Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T15:53:11.149Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Accurate Referential Communication and its Relation with Private and Social Speech in a Naturalistic Context

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 April 2014

Dolors Girbau  and
Humbert Boada
Dolors Girbau*
Affiliation:
Jaume I University
Humbert Boada
Affiliation:
University of Barcelona
*
Address all correspondence to: Dolors Girbau, Department of Basic Psychology, University Jaume I, Campus Riu Sec, 12080 Castelló.Spain. E-mail address: girbau@psb.uji.es
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Research into human communication has been grouped under two traditions: referential and sociolinguistic. The study of a communication behavior simultaneously from both paradigms appears to be absent. Basically, this paper analyzes the use of private and social speech, through both a referential task (Word Pairs) and a naturalistic dyadic setting (Lego-set) administered to a sample of 64 children from grades 3 and 5. All children, of 8 and 10 years of age, used speech that was not adapted to the decoder, and thus ineffective for interpersonal communication, in both referential and sociolinguistic communication. Pairs of high-skill referential encoders used significantly more task-relevant social speech, that is, cognitively more complex, than did low-skill dyads in the naturalistic context. High-skill referential encoder dyads showed a trend to produce more inaudible private speech than did low-skill ones during spontaneous communication. Gender did not affect the results.

La investigación sobre comunicación humana se agrupa entorno a dos tradiciones: referencial y sociolingüística. Al parecer nunca se ha estudiado una conducta comunicativa simultáneamente desde ambos paradigmas. Básicamente este artículo analiza el uso del lenguaje privado y social, mediante una tarea referencial (Pares de Palabras) y una situación natural diádica (Lego), en una muestra de 64 niños/as de tercer y quinto cursos de primaria. Todos los niños/as de 8 y 10 años de edad produjeron un tipo de lenguaje no adaptado al descodificador, o sea ineficaz para la comunicación interpersonal, tanto en la comunicación referencial como en la sociolingüística. Las díadas formadas por los mejores codificadores referenciales usaron significativamente más lenguaje social pertinente a la tarea, o sea cognitivamente más complejo, que las díadas peores, en el contexto natural de comunicación espontánea. Las díadas de mejores codificadores referenciales mostraron una tendencia a producir más lenguaje privado inaudible que las peores, durante la comunicación espontánea. La variable sexo no influyó significativamente en los resultados.

Keywords

private speechsocial speechreferential communicationhabla privadohabla socialcomunicación referencial
Type
Articles
Information
The Spanish Journal of Psychology , Volume 7 , Issue 2 , November 2004 , pp. 81 - 92
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2004

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Asher, S.R., & Oden, S.L. (1976). Children's failure to communicate: An assessment of comparison and egocentrism explanations. Developmental Psychology, 12, 132–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Asher, S.R., & Parke, R.D. (1975). Influence of sampling and comparison processes on the development of communication effectiveness. Journal of Educational Psychology, 67, 64–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berk, L.E., & Garvin, R.A. (1984). Development of private speech among low-income Appalachian children. Developmental Psychology, 20, 271–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boada, H., & Forns, M. (Eds.). (1997). Perspectiva ecológica de la comunicación referencial. Anuario de Psicología, 75(4).Google Scholar
Cattell, R.B., & Cattell, A.K.S. (1973). Measuring Intelligence with The Culture Fair Tests (4th ed.). (Spanish translation: Tests de factor “g”, Escalas 2 y 3 Madrid: Tea,1986).Google Scholar
Cohen, B.D., & Klein, J.F. (1968). Referent communication in school age children. Child Development, 39, 597–609.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Diaz, R.M., & Berk, L.E. (Eds.). (1992). Private speech: From social interaction to self-regulation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Dickson, W.P. (1981). Introduction: Toward an interdisciplinary conception of children's communication abilities. In Dickson, W.P. (Ed.), Children's oral communications skills (pp. 1–33). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Dickson, W.P. (1982). Two decades of referential communication research: A review and meta-analysis. In Brainerd, C.J., & Pressly, M. (Eds.), Verbal processes in children: Progress in cognitive development research (pp. 1–33). New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Erickson, F. (1981). Timing and context in everyday discourse: Implications for the study of referential and social meaning. In Dickson, W.P. (Ed.), Children's oral communication skills (pp. 241–269).New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Flavell, J.H. (1966). Le langage privé. Bulletin de Psychologie, 19, 698–701. (Originally presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Speech and Hearing Association, San Francisco, November 1964.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fleiss, J.L. (1981). Statistical methods for rates and proportions. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Fuson, K.C. (1979). The development of self-regulating aspects of speech: A review. In Zivin, G. (Ed.), The development of self-regulation through private speech (pp. 135–217). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Garrod, S., & Clark, A. (1993). The development of dialogue coordination skills in schoolchildren. Language and Cognitive Processes, 8, 101–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Girbau, D. (1996). Private and social speech in communication: Terminology and distinctive traits. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 25, 507–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Girbau, D. (2002a). Psicología de la comunicación. Barcelona, Spain: Ariel.Google Scholar
Girbau, D. (2002b). A sequential analysis of private and social speech in children's dyadic communication. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 5, 110–118.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Girbau, D. (2002c). Private and social speech in children's dyadic communication in naturalistic context. Anuario de Psicología, 33, 339–354.Google Scholar
Girbau, D., & Boada, H. (1996). Private meaning and comparison process in children's referential communication. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 25, 379–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glucksberg, S., Krauss, R.M., & Weisberg, R. (1966). Referential communication in nursery school children: Method and some preliminary findings. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 3, 333–342.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
John-Steiner, V. (1992). Private speech among adults. In Diaz, R. M. & Berk, L. E. (Eds.), Private speech: From social interaction to self-regulation. (pp. 285–296). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Kingsley, P. (1971, March). Relationship between egocentrism and children's communication. Paper presented at the meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Minneapolis.Google Scholar
Kohlberg, L., Yager, J., & Hjertholm, E. (1968). Private speech: Four studies and a review of theories. Child Development, 39, 691–736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lloyd, P., Camaioni, L., & Ercolani, P. (1995). Assessing referential communication skills in the primary school years: A comparative study. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 13, 13–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Looft, W.R. (1972). Egocentrism and social interaction across the life span. American Psychologist, 78, 73–92.Google ScholarPubMed
Piaget, J. (1968). Le langage et la pensée chez l'enfant. Etudes sur la logique de l'enfant [The language and thought of the child] (7th ed.). Neuchâtel, Switzerland: Delachaux et Niestlé. (Original work published 1923.)Google Scholar
Rosenberg, S., & Cohen, B.D. (1964). Speakers' and listeners' processes in a word-communication task. Science, 145, 1201–1203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schober, M.F., & Brennan, S.E. (2002). Processes of interactive spoken discourse: The role of the partner. In Graesser, A.C.Gernsbacher, M.A., & Goldman, S. (Eds.), Handbook of discourse processes (pp. 123–164). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Shantz, C.U., & Wilson, K.E. (1972). Training communication skills in young children. Child Development, 43, 693–698.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vygotsky, L.S. (1987). The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky: Vol. 1. Problems of general psychology. Including the Volume Thinking and Speech. (Rieber, R.W. & Carton, A.S., Ed.; Minick, N., Trans.). New York: Plenum Press. (Original work published 1934.)Google Scholar
Waters, H.S., & Tinsley, V.S. (1985). Evaluating the discriminant and convergent validity of developmental constructs: Another look at the concept of egocentrism. Psychological Bulletin, 97, 483–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watson, J.B. (1983). Psychology from the standpoint of a behaviourist. London: Frances Pinter. (Original work published 1919.)Google Scholar
Wertsch, J.V. (1985). Culture, communication, and cognition: Vygotskian perspectives. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Yule, G. (1997). Referential communication tasks. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar