 months] "Wait, 'cause I found-. — Seicu [3 years 3 months] Which, this? Yes? "); we shall further discuss the principles on which these forms are based, as well as the possibility of giving the answer in elliptical forms (T. S. - C. " Vladuf, do you have a telephone? - Vlad. S. [5 years 3 months] Yes, I have biggcrr). (b) Constructions which express an ORDKR (with different variants - of protest, interdiction and, in general, modality of coordination of action) are very frequent in children. They are characterized either by the use of certain special lexical formulae (especially the clichés which appeal to the visual and auditory senses or are promoters of action — such as lookl hear\ wait] finished! come\ let it gol stay\ , 1 9 5 etc.) or by the very frequent use of the verbs in the imperative, vocatives, monorhemes (one-word sentences), various exclamations, negative forms of interdiction, exclamation-interjections, modification of intonation or even increasing voice intensity (the various means usually appearing in combination): Rodiea C. ( 4 years 4 months) "Come! Come, give me the ladle! "; Andrei B. (7 years) "Come, let me see, let me see! "; Andrei M. (3 years 6 months) "[in the game of 'telephone'] Come, let's change! "; L niil (7 years 1 month) " C o m e Rosea - bring - to see if it fits! "; "Come! Thump [enter in the water]! ";196 D a n Z. (7 years 2 months) " You were letting the water out, you were closing cornel "; Adrian R. (7 years 3 months) "Come, hey you - come you, to the kitchen! "; Sveli (3 years 2 months) "Put it back! - Corina A. (3 years 2 months) [very imperiously) Put it back in the little hole! "; Otilia (6 years 11 months) "[imperious intonation] Pull it out, you - and eat! - Emil (7 years 1 month) No, put more - because. . . we're not allowed, you! "; Adrian R. (7 years 3 months) " S t o p bothering the comrade's head! ", "Hey - leave me in peace, Militi! "; Rodica C. ( 4 years 4 months) " [ l o u d l y ] The ladle, mommy [to Lena], the ladlee! ".

Protest is also sometimes expressed, as we have already shown, through a false question (Dan Z. [7 years 2 months] " Why did you take that? "). Formulae which in the adult's langage often attenuate the abruptness of the order appear more rarely in children: The formula please197 appears early: (for example, Corina A. [3 years 2 months] "[at the table] Give me too! - Seicu (3 years 3 months) Here you are! ";198 Zoe ( 4 years 2 months) " [ t o the 'doctor'] Look here, please [shows her hand to Mihaela], Look here, comrade doctor, here. Please. Bandage, [changes the intonation, stops addressing the 'doctor' and says to Gabi ( 4 years) ] Bu' don't unwrap all of it. Now you - let me show you how to . . ."); however, this formula is not always utilized among children, o f t e n being replaced with here'. ;199 Lena G. ( 4 years 6 months) "[in the game

Ill of 'dining', to Rodica] Here, [= take] the water! . . . Give me the soup!

".

The order is usually formulated directly (entreaty does not appear su much as a formula of politeness, of attenuation of the order, as an independent expression: Zoe (4 years 2 months) "(in the game of'dining', addressing the 'salesman' 'in the market'] Give me one leu's worth of carrots. Bu' weigh it! ".

Finally, we must mention that very frequently a form of apparent encouragement of the action (so! ) 2 0 0 occurs, which, however, is not only a cliche copied from adult's speech to the children, but often also an expedient, when the speaker does not find another reply. (c) The REQUEST for a certain object or HELP is also usually expressed without special formulae, so much so that through its linguistic form it would have the aspect of an order; the intonation, however - usually beseeching or even 'whining' - , reestablishes true understanding and indicates the dependence of the speaker on the partners in the realization of his wishes: Rodica C. (4 years 4 months) "[in the game of 'dining', to the others with a whining intonation, being the 'child'] I want wine! "; Emil (7 years 1 month) " C o m e ^ O l _ [ t 0 T. S. - C. with a begging intonation] let's take

For ENTREATY as such, apart from the utilization of special intonation, children also use the means of question or of attenuation constructions (inversions, euphemisms, such as little, a bit,202 insistence upon certain pronouns, more rarely the use of the optative instead of the present): Zoe (4 years 2 months) "[in the game of 'dining', suddenly addressing T. S. - C. ] Comrade, give me a pocket knife too - " ; Ionita (5 years 8 months) "[to T. S. - C.] Comrade, then will you give us those [the instruments] of the doctor? ".

There appear, however, especially in dialogue with the adult (or in the one that imitates dialogue situations between adults), but also among children, the principal formulae specific to entreaty, in Romanian/ beg you [or you formal] or after the rule in German I beg you [or you formal"] nicely:204 Zoe (4 years 2 months) "Come, I beg you nicely, Ilenuca! "; Andrei I". (4 years 6 months) "/ beg>'ou205 give me a cabbage."-. Florin D. (6 years 3 months) "[on the telephone'] / begyou^Qb to come over this evening."-, Adrian R. (7 years 3 months) " H e y you, Milica, I beg you! ".207

We also mention here the appearance of special formulae of GRATITUDE or

203

112 EXCUSES: Sveli (3 years 2 months) " [ t o Mariana] Here you are. 208 _ Mariana Fl. (3 years 2 months) Thank you." i Adi (3 years 9 months) "[Mihaela hit him, unintentionally] Hi! Och! Mihaela Fo. ( 4 years 2 months) [to him] I didn't mean to! "; Adrian R. (7 years 3 months) "['on the telephone', answers the question How are you? ] Fine. - Otilia (6 years 11 months) [corrects him] Fine, thank you".

(d) The form of communicating information shows in children in a very evident manner the relationship which the speaker establishes with his listeners. The simple information of a fact or of a personal psychical state (especially pain) is transformed in the speaker's attitude through his exclamatory intonation or through the lengthening of certain vowels (generally final ones) or through various subtle procedures, such as the repetition of certain adverbs — in an appeal to the listener to participate in the cognitive act, in the personal mental state: Andrei M. (3 years 6 months) " [shouts, announcing] We have arrived at the doctor's! " Hence, the communication of information often acquires the aspect of an order: Vlad S. (5 years 3 months) "Look, hey you! Look, it writes more [= the tape recorder]". From this desire to impress the listener through the content communicated to him result to a great extent the numerous exclamations which emphasize the children's dialogue: Doina M. (6 years 8 months) "[surprised] Hmmm! Something is being thrown! "; Otilia (6 years 11 months) "Oo, how he tied you! "; Andrei B. (7 years) "No! How he tied me! ", — and stars are coming out of it [out of the tape recorder]"; Emil (7 years 1 month) "[surprised] Tee! , 2 1 0 Aha! This is - this is a basket! , Er^l 1 -how good it is! "; Dan Z. (7 years 2 months) "Shhhh! [imitates the flowing of water] Z L I . . . Ugh! It burns! ".

Of course, these exclamations have an expressive role, of a direct exposition of the personal state, but they also have the role of producing an impression upon the listener (proof of this is also the fact that, apart from elementary exclamations of pain, such as owl ,213 they appear to a greater extent in older children and seem to have: ( a ) either a conventional sense, for example of mimed pain, like owl , oh dearl aahl oh dear mel ,214 0 r a slightly reserved joke, such as heyl , o r / (}) an especially onomatopoeic function). (a) Liliana B. (4 years 9 months) "[sighing in jest] Hew! Say ['on the telephone'] . . . plum brandy! ";215 Heana I. (5 years 11 months) "Bu' who threw this [brick] ? Florin D. (6 years 3 months) Hey, behind the house. There was - soo - many bricks, many - because he made, once he made: [shouts] bonk! 2 1 6 [returns to the phlegmatic intonation of narration] - and it fell on her head. - I. Did it break her head or it didn't break her head? - F. Oh dear [Rom. Aoleu! ], she died! "; Relu (6 years 6 months) "Oh

113 dear! - I'm sorry she didn't come! "; Doina M. (6 years 8 months) "Ow! Who's tickling me? "; Andrei (7 years) "[about the tape recorder] How it turns! - Emil (7 years 1 month) Hee! Dear me! [Rom. Vai! ] "; Emil "[joking, in the game of 'bathroom'] £>. Ow! ft burns here too! ". 5 RodicaC. (4 years 4 months) "The glow worm fell! - Lena G. (4 years 6 months) The glow worm! "; Andrei F. (4 years 6 months) "Wait, I'll put water over the pitcher. - Lena G. (4 years 6 months) Pour! "; Dorin B. (5 years 5 months) "[about 'telephones'] How, doesn't it have holes? - Cornelia (5 years 7 months) Look. Tania (5 years 4 months) Oh yes, it does!. . . Look it does. - D. It has! — C. It has, bu' there, small small, which are heard; Andrei B. (7 years) It fell inside! - Emil (7 years 1 month) What fell? - A. The bulb."

127

Understanding such dialogues often becomes very difficult for an outsider; also because of this, in transcription of children's dialogues we must repeatedly expose the concrete context, in order to make the content of the speech intelligible (without this, the understanding of the replies is incomplete): Ileana (4 years 8 months) "['at the table'] I don't have a fork. - C.abi M. (4 years) You have/ Here [Rom. Poftim! ] and-. - Zoe (4 years 2 months) A pitcher, look . - I. Forkk! - Z. Pitcher - You have a pitcher? - She doesn't have. - G. No I don't have. - Z. Let it be. Please take it [Rom. Poftifi! ]".

Moreover, abundance of these means in children sometimes causes the replies to be difficult to understand, not only for persons outside the dialogue context, but even for the partners themselves. Of course, reciprocal understanding in the framework of dialogue, through appeal to the context, develops more easily the more intimate the group's members are, the more a common situation truly exists — that is, when the partners are acquainted with the data to which allusion is made —, the more the partner wants to refer to the common situation and the more sufficient verbal references are offered. Otherwise, sign of lack of understanding appear, like the afflux of supplementary questions, the destruction of focalization, etc. (for example: Dan H. [3 years 5 months( "There's a yellow one [ . . . ] . — Andrei M. [3 years 6 monthsj Which one? D. The one there, where is.. . — A. Where is it? "). Sometimes appeal to the context is made even when the partner is not actually up to date with the data which the child presupposes to be known, which negatively influences the possibility of mutual understanding. Many times the children, especially young ones, no longer complete their allusive phrases either verbally or through gestures, presupposing their completion by the listener through context (for example, Nuti [2 years 7 monthsj "[about Daniela [2 years 2 months], who doesn't want to give her the doll] She doesn't want to give [her to\ me! "). However, the cases in which the speakers realize that it is better to complete their too elliptical expression, in order to make themselves better understood — particularly in older children - , are not rare: Dan Z. (7 years 2 months) "Why did he take it? Who took it? [the pronoun it refers to the bathroom's 'little stove']. - Emil (7 years 1 month) So that we can put it here in the bathroom [in fact, the addition of in the bathroom can be left out, but the speaker felt the need to make a specification in addition]".

In general, these procedures do not denote on the part of the child a lack of respect towards the partner or an 'egocentric' 2 6 6 attitude, but they constitute natural means, specific to dialogue 2 6 7 (and langage in general). Their greater frequency, their abundance in children's dialogue surely constitutes a peculiar-

128 ity. Nevertheless, if the extreme economy of verbal means of some of the children's replies and the appeal to the context constitutes a specific characteristic, this originates not so much f r o m a powerful affective substratum (which would cause the speaker to be preoccupied at this age more with himself, and with the fact that HE knows what it is about, than with the partner towards which the communication is directed). The situative addressing (the use of certain gestures, indication towards surrounding objects, ellipses, etc.) is also due, we believe — especially in small children —, to the penury of the vocabulary or the difficulties which verbal expression still impose at this age, as well as to the fact that all the efficient means of good 'communication' have not been acquired. Also, the appeal to the context is due to the child's preference for a concrete-situative plane (the context being frequently represented by the present situation, to which appeal is made through gestures or linguistical substitutes such as anaphorics, deictics) as well as to the child's inclination towards 'commodity', towards economizing the means of expression (parallel, nevertheless, to a special 'redundancy', which appears in the case of need for affective emphasis or as an attempt to explain through various means certain difficult ideas, etc.). The fact that in dialogue the child uses apparently elliptical verbal expression (completed, however, through the situation or common context) also denotes on the other hand — to a great extent, in my opinion - the consciousness of a connection with the partner. The small child very much wants to be understood and eventually to receive help or at least a verbal response, following his own verbal intervention. He allows himself omissions and references in speech, not only due to the needs of economizing energy or due to linguistic deficiency or t o the lack of sufficient verbal means (these motives, which we have mentioned, coexist) and in any case, not so much due to indifference towards the listener, but because — on the basis of a certain life experience - he observes that he can be understood by appealing t o gestures or in general to the common situation, in which he as well as his partners find themselves. I believe that 'situative langage' must be understood through the prism of these considerations, and not starting from the premise of 'egocentrism' in the child's langage. (c) The connection on a formal level between replies is also made in children through the relatively mechanical means of REPETITION of the partner's reply. With this procedure, frequent in children's dialogue, we dealt before, showing that through it can be expressed not only adherence but also opposition to the previous speaker. We shall add here a few considerations with respect to the form of repetitions. The repetition of the partner's reply can take various forms, f r o m repetition of a single word to repetition of the entire reply. Sometimes, repetition of only certain words f r o m the partner's reply 2 6 8 occurs in order t o specify,

129 emphasize, or strengthen an intention. For example: Zoe (4 years 2 months) "[yells] It's broken [the toy-scales] ! - Adi (3 years 9 months) It's broken - by itself. - Z. By itself."', Rodica C. (4 years 4 months) "Didyou hear how did Andrei say it? - Lena (4 years 6 months) How did Andrei say it? "; Dan Z. (7 years 2 months) "At four. - Andrei B. (7 years) At four in the evening? - D. No, at four in the afternoon."

Other times, however — and this is the case most specific to children — repetition acquires the aspect of an entire copying of the partner's phrase. Nevertheless, even in such cases of apparently mechanical copying, of perseverance, the repeated reply does not have exactly the same form as that of the partner. Sometimes, the transformation of affirmation in interrogation and the commutation of the person of the respective verb takes place (Zoe [4 years 2 months] " / don't have a little knife. - Mihaela Fo. [4 years 2 months] You don't have a little knife? "), or a phonetic morphological-syntactical or lexical modification appears (Felicia [3 years 2 months] "He fooled with the socket! — Corina A. [3 years 2 months] He fools with the socket! "; Seicu [3 years 3 months] " A t home I have a rabbit. — Sveli [3 years 2 months] I too have a rabbit"-, Dan H. [3 years 5 months] "Isn't true that it burns the ha[nd\ -the machine? — Lucica [3 years 6 months] Isn't it true that the machine burns? "; Rodica C. [4 years 4 months] "No - I'll pour it [the water] / — Andrei F. Bu' I'll pour it too! "), or, with the form apparently remaining linguistically identical, the intonation nevertheless changes, which expresses another intention (Corina A. [3 years 2 months] " [to Mariana] Why? — Mariana Fl. [3 years 2 months] Why? [the intonation is different, rising; the sense this time is: Did you ask why? ]. - C. yes"). It is interesting to follow how modifications sometimes take place in the sense of a shortening or lengthening of the replies in the course of the repetitions (see, for example, above, p. 93; "Comrade, bu' why don't you put some water? . . . " etc.). With respect to the connection between replies it is necessary to make certain specifications. Of course, the type of evolved dialogue is that where the sense is progressive, in which each reply introduces new information, and the form reflects .this regulated and progressive dynamics of the content, through a gradual development of the replies, through their concatenation. Schematically, it could be represented like this:

130 that is, the end of the previous reply constitutes a link from which the reply-response starts, in direct connection. The repeated replies — partially or almost totally - would present, graphically, an irregular succession of lines, because the reply-response is not progressively connected to the previous one, which causes the dialogue to advance clumsily and very slowly;269

The second type does not only constitute a peculiarity of child's dialogue, because repeated replies, in which information is minimal, also exist in all adults. Nevertheless, it can be observed that in younger children many more repetitions appear in dialogue and that their number decreases with age — without being able to establish clearly, however, from this point of view, an evolution in stages. In any case, it seems that the type of dialogued chain would evolve towards the organization of a more definite structure, also mirroring a concatenation of content, its progressive enrichment, hence a regular increase in information. (d) In general, THE LENGTHENING OF SENTENCES is very variable and often significant for certain peculiarities of children's dialogue. Long sentences can exist due to resuming, to additions for completion, for making the idea clearer to the partners or for emphasizing a detail from affective needs and with more affective means (Emil [7 years 1 month] "Wait I'll repair your bath, you, wait I'll repair your bath! "; Dan Z. [7 years 2 months] "Wait, you, here look, what a dress! "). Short sentences, on the other hand, can be due to ellipses and in general the contextual procedures, or the speaker's pause, before finishi n g 2 7 0 — because he no longer knows what to say or because the rest of the phrase seems to him to have been understood and he presupposes that the listener is up to date with whatever he eliminates from his speech: Vlad 1-. (5 years 5 months) " C o m e again to tell me again if again . . . er... - Andrei B. (6 years 2 months) Fine."-, Andrei B. (6 years 2 months) " [ ' o n the telephone'] Bu' the room was here, next to this other room? - Vlad P. (5 years 5 months) Yes, it was very near. You take a step and arrive

But a frequent cause of shortening of the sentences in children is often due to the fact that the speaker is not allowed by the interlocutor to finish, or that he hurries to express himself through more rapid means, especially in order not to be interrupted before having said that which he considered important to

131 communicate. The frequent interruptions of the phrase are a characteristic of children's dialogued speech - often due to the interlocutor's intervention and it would be necessary to keep this fact in mind when the length of the sentence in the child's speech is studied. 2 7 ! The INTERRUPTION of the phrase by the speaker is correlated with t w o peculiarities o f dialogue in general which appear very frequently in children in marked forms: o n the one hand the tendency of the first speaker to continue his interrupted phrase regardless, and on the other hand the effort o f the one w h o interrupted, o f saying something or even o f appearing as the principal speaker, to avoid being interrupted himself (in fact, interruptions appear especially when the partner wants to say something himself, in order to supplement the speaker, or because he remembers something which seems more interesting to him): Dan Z. (7 years 2 months) " A f t e r that he's going-. - Emil (7 years 1 month) Wait, wait, wait. - D. -and is undressing! "; Dorin B. (5 years 5 months) "[ We have] a big one too [scales], because-. - Cornelia (5 years 7 months) [quickly interrupts because she remembers something] Also syphons [we have] / ".

From these reciprocal tendencies — towards interruption on the one hand and towards the continuation of speech on the other — overlapping replies sometimes appear in which the various procedures of dialogue syntax and of utilizing contextual means which we have mentioned are applied: Tania (5 years 4 months) " Yess - we also have a car 272 _ er _ weaving loom-. Cornelia (5 years 7 months) Yes, car 2 7 3 too-. - Dorin B. (5 years 5 months) machine too. - C. - i r o n i n g . 2 7 4 .... -j- yes, it's the machine-. — D. Iron.".275

-sewing

It is difficult to establish a rule referring to the moment of interruption by the listener (respectively, the moment of the speaker's pause), because interruption is made not only depending on a certain suggestive word, from the speaker's reply, but also depending on the moment when the partner remembered something or his interest is solicited by a fact from the surroundings, etc. What must be remarked upon, however, is the fact that the speaker does not always stop exactly at the moment when the interlocutor interrupted him. Sometimes, he ceases immediately, is silent and listens to the eventual completion made by the partner, then he continues. But on other occasions,the speaker does not stop very easily and continues to speak (sometimes raising his voice): from here another peculiarity appears, met often in children, namely SIMULTANEOUS SPEECH (which we have discussed above in the framework of the problem of adaptation to the partner, p. 82). The children arrive at simultaneous speech on the one hand because they

132 are not yet used to listening in a disciplined way to the partner nor to stop immediately at an interruption, on the other hand because the solicitation of new impressions has a strong affective force which compels them to speak in order to communicate something to the others as well — or to CONTINUE to communicate to them. The forms in which this peculiarity is manifested is are varied: from the simultaneousness of two single words, after which the first or the second speaker renounces speaking, to the complete superposition of both replies: For example: Dan H. (3 years 5 months) "['on the telephone'] They're at the circus. - Andrei M. (3 years 6 months) [simultaneously] Fine"', Gabi (4 years) "No, 'cause at the swimming pool we can - catch cray fish - For me from the swimming pool daddy* brought me cray fish. — Zoe (4 years 2 months) [simultaneously, from the *]Me too - I went to the swimming pool also, on the tram [etc.]. - Adi (3 years 9 months) Bu' I - I went * with the children's train. - Z. [simultaneously, from the *] -and I also saw shipss. . ."; Dorin B. (5 years 5 months) "Turn it over ['the telephone'] and see. — Tania (5 years 4 months) [simultaneously with the last two words], Ah, yes! It doesn't have holes"-, Milina (5 years 2 months) "[in the game of 'dining'] I didn't even tell you what to buy . . . - Olga (5 years 2 months) What to bu-. - M. [simultaneously] Leave soo. Leave-. - Olga. Bu' what should we buy? ".

Sometimes, simultaneous speech is motivated by the fact that the speaker no longer says anything new in addition to the reply: Vlad F. (5 years 5 months) "I heard, because you put the finger, and those that you hear are longer ['on the telephone']. * Of this I heard too. - Andrei B. (6 years 2 months) [simultaneously, from the *] But then why did you say that you didn't - you didn't hear? ".

Sometimes, speech becomes completely unintelligible because of the overlapping of the various dialogue lines, especially when different subgroups of children speak or when focalization disappears completely: Gabi (4 years) "[to Adi D.] The comrade isn't your age! - Mihaela Fo. (4 years 2 months) [simultaneously] It didn't tear! ".

A particular form of simultaneous speech consists of SPEECH 'IN UNISON', in which the partners seem to 'cooperate' on a verbal level, usually repeating a string of identical or slightly different replies. 276 Sometimes, a fragment from the previous speaker's reply is repeated ecollalically: Traian (4 years 10 months) "[narrating] He - he op*ened the door. — Lena (4 years 8 months) [in unison, from*] — opened the door. — Tr. Er and he saw a table [ . . . ] " (see also above, pp. 82-83, 92). Other times, meaningful utterances or even rhymed expressions or with an onomatopoeic character are

133 repeated jointly, in unison, usually rhythmically or scanning (for example: Zoe [4 years 2 months] " [ . . . ] You want the children to say: [smiling] The tear-tearing? " 277 [laughs] — Gabi M. [4 years] and Adi D. [3 years 9 months] [they also repeat, in unison:] " T h e tearing tear"). 3.7.6. PHONETIC ASPECTS, such as the mode of pronunciation, intonation, e t c . , and EXTRALINGUISTICAL elements, such as gestures, facial expression, play a very important role in the children's dialogue.

The general phonetic aspect, the mode of pronunciation, depends on the peculiarities of age and the type of the children. The fact that a child pronounces certain sounds with difficulty or that he distorts them can sometimes cause misunderstandings in the course of the dialogue: Mariana Fl. (3 years 2 months) "[whimpering] It's too 1GHT. . .278 j('s ¡ 0 0 '¡gf,t. . . [only due to the gesture towards the sock elastic, it is understood that it is a distortion of the word 'tight'] " 2 7 9 ; Mariana Fl. "/ dreamed about ducks in water. - T. S. - C. When? - M. This evening. - Corina A. (3 years 2 months) 1 also d[r) earned. . . " . 2 8 0

However, I have also observed the strange situation in which the adult does not understand certain replies because of the distortion of particular sounds, while in contrast the children, especially those of the same age (or who live under collective conditions, for example in the same 'group'), may understand them very well and even 'translate' them to the adult or correct those who make mistakes: Mariana Fl. ( 3 years 2 months) " [ t o T. S. - C.] I have a 'ress 281 with f[l]owers here. - Corina A. (3 years 2 months) I have a little dress with bio - with short blouse'"', Adi (3 years 9 months) "Put the tromometre! - Gabi M. (4 years) [yells^ No! Thermometer [stressing the syllable: ther]"; T. S. - C. "Rodica, how old are you? - Rodica L. (4 years 6 months) Te 2 8 2 years and te months. - T. S. - C. How many? - Rodica [repeats, somewhat more correctly]. - Stela C. ( 4 years 7 months) [smiles] Three years and three months [to T. S. - C.] She says three years [emphasized] and three months. . . So she says."

The intelligibility of the replies may also frequently be impaired because of the children's extremely rapid delivery, which very often eliminates sounds from words (this phenomenon is observed not so much in small children, who eliminate sounds difficult to pronounce, but in older ones, who, as they master the language, talk more rapidly — as for instance, our subjects Zoe (4 years) or Emil (7 years). The greater the affective tonality of the replies and the more pronounced the interest for the actions which are discussed, the more we observe eliminations of sounds:

134 Z o e ( 4 years 2 m o n t h s ) " [ c o r r e c t s G i n a ] //'[s] s [ s ] W 283 tub; The comrade,

said Adi D[u]

mitrescu

mus\t]

284

repeat

Z o e ( 4 years 2 m o n t h s )

after me . . .' .

The TKMPO o f the children's dialogue is either very rapid, the replies quickly following in rapid succession, in sometimes dramatic dynamics, or slowly and laboriously — especially when difficulties of expressing a more complicate idea appear or when the speaker loses the thread because of interruptions, or when he is intimidated, etc. In these cases, parasite sounds appear (er ...

,

ugh . . . ) 2 8 5 or pauses: Z o e ( 4 years 2 m o n t h s ) "He doesn 7 repair anything he work?

-

Z. Er...

the yard att.

er...

- bu' works.

He does how ties so, hmm

. . at our house

. . . er -

- T . S. - C. What

We have more

does

chairs,

in

[. . .] ".

INTONATION in children's dialogue, and in general in their langage, plays a much more important role than in adults. Not only does intonation modify the sense of an expression, thus substituting lexical or syntactical penury ( f o r example: Vlad F. [5 years and 5 months] "Didyou something?

— Andrei Bu. [6 years 2 months] Naw!

hear when I told

[6 years 11 months] " [ ' o n the telephone'] Maybe I'll come at noon!

mother

[= not at all]";286 Otilia [emphasized]

-

"(see also the example on p. 108: I o n i ^ A . [5 years 8 months]

"Say that your name is Florin

[emphasized] Doinea, not comrade Doinea!

");

but it is utilized particularly to emphasize, to specify certain aspects which the speakers consider more important from a logical or an affective point o f view (the lengthening o f vowels is also a means):

Corina A . ( 3 years 2 m o n t h s ) " [ a s k e d if she has a t e l e p h o n e ] My mother -has\

Dan H. ( 3 years 5 m o n t h s ) lam

making food.

[ t o D a n ] / [ e m p h a s i z e d ] am, I am the mother intonation, s h o u t i n g ] . - D. [ l o u d l y ] I'm played

with hiim

[emphasized mother,

the daddy

[ e m p h a s i z e d ] [. . .] He doesn't

[emphasized]

- Mihaela I'r. ( 3 years 7 m o n t h s ) with a w h i m p e r i n g

[. . .] - M. / [ e m p h a i s z e d ]

want to give me!

[. . .]

; Traian ( 4 years 10

m o n t h s ) [ s p i t e f u l l y , to T . S. - C . ] Because she is [ D o i n a - ] so [accent o n s o ] bad! [accent o n worse]

then

worse

me."

The general aspect of children's dialogue from the point o f view o f the melody o f the phrases is extremely lively, varied and complex. Exclamatory intonation o f course predominates, which shifts the sense o f many phrases o f interrogation or o f simple assertion —, giving them an aspect o f continuous exclamation ( f o r example, apparently purely ascertaining phrases are transformed, due to the intonation of exclamation: "He doesn't give me! ", "I jumped!

").

Apparently isolated substantives, under the form of nominative and with the function o f phrase, acquire also through intonation the function o f vocative, or even o f exclamatory phrase ( f o r example, Doru [2 years 4 months] " [ p l a y -

135

ing in the sand, suddenly shouts to the other children] The caa! [= the ear came, let's go to the car]. Kids, t' the car - we're l[e\aving! "). On this theme several variations appear from outbursts of happiness or of dissatisfaction, to the finer nuances of irony, doubt, vague protest, 'pouting', glee, etc. For example: Lucica (3 years 6 months) "[in the game of 'dining', exclaims cheerfully] Look, daddy is eating! "; Mihaela Fr. (3 years 7 months) "[idem] The plate! [whimpering intonation] He takes the plate! "; Lena G. (4 years 6 months) "[in the game of 'dining', to Rodica, with an intonation of REPROACH] Bu'J'[m] the mother! - Rodica C. (4 years 4 months) [with a WHINING intonation] Eh - bu' the comrade should say too-": Lena G. (4 years 6 months) " [ t o Rodica] Bu' why are you getting dressed? - Rodica C. (4 years 4 months) [pouting] Because! "; Otilia (6 years 11 months) "[in the game of 'doctor', to Emil, the 'doctor'] What does he eat [the patient] ? Does he go hungry? . . . Look, a doctor's carrying it! [to Andrei B. (7 years), the 'patient', with ANOTHER INTONATION, NOT IMPERATIVE ]Hey you, get up and eat! What are you - a small baby? To give you'n [the mouth] ? Dan Z. (7 years 2 months)"[in the game of 'telephone', gives an explanation 'outside the game'] y