[amelia church] preference organisation and peer d

Preference OrganisatiOn and Peer disPutes

church Book.indb 1 13/01/2009 12:11:30

directions in ethnomethodology and conversation analysis

Series Editors:stephen Hester, university of Wales, uK

david francis, Manchester Metropolitan university, uK

ethnomethodology and conversation analysis are cognate approaches to the study of social action that together comprise a major perspective within the contemporary human sciences. this perspective focuses upon naturally occurring talk and interaction and analyses the methods by which social activities are ordered and accomplished. From its origins within sociology, EM/CA has ramified across a wide range of human science disciplines, including anthropology, social psychology, linguistics, communication studies and social studies of technology. Its influence is international, with large and active research communities in many countries, including Japan, australia, canada, france, the netherlands, denmark and sweden as well as the uK and usa.

the international institute of ethnomethodology and conversation analysis is the major association of eM/ca researchers worldwide. it was set up in 1978 by Prof. george Psathas to provide a forum for international collaboration between scholars working in the field of studies of social action and to support their work through conferences and publications. it published several books in eM/ca in association with university Press of america. now reconstituted under the direction of francis and Hester, supported by an international steering committee, the iieMca holds regular conferences and symposia in various countries.

this major new book series will present current work in eM/ca, including research monographs, edited collections and theoretical studies. it will be essential reading for specialists in the field as well as those who wish to know more about this major approach to human action.

Other titles in this series

talk and social interaction in the PlaygroundCarly W. Butler

isBn 978-0-7546-7416-0

ethnographies of reasonEric Livingston

isBn 978-0-7546-7106-0

church Book.indb 2 13/01/2009 12:11:30

Preference Organisation and Peer disputes

How Young Children Resolve Conflict

aMelia cHurcH University of Melbourne, Australia

church Book.indb 3 13/01/2009 12:11:30

© amelia church 2009

all rights reserved. no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without the prior permission of the publisher.

amelia church has asserted her moral right under the copyright, designs and Patents act, 1988, to be identified as the author of this work.

Published by ashgate Publishing limited ashgate Publishing companyWey court east suite 420union road 101 cherry streetfarnham Burlingtonsurrey, gu9 7Pt Vt 05401-4405england usa

www.ashgate.com

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data church, amelia Preference organisation and peer disputes : how young children resolve conflict. - (Directions in ethnomethodology and conversation analysis) 1. Interpersonal conflict in children 2. Social skills in children 3. conversation analysis i. title 302.3'4'083

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Datachurch, amelia, 1974- Preference organisation and peer disputes : how young children resolve conflict / by amelia church. p. cm. includes bibliographical references and index. isBn 978-0-7546-7441-2 -- isBn 978-0-7546-9146-4 (ebook) 1. Conflict management. 2. Interpersonal conflict in children. 3. Interpersonal relations in children. 4. Problem solving in children. 5. social skills in children. i. title.

HM1126.c49 2008 303.6'90833--dc22 09ANSHT

2008043655isBn 978-0-7546-7441-2e-isBn 978-0-7546-9146-4

church Book.indb 4 13/01/2009 12:11:31

contents

List of Figures and Tables viiAcknowledgements ix

1 introduction 1

2 Defining Child Conflict 7

3 conversation analysis 31

4 Peer disputes 53

5 dispute Outcomes 111

6 Preference and dispute Outcomes 151

7 How to resolve disputes 187

Appendix A 197Observation 1 transcripts 198Observation 2 transcripts 233Observation 1 summary 253Observation 2 summary 254

References 255Index 273

church Book.indb 5 13/01/2009 12:11:31

This page has been left blank intentionally

list of figures and tables

Figure 2.1 Sequences in contradicting routines, Boggs (1978) 23figure 6.1 continuum of account objectivity 176

table 2.1 categories of opposition 17table a.1 transcription conventions 197

church Book.indb 7 13/01/2009 12:11:31

acknowledgements

this study was supported by a Monash graduate scholarship and the singular supervision of Professor Keith allan – i continue to be grateful for his guidance and support. Publication of this work was assisted by a publication grant from the university of Melbourne.

since completing this study i have had the good fortune to participate in conversation analysis forums with established scholars. in particular, thanks to Professor susan danby, dr Mike forrester, Professor Bill Wells, dr Johanna rendle-short and dr anna filippi for their interest in this work. i would also like to acknowledge the encouragement given by Professor li Wei, Professor trisha Maynard, Professor Bridie raban, Professor collette tayler and Professor field rickards.

thanks are most obviously extended to the children and staff of the two childcare centres in Melbourne who participated in the project; without their interest in the research and willingness to participate, this contribution to our understanding of children’s interactions would not exist.

the study presented in this monograph was undertaken as doctoral research in the then linguistics department at Monash university. Parts or versions of the research presented in this monograph have appeared in earlier publications: Rask: International Journal of Language and Linguistics; Journal of Australian Research in Early Childhood Education; and a chapter in Thomas, N. (ed.) (2009), Children, Politics and Communication: Participation at the Margins. Bristol: Policy Press.

church Book.indb 9 13/01/2009 12:11:31

For my parents, for making everything possible.

church Book.indb 10 13/01/2009 12:11:31

chapter 1

introduction

Conflict between children

Lauren and Fran (aged three) are sitting in the back garden having a tea party. as lauren pours ‘tea’ into chipped cups, she accidentally spills some on fran’s leg. in response to fran’s challenge “You poured juice on me”, lauren replies quickly: “I didn’t”. Fran’s insistence (“You did”), and Lauren’s counter-denial (“I didn’t”) is repeated over a number of turns, until Lauren issues the indirect threat “i’m not your friend anymore”. fran accompanies a later counter-threat (“Well I’m gonna tell on you”) by poking Lauren in the ear. The subsequent claim (“I was only tickling”) is obviously rejected by Lauren as she kicks Fran, who responds by pulling lauren’s dress. the physical struggle escalates until lauren bursts into tears and runs towards the back door of the house in search of her mother.

in this episode,1 the young girls are engrossed in their pretend play and the subsequent collapse of co-operative interaction. as adults, our involvement is usually restricted to the collapse of children’s arguments, where conflict has escalated beyond the point of children’s own sociolinguistic resources. disputes between children, for the most part, are reconstructed from retrospective reports rather than first hand evidence. In the absence of adult supervision or intervention, then, how do young children manage disputes? What resources do young children employ to persuade, assuage or confront their peers in conflict situations? What do they say? How do they respond? What is the most effective way of pursuing one’s own goals in the preschool playroom? fundamentally, how do children go about resolving disputes? addressing these questions is the overriding aim of this book. The purpose of this chapter is to locate the work in the broader fields of conflict and children’s language development, and introduce the research project which informs the work as a whole.

1 this footage appears in the documentary Woodbine Place (McEvoy, 1989), which explores children’s friendships and play activities in a neighbourhood of urban northumberland, uK.

church Book.indb 1 13/01/2009 12:11:31

Preference Organisation and Peer Disputes 2

What constitutes conflict?

intuitively we recognise the episode between the two girls described above as a form of conflict. Given the range of interaction encompassed by this term, however, the type of conflict studied in this book needs to be identified. The generic phrase ‘adversative discourse’ is used to identify stretches of talk (and accompanying nonverbal behaviour) in which children oppose the prior utterance(s) or action(s) of another child or group of children. Opposition is fundamental to this type of discourse. Whilst definitions of verbal conflict are discussed in the next chapter, the terms adversative discourse, conflict, dispute and argument are used throughout to denote mutually articulated disagreement. for the most part, disagreement refers to real (rather than pretend) and serious (rather than joking) opposition which occurs spontaneously in the children’s interaction.

the emphasis in this research rests on verbal disputes as illustrative of young children’s developing communicative competence (see below), rather than on argument per se. this work is not concerned with exploration of reasoning, argumentation theory or studies of negotiation processes in the adult world (e.g. Pruitt, 1981; diez, 1986; van eemeren, grootendorst, Blair and Willard, 1991; Pruitt and carnevale, 1993; ehlich and Wagner, 1995; van eemeren, grootendorst and Henkemans, 2002) nor with related concepts such as game theory (e.g. schelling, 1960; rapoport and chammah, 1965). Here, the term ‘argument’ refers to opposing interaction between parties; in other words we are concerned with ‘arguing about’ rather than ‘arguing that’ (O’Keefe, 1977).

negotiation theory falls beyond the scope of this book primarily because it concerns adult interaction. Whilst the overlap between adult and child conversation is acknowledged, i do not support the idea of child language as an imperfect version of adult language. a tradition of identifying children as incomplete, or by their inabilities rather than abilities precludes a comprehensive understanding of children’s social and linguistic competence (Waksler, 1991; Danby, 2002). The social world of young children can be considered an experience distinct from adult perspective (e.g. Corsaro, 2004). Indeed, childhood is attributed with specific social status, a status which exits through contrast with the adult world (Baker and campbell, 2000).

not only are arguments between adults outside the immediate area of inquiry, adult-child disputes (e.g. Vuchinich, 1984, 1999; Grootevant and Cooper, 1985; Hess and Mcdevitt, 1984) are also, for the most part, excluded. Our concern here is the talk-in-interaction, specifically adversative discourse, between children. Examining peer conflict affords an opportunity to see how children of similar ages manage to persuade or attempt to manipulate others of essentially equal status and same stage of language development. to this end, the skill and complexity of young children’s talk is uncovered, moving away from the idea of preschool as pre-competent.

church Book.indb 2 13/01/2009 12:11:31

Introduction 3

Adversative discourse as productive interaction

competency is subsumed by the notion of disputing as a complex, rule-governed, constructive, shared activity (Laursen, Hartup and Koplas, 1996: 77; Lein and Brenneis, 1978: 308; Brenneis, 1998). Moving away from viewing children as egocentric, Piaget would propose that ‘argument leads to intellectual co-operation and the increased understanding of self and others’ (Eisenberg, 1987: 114). In accommodating (or rejecting) the intentions of another speaker, children negotiate locally determined roles and rules, co-constructing the outcomes of disputes. although disagreements require some sort of resolution for the prior content of conversation to resume (Stalpers, 1995: 288), adversative discourse should not be seen as an aberration or sort of non-conversation. indeed, the data in this book shows children’s disputes to be the site of co-operative and productive talk-in-interaction. Furthermore, the ability to manage conflict ‘is related to other indexes of competence, including sociometric status, aggression, emotional control, and social adjustment’ (Chen and French, 2008: 604).

Oppositional talk provides an opportunity for children to construct and negotiate their own social world, simultaneously reflecting and constructing their particular cultural experiences. Indeed, ‘conflict among children latently functions to develop their sense of social structure and helps reproduce authority, friendship, and other interactional patterns that transcend single episodes of dispute’ (Maynard, 1985b: 220). Conflict fosters the acquisition and refinement of social skills (Hay and Ross, 1982: 112), and is related to social acceptance (Putallaz and Sheppard, 1995: 346). far from causing permanent rifts or discord, arguments between children tend to be quickly forgotten: “that stupid Mr. dan gonna come up there and say (0.4) ‘Y’all better (0.2) come on and shake hands’. Don’t mean nothin cuz we be playing together next day anyway” (Goodwin, 1982: 87).

Opposition arising in isolated disputes does not permanently disrupt peer interaction, and, moreover, the co-operative benefits of negotiating social relationships are enduring. As Corsaro and Rizzo (1990: 65) summarise, it is clear that ‘disputes and argumentation serve positive functions in terms of children’s development of communicative competence and social knowledge’. so whilst language remains the focus of this book, analysis of conflict discourse is also demonstrative of children as competent social agents, actively constructing peer culture.

Communicative competence

children’s acquisition of language and developing abilities in social interaction have been studied in a myriad of ways – beyond traditional cognitive (Piaget, 1959) and socio-cultural (Vygotsky, 1986) theories – from behavioural approaches (Skinner, 1957), structural emphasis on syntax (e.g. Chomsky, 1957, 1965; Brown, 1973), rule-based systems (Bloom, 1970; MacWhinney, 1982), and systemic

church Book.indb 3 13/01/2009 12:11:31


linguistics (Halliday 1975, 1978; Fine and Freedle, 1983), to an increasing emphasis on social context (e.g. Ochs and Schieffelin, 1979, 1983; Schieffelin and Ochs, 1986; romaine, 1984). this study of children’s disputes belongs to the domain of developing communicative competence (Hymes, 1972, 1974; cf. gumperz, 1986) where ability or performance is recognised not only as linguistic but encompassing broader, culturally-situated aspects of language in use. although it is not designed to address the concept of communicative competence directly, the research contributes to a greater understanding of children’s developing abilities in language in interaction.2

as children acquire language for multiple purposes, they are learning to argue (Eisenberg, 1987; Maynard, 1986b). Far from being a disordered activity,3 in adversative discourse children are ‘playing with structures of embedding and ellipsis in return actions, providing disclaimers disarming the illocutionary force (Austin, 1962) of a prior speaker’s talk, and formulating logical proofs – all without creating rifts in relationships’ (Goodwin, 1982: 91). Verbal disputes, then, provide children with an opportunity not only to manipulate or persuade their play partners but use increasingly complex language to do so. Viewing verbal conflict as an activity best avoided, one to be ended as quickly as possible (cf. Sackin and thelen, 1984), fails to acknowledge the opportunity afforded by adversative discourse for children to pay close attention to language. indeed, dispute contexts provide children with far greater motivation to quickly produce creative structures than could be constructed by the teacher for pedagogic purposes (Goodwin and goodwin, 1987).

the ubiquitous teacher instruction for children to “use your words” during conflict with peers, prompts consideration of the range of strategies employed by young children. children are encouraged to pursue verbal rather than physical resolution of conflict, yet there is little specification in the preschool classroom as to what words the children should actually use. We need to consider not only what words children use, but what words they use in response to opposition. Moreover, the words produced by children in serial oppositional utterances will be considered in terms of dispute outcomes. What words do children use to resolve disputes?

Outline of monograph

existing research in children’s arguments has predominantly focused on types of verbal strategies produced within dispute episodes. as shown throughout

2 for exemplary work in the area of children’s developing communicative competence see Susan Ervin-Tripp (e.g. 1977, 1978, 1982).

3 Preschool-aged children’s ability to manage conversations with peers is well documented (e.g. Dore, 1979, 1985; Corsaro, 1979; Garvey and Berninger, 1981; Garvey, 1974, 1984; Ochs, 1983; Mctear, 1985; Wood, 1989; foster, 1990; ninio and snow, 1996; thompson, 1997).

church Book.indb 4 13/01/2009 12:11:32

Introduction 5

Chapter 2, earlier studies in peer conflict have identified speech acts in disputes and, in some cases, attempted to establish patterns of subsequent utterances. Whilst illustrative of types, frequency and social context of disputes, these prior studies do not effectively account for the sequential, turn-by-turn structure of adversative discourse. The primary aim of this research is to understand what leads to conflict resolution, or alternatively, to a breakdown of collaborative play, by investigating children’s responses to opposition and the relationship between oppositional turns.

the limitations of speech act theory in the study of adversative discourse are addressed more directly in chapter 3, through juxtaposition with the methodological advantages of a conversation analytic approach. Conversation analysis (CA) is particularly well suited to investigation of children’s peer language given the insistence on recording real interaction, analysis driven by the data in favour of a priori hypotheses, and consequent attention to features of the talk-in-interaction which are salient to the participants themselves. the real interaction in this study was recorded (audio and video) in two child care centres in Melbourne, involving children enrolled in the four-year-old preschool program (attending on average 3 days per week), which generated a dataset of the 60 disputes transcribed for analysis (see Appendix A).

Preference organisation, (an ordering principle defined by the asymmetry of second pair parts – described in chapter 3) was found to be prominent in the preliminary analysis. that is, turns in the children’s disputes were typically produced in one of two ways: (1) as short direct opposition (preferred turn shape) or (2) as delayed (by markers or pauses) and justified opposition (dispreferred turn shape). chapter 4 presents an analysis of preference features occurring throughout the disputes. in order to determine if preference organisation is an organising principle in adversative discourse, a description of the outcome of disputes is required; so Chapter 5 is devoted to exemplifying three types of dispute endings identified in the data: resolution, abandonment and teacher intervention. the function of threats as ‘atypical’ dispreferred turn shapes is also considered in chapter 5.

chapter 6 establishes the relationship between turn shape and outcome. the analysis shows preferred turn shapes to be sustaining – more likely to promote conflict – and dispreferred turn shapes as non-sustaining – resolution is only secured through final utterances where the opposition is justified. The quality of accounts (i.e. the reason given for the speaker’s objection) also proves to be influential in the development of disputes; the more objective the content of the account, the more persuasive the utterance. the micro-analysis afforded by conversation analysis, with particular focus on features of preference organisation, proves effective in uncovering how children go about resolving disputes.

intervention strategies for children to manage relationships with their peers tend to be adult-centric. children, however, do not necessarily negotiate social relationships as adults would. empirical evidence, such as provided in the research reported here, is essential to improve understanding of the highly ordered activity of young children’s social interaction. The findings contribute to a greater

church Book.indb 5 13/01/2009 12:11:32


understanding of how children function in their own social worlds. importantly, these social worlds are constructed and maintained by increasingly complex language use, that is, by developing communicative competence.

church Book.indb 6 13/01/2009 12:11:32

chapter 2

Defining Child Conflict

Introduction

to position the research reported in this monograph, it is important to identify its departure from prior studies. throughout this book, the method of conversation analysis (CA) is framed as a novel perspective on this type of children’s discourse – although there is increasing interest in ca in children’s interactions more broadly (see Chapter 3). The analytic account presented in this book responds immediately to the unexplored ground in existing research in children’s conflict. As such the existing ground requires some account.

chapter 1 was concerned with identifying our interest in peer disputes and articulating why children’s adversative discourse should be studied. this chapter presents a summary of what has already been studied in child conflict. Each of the sections in the chapter represents a theme identified in studies in child conflict. First, definitions of conflict are discussed, followed by the interdependent classification of types and frequencies of conflict, and interpretation of how disputes begin. identifying verbal strategies produced during arguments is a prominent concern in existing research, and some attempts have been made to investigate sequences of these strategies (where disputes may escalate or, conversely, be resolved). Few of these attempts have satisfactorily captured the properties of dispute closings. lastly, the wide interest in gender differences in children’s arguments is discussed.

This review is deliberately restricted to studies of conflict between children of the same age. Discussion of arguments between children and their parents (e.g. Maccoby, 1996; Crockenberg and Lourie, 1996), siblings (e.g. Ross, 1995), or children of significantly different ages are, for the most part (with the exception of e.g. Vuchinich, 1990) beyond the scope of immediate relevance. similarly, research in conflict resolution strategies in atypical populations – for example children with specific language impairment (e.g. Horowitz, Jansson, Ljungberg and Hedenbro, 2005) do not feature here. furthermore, whilst work in developmental psychology extends to examining why children argue and determining the influence of such interaction on developing social cognition, this research is concerned with features of the language used by children to manage conflict with peers. Before the existing work on children’s language in disputes is reported, however, what actually constitutes adversative discourse needs to be established.

church Book.indb 7 13/01/2009 12:11:32

Preference Organisation and Peer Disputes8

Definitions of conflict

Argument can be considered a ‘fuzzy’ concept (O’Keefe and Benoit, 1982: 157). as disputes arise in ongoing interaction, identifying adversative sequences is not a straightforward task (Corsaro and Rizzo, 1990: 26). Yet despite the breadth of discourse denoted by the nominal ‘argument’ and debate about confining episode boundaries, core features of conflict can be identified. Essential properties of disputes are: the central notion of opposition, boundaries of episodes, and mutuality. these properties carry across registers of disputes.

The adversative episode is defined as the interaction which grows out of an opposition to a request for action, an assertion, or an action. it is a social task whose objective is the resolution of that conflict or contradiction. The negating responses include refusals, disagreements, denials and objections. thus, an adversative episode is a sequence which begins with an opposition and ends with a resolution or dissipation of conflict. Its apparent goal is to work out the initial opposing positions of the participants (Eisenberg and Garvey, 1981: 150).

‘Oppositional talk’ (Corsaro and Maynard, 1996) and its various guises (conflict, argument, dispute, adversative discourse, etc.) is fundamentally identified through opposition to some prior objectionable utterance or event. elsewhere, opposition is described as ‘overt disagreement’ (Miller Danaher and Forbes, 1986: 544), expressing an ‘adversary position’ (Coulter, 1990: 185) or ‘counter-assertion’ that rejects, denies or contradicts the prior assertion (Phinney, 1986: 48). ‘Protest, resistance, or retaliation’ (Hay and Ross, 1982: 107) are also used to describe the onset and progress of opposition. Conflict, then, denotes an articulated form of disagreement where ‘one party impedes the satisfaction of the wants of the other’ (O’Keefe and Benoit, 1982: 163). We note that disagreement is not necessarily overt; persuasion (Miller, Danaher and Forbes, 1986: 544) is also proposed as a defining characteristic of conflict. That is, conflict can be identified where ‘Child A attempts to influence Child B, Child B resists, and Child A persists’ (Shantz and shantz, 1985: 4).

Importantly, conflict is viewed as a type of exchange which disrupts the ongoing interaction. in this light, disputes function as a sort of side-sequence in ongoing talk, one which must be resolved if non-adversative talk is to resume.

Misunderstanding and dissent are two manifestations of divergence in common ground.[1] … When disagreement occurs, common ground must be established before the discourse can proceed. (Establishing common ground does not necessarily lead to a common opinion.) Most often disagreements call for additional interactional work, e.g. repair and insertion sequences, before the

1 For discussion of common ground, see Clark (1997).

church Book.indb 8 13/01/2009 12:11:32

Defining Child Conflict 9

conversation can proceed (that is, before the expansion of common ground can continue) (Stalpers, 1995: 275).

consequently, the beginnings and endings of disputes are inseparable from the definition of conflict itself. ‘The boundaries of a conflict episode, thus, are identified by the onset and termination of oppositional exchanges’ (Garvey and Shantz, 1995: 96). As conflict is seen as a ‘halt’ to non-argumentative conversation, the departure is marked by the onset and cessation of overt objection (O’Keefe and Benoit, 1982: 163) to a prior utterance/speaker.

inherent in this idea of resuming co-operative, non-adversative discourse, is the co-operative nature of conflict itself. Identifying conflict as a type of discourse with distinctive boundaries does not signify that disputes are something other than conversation. Conflict, as with all forms of talk-in-interaction, is mutually created. indeed, opposition must be mutual for argument to continue. a core, defining feature of conflict is the performance of adversary positions (Coulter, 1990: 185) maintained by at least two people (Garvey and Shantz, 1995: 94; Hay, 1984: 2). Mutuality is not limited to opposition (both parties must produce some form of objection), given that mere participation requires more than one party. Consequently, disputes are defined as spontaneously co-constructed by the children themselves (Eisenberg and Garvey, 1981: 150).

Definitions also extend to the range of disputes which appear in children’s peer play. it should be noted that while aggression is typically expressed in the context of conflict, it does not follow that all conflict is aggressive (Shantz, 1987: 285). Sprott (1986: 427) points out that contemporary definitions of conflict include exchanges which have ‘a joking or teasing quality or a cooperative, playful quality, in addition to the serious or angry dispute’. Manifestation of cultural variation is also apparent in more ritualised forms of conflict such as ‘playing the dozens’ (Labov, 1972b; Mitchell-Kernan, 1972), the stylised ‘brogez’ of Israeli children (Katriel, 1985) or other varieties of verbal dueling (e.g. Dundes, Leach and Ozkok, 1972; Corsaro and Maynard, 1996). To this end, Garvey and Shantz (1995) propose four dimensions of conflict talk: orientation (serious/joking); format (ritual/non-ritual); frame (pretend/real) and mode (mitigated/ aggravated).

Whilst the range of conflict types is considered, for the purposes of the current research, conflict is taken to mean episodes of real or serious opposition. Although other domains of disputes are not discounted (and a degree of shifting between modes is recognised), the primary interest in this study is to understand dispute resolution where non-pretend, non-ritual, non-joking argument serves as the default, unmarked norm of child conflict – a norm, at least, for middle-class, english-speaking australian children attending urban daycare centres. it is proposed that variation in disputing styles according to shifting key or register can then be explored from this platform of ‘standard’ adversative discourse.

church Book.indb 9 13/01/2009 12:11:32


Conflict openings

From the definitions above, we surmise that conflict ‘begins with overt opposition between individuals and continues until opposition ceases. Moves within conflict either continue the opposition or address it with attempts at conciliation or resolution’ (Ross and Conant 1995: 154). Before moving on to consider the content and outcome of disputes, we should note that the identification of opening moves in verbal conflict is inherently tied to the definition of conflict. A description of adversative discourse needs clear identification of how children begin arguments. Whilst the definitional relationship between conflict and conflict openings can be viewed as bi-directional, in the following discussion, emphasis rests on distinguishing the beginnings of conflict.

to nominate the beginning of an argument, establishing what actually constitutes the first move of the sequence is fundamental, because assigning a particular move as the opening of the dispute has implications for the subsequent analysis of the unfolding argument. a prominent disparity in studies of young children’s conflict lies in identifying either (a) the first act of overt (verbal) opposition as the beginning of the dispute, or (b) the action or utterance which provokes the initial opposition. The following summary outlines the differing justifications offered in labelling specific turns as the beginning of arguments.

The first turn of adversative discourse can be marked as the initial statement of opposition to an antecedent event. Eisenberg and Garvey (1981) propose that the central definition of argument is the action of opposition, so it follows that they propose argument begins with this action. Phinney (1986: 50) also claims that an argument does not begin until a statement or action is challenged by another speaker; consequently, the first move of the quarrel is identified as the first counter-assertion made by another child. Corsaro and Rizzo (1990: 26) ‘do not view the antecedent event as part of the dispute per se but rather as its source’. similar to Eisenberg and Garvey (1981) then, the authors view initial opposition moves to be the defining characteristic of conflict openings.

In contrast, Brenneis and Lein (1977) propose that the beginning of an argument is marked by the statement or action which is refuted by a next speaker, thus instigating conflict. The debate, therefore, is not limited to determining which move constitutes the beginning of the dispute, but involves classification of which acts or moves are considered as part of the conflict at all. Within these discrepancies of identification lies the problem of denoting verbal turns as exclusively intrinsic to the opening of disputes. that is, ignoring properties of non-verbal turns.

Maynard (1985a) criticises Eisenberg and Garvey’s (1981) concept of ‘antecedent event’ for being primarily linguistic. By focusing on the ‘semantic continuity’ of disputes (Brenneis and Lein, 1977), challengeable nonverbal actions are overlooked in instigating the argument. that is, the presupposition that antecedent events are verbal often fails to account for what may actually constitute the initial opposition. Maynard argues that recognising actions as well

church Book.indb 10 13/01/2009 12:11:32


as utterances as antecedent events (or ‘arguables’ as he prefers to label them) has significant implications for the interpretation of the structure of disputes.

The following episode appeared in Eisenberg and Garvey’s (1981) data and is reproduced here as the example used by Maynard to demonstrate the repercussions of ignoring nonverbal actions as possible opening moves.

((B has been screaming))

a: don’t be so loud

B: ((shouts)) YES!

a: don’t be so loud

B: Why?

a: Because it hurts my ears, yes, it does

((B is quieter))

Maynard (1985a) argues that the screaming serves as the antecedent or ‘arguable’ event and that A’s opposition (‘Don’t be so loud’) should be numbered as the first opposition in the adversative episode. It appears not only reasonable, but essential to recognise the role of nonverbal actions in disputes if the structure of the discourse is to be understood.

attributing opening status to a particular action or utterance has an additional analytical influence on the allocation of speaker roles. That is, opening moves not only instigate argument, but also function to nominate specific roles for the participants in the dispute. Eisenberg and Garvey (1981) propose that the beginning of conflict establishes the role of each participant, roles which are held throughout the episode. the Opposer makes the initial statement of opposition, while the interlocutor is the Opposee by default. the authors claim that these roles are significant in the choice of strategies used by each child in that ‘the Opposee is trying to influence his partner while the Opposer is resisting influence’ (1981: 152). As these roles are determined by attribution of the initial move of the conflict, the analytical significance of assigning the first point of opposition is two-fold (assigning both the opening move and speaker roles).

Most closely related to earlier definitions of conflict, is the response to the first opposition move, that is, the next utterance in the exchange. The definition of conflict obviously influences which episodes constitute the data for a particular study. For example Laursen and Hartup (1989) follow Shantz (1987), and include interactions consisting of only two turns: a statement or action and opposition to this prior move. However, as most data in research on children’s conflict comprises episodes of three or more turns (e.g. Dunn and Munn, 1987), it can be argued that

church Book.indb 11 13/01/2009 12:11:32


a sequence of two turns is not indicative of disputing but is rather an example of repair (i.e. a correction of sorts). Consequently the original speaker has the option of treating the initial opposition as a prompt for self repair and to diffuse the possibility of conflict by ‘letting the opposition pass’ (Maynard, 1985a: 7). The situation escalates, however, when the opposition is treated by the original speaker as a challenge of some sort and the argument unfolds (Maynard, 1986a).

It follows then, that conflict takes hold in the third turn, where the original action (the antecedent event or arguable) is defended by the first speaker. If the first speaker accepts the challenge or correction made by the second speaker, argument dissipates and the episode is one of repair. although the earlier two turns become established as the beginning of the conflict retrospectively, they do not constitute a dispute in isolation. Maynard (1985a: 8) states this position as follows:

… initial opposition does not constitute an argument. an utterance may oppose a prior action, but its status as part of an argument is dependent on whether it is treated as a legitimate repair initiation or whether it is let to pass or whether it is itself counteracted. thus, in addition to the notion of the ‘antecedent event’, as an arguable utterance or action that can potentially be opposed, we also need a concept of an ‘argumentative’ which would capture how an initial statement of opposition is only contingently turned into an element of an argument or dispute episode.

it has also been found that particular pairs of utterances are more likely to function as the beginning of an argument. O’Keefe and Benoit (1982: 172) found that amongst 2-5 year-olds, the majority of disputes began with request-refusal, order-refusal, need statement-refusal and assertion-denials. furthermore, the manner in which the dispute is begun (e.g. aggravated or mitigated objection) not only influences the development of the dispute, but determines how the hearer responds to the initial opposition (e.g. probable threat to face as mentioned by Benoit and Benoit, 1990: 171-172).

In this research, the beginning of the dispute is taken to mean the first point of overt opposition (be it verbal or non-verbal), as conflict does not exist until this occurs. In the transcripts (Appendix A), however, this opposition is not necessarily marked numerically, i.e. identified as line 1 in the episode. In some cases, prior utterances (antecedent events) are recorded to provide contextual cues to the reader. indeed, for the most part, the antecedent event that directly precedes the primary opposition appears as the first line of the transcript. Only episodes which consist of three or more turns are included as data for the present analysis. Problems associated with defining the openings of disputes are not the preoccupation of this study, as it attempts to detail the closings of conflict episodes. Before reviewing existing research on dispute endings, however, we need to consider what constitutes the substance of disputes, what happens between the beginning and the end. Our discussion moves, therefore, from the initiation of conflict to consider the frequency and types of conflict in young children’s peer interaction.

church Book.indb 12 13/01/2009 12:11:32


Frequency and types of conflict

given the range of studies in children’s peer disputes, we presume that arguments are a regular feature of children’s interaction. intuitively, we perceive disputes between children to be common events. in moving from general perception to quantification, however, problems are encountered. It becomes clear that frequency of conflict evades objective calculation: the manner in which conflict is defined determines the number of instances or episodes recorded in a specified period of time. consequently, the incidence of disputing in the preschool environment is inherently dependent on the theoretical approach of the researcher. also, practical concerns of available resources, number of children, dimensions of play space and so on influence the prevalence of arguments.

Given that the working definition of conflict determines the values of frequency, and that this definition shifts from one study to another, it is unreasonable to contrast the various findings. Likewise, variation in methodology (e.g. naturalistic observation vs. contrived episodes recorded in laboratory settings) precludes viable comparison. this summary, therefore does not attempt to collate the frequencies reported in each study, but rather identifies the occurrence of conflict within other domains. that is, a more meaningful overview of the prevalence of children’s conflicts exists in the relationship between frequency of conflict and (1) age of participants, (2) friendship relations and (3) activity type. Frequency of conflict and gender of participants also receives attention in extant research, as described later in this section.

Frequency of conflict is associated with the age of the disputants. Although longitudinal studies are not common in research on preschool children’s interactions, uncontroversial findings point to fewer disputes among older children. In one of the earliest studies in this area, Dawe (1934) recognised a tendency for fewer quarrels amongst the older children in her observation sessions, suggesting a decrease with age. Chen et al. (2001) similarly report that insistence in disputes declines with age and that instances of resolution increase as children get older. O’Keefe and Benoit (1982) comment that if a relationship exists between age and frequency of conflict exists, it is a negative one. ‘That is, rather than learning to disagree, children ultimately learn not to disagree so often’ (p.170).

a distinction is also evident in relation to friendship categories. given the interest in interpersonal relationships in developmental psychology, considerable attention in conflict research has been paid to the frequency of arguments between friends and between to non-friends. a correlation was described in the early work of Green (1933) who claimed that there are more quarrels between mutual friends, suggesting that ‘quarrelling is a part of friendly social intercourse’ (p.251). Indeed, amongst some groups of children, initiating conflict can be equated with fostering friendship (Corsaro and Rizzo, 1990). The greater number of disputes between children who nominate each other as friends can also be explained by increased contact between friends, and underscores the idea that disagreement is not problematic in the maintenance of peer relationships (Ross and Conant,

church Book.indb 13 13/01/2009 12:11:32


1995). the form or structure of arguments between friends may differ in structure, however, as there is increased motivation to sustain or resume shared play, to sustain the relationship.

Frequency of conflict is also related to the specifications of the play environment and the type of activity in which play partners are engaged. the number of disputes is higher when children are indoors, in contrast to play outside (Dawe, 1934), a proportion which can be attributed to a restriction of play space. the greater frequency of disputes indoors (a discrepancy not often recorded because the large majority of studies are conducted inside preschools or laboratories) can also be ascribed to the necessity of sharing resources. Particular activities are also more or less likely to serve as environments in which disputes unfold. Where children are engaged in parallel play (activities such as drawing, painting, cutting and pasting), where resources are not restricted, conflict is less frequent.

The influence of play activity is not limited to the frequency of disputes. The type of dispute is in some ways constrained by the play environment and play materials. Object conflicts, for example, are obviously more frequent in activities which demand the sharing of resources, such as playing with building blocks. this brings us to the content of children’s disputes and attempts to categorise the cause of conflict. Parallel with the variation in reporting the frequency of conflict, the identification of dispute types is dependent on the focus of the research, where classification is generated by the researchers themselves. Again, the focus of the research dictates the working definitions employed, in this case, the categories of conflict observed.

Dawe (1934) proposed four categories of quarrels amongst preschool children: possessions, physical violence, interference with activity and social adjustment. Genishi and Di Paolo (1982) proposed the following as major themes of argument: possession, number, conduct, truth, role, opposition to request, and exclusion. Phinney’s (1986) study of 5-year-olds arguing with siblings and peers categorised six types of disputes (frequency given in brackets) as follows: procedure (44 per cent), fact (28 per cent), possession (11 per cent), intention (11 per cent), attribution (5 per cent) and opinion (2 per cent).

in their study of an integrated early childhood classroom, of typically developing children and children with disabilities, Malloy and McMurray (1996: 191-192) ‘identified seven social goals associated with conflict that have been identified by previous researchers. these were object acquisition, annoyance, group entry, change in the course of play, invasion of space, defying school rules, and stopping others’ actions’ (Krasnor and Rubin, 1983; Shantz, 1987; Wilson, 1988).

The most prevalent type or category of recorded child peer conflict involves object disputes of some kind. indeed, these types of arguments typically make up the greatest percentage of preschool conflict (Shantz, 1987). Disputes involving objects are not solely driven by desire for the article in demand, as the object may assume a social significance, depending on who maintains possession. That is, a toy may appeal to a child as a valuable commodity if it has been seen to be enjoyed or owned by another child (Hay and Ross, 1982). Additionally, as Bakeman and

church Book.indb 14 13/01/2009 12:11:32


Brownlee (1982) found in their work with children aged 12-48 months, possession of an object is not simply determined by the power status of the children involved in the study. That is, conflict is not only influenced by individual dominance, but by possession rights established prior to the dispute. if one child had the object in his or her possession at some earlier time, his or her claim to it is reinforced.

although object disputes predominate most studies involving young children, this prevalence is not claimed universally. Corsaro and Rizzo (1990) found an inverse proportion of ‘nature of play’ disputes to object disputes as reported by Eisenberg and Garvey (1981) and Genishi and Di Paolo (1982). However, this difference may be explained by varying definitions (Corsaro and Rizzo included all opposition to the action of others in ‘nature of play’ disputes). the disparity may also be accounted for by methodological differences (specifically resulting in an absence of disputes over access to play in Eisenberg and Garvey’s (1981) and Genishi and Di Paolo’s (1982) research). The greater frequency of claim disputes amongst italian children could also be attributed to the children’s apparent enjoyment of the ‘discussione’ as a verbal routine (Corsaro and Rizzo, 1990; see also Eisenberg, 1990). That is, the children enjoy the (culturally specific) format of the argument, similar to participation in other ritualised games (e.g. ‘sounding’ or ‘playing the dozens’; labov, 1972b; Kochman, 1983). indeed, cultural imperatives influence the purpose, content, and management of conflict (e.g. Medina, Lonzano and goudena, 2001; french, Pidada, and Victor, 2005).

Furthermore, in the earliest studies by Green (1933) and Dawe (1934), a positive correlation was suggested between gender and frequency of quarrelling: boys were involved in more disputes with their peers than girls. contemporary research, however, does not point to discrepancies in frequency, but rather a different focus or purpose in girls’ compared with boys’ disputes. goodwin and Goodwin (1987: 227) note that ‘although they had much in common, when the boys and girls on Maple street interacted in same-sex groups they displayed different interests, engaged in different activities, and constructed different types of social organization. this had consequences for the types of disputes that occurred within each group’. differences in the underlying social structure of the groups, then, influence the types of disputes in same-sex interaction.

‘The analyses of both object and person control conflicts indicate that one’s gender predisposes one toward becoming involved in conflicts over particular issues (often objects for boys, and others’ behavior for girls) in ways that are not accounted for by differences in social-cognitive functioning’ (Shantz and Shantz, 1985: 12). this does not suggest that children engage exclusively in these types of conflict according to gender, but rather that disputes function differently depending on the goals or underlying motivations of the group. ‘Boys appear to be more concerned with power and status during their interactions with other children, girls with relationships and sustaining harmonious interaction’ (Putallaz and Sheppard, 1995: 344).

differences can be viewed through the contrasting social organisation of each group. that is, ‘the comparisons made by girls characteristically deal with ties they

church Book.indb 15 13/01/2009 12:11:32


have to others or their appearance, whereas the boys employ a variety of criteria to explicitly rank themselves against each other’ (Goodwin and Goodwin, 1987: 229). consequently, the boys’ disputes are frequently centred around ‘issues of relative power’ while the format of the girls’ challenges ‘reflects their concerns with what others say about them’ (p.230). This latter format of reporting and challenging accusations is discussed in detail by Goodwin and Goodwin (1987), emphasising the highly structured pattern of he-said-she-said disputes. given the embedded sequences in these arguments, they constitute a ‘much greater complexity than exists when only two positions to an argument are debated, the general situation in most boys’ and cross-sex disputes’ (p.238).

the indirect style of disputing attributed to girls can be seen as multi-layered, enhancing the speaker’s position while maintaining solidarity within the group. Sheldon (1992, 1996) identifies the concept of ‘double-voice discourse’ where the speaker promotes her own agenda whilst sustaining social harmony. sheldon (1992) also notes that the framework of pretend play allows girls an indirect form of opposition which in turn allows a greater number of alternatives for solving an incompatibility of intentions. the difference in girls’ and boys’ production of double-voice discourse should not be attributed to ability (boys are as capable of recognising the perspective of other) but rather ‘it is more likely that that the difference in usage is due to discourse norms in solidarity-based groups’ (Sheldon, 1992: 113). Sheldon concludes by returning to the acceptability of direct confrontation in boys’ conflict in contrast (but not in opposition) to the expectation of girls to attend to the needs of the social group.

In an earlier paper, Sheldon (1990) comments that dispute episodes involving girls were typically constructed of strategies that asked for or provided clarification of the speaker’s intentions. Sheldon relates this finding to Maltz and Borker’s (1982) claim that girls maintain relationships based on ‘closeness and equality’, and to the concept of care orientation put forward by Gilligan (1988). Goodwin and Goodwin (1987) challenge such an orientation by stating that ‘in contrast to the prevalent stereotype that female interaction is organized with reference to politeness and a dispreference for dispute (Gilligan 1982: 9-10; Lever 1976: 482; Piaget, 1965: 77), we find that girls are not only just as skilled in argumentation as boys but have types of arguments that are both more extended and more complex in their participation structure than those among boys’ (p.201).

Verbal strategies

It becomes apparent that subjectivity is not restricted to defining openings, frequency, and types of conflict. Categorising verbal strategies produced in children’s adversative discourse is also dependent upon the researcher’s bias – strategies are imposed by the researcher rather than necessarily identified as such by the children themselves. although there is considerable overlap in the classification of argumentative moves put forward in various studies, there is a

church Book.indb 16 13/01/2009 12:11:33


lack of uniformity which precludes any direct correlation of findings. Furthermore, quantification of types of verbal strategies used in conflict episodes (e.g. Haslett, 1983) does not tell us how children are producing these strategies. However, some description of the repertoire of verbal strategies identified across young children’s peer disputes is called for.

Predominantly, verbal strategies produced throughout episodes are grouped according to illocutionary intent. Occasionally, opening moves are distinguished from later oppositional turns. Eisenberg and Garvey (1981) identified five types of initial opposition: simple negative; reason or justification; countering move; postpone (temporise); and evade. Of these the most common was supplying a reason (101/208), followed by a simple ‘no’ (73/208). Eisenberg and Garvey (1981) then classified nine types of objection which are performed after these opening moves. As these categories of reaction to opposition are replicated elsewhere (e.g. Genishi and Di Paolo, 1982), Table 2.1 (below) serves as a summary.

Table 2.1 Categories of opposition

Source: eisenberg and garvey, 1981.

Elsewhere, in their study of role-play-elicited conflict involving early primary school children, Brenneis and Lein (1977) used the following categories to identify moves in the disputes: threats, bribes, insults, praise, command, moral persuasion, negating or contradictory assertion, simple assertion, denial, affirmative, supportive assertion, demand for evidence and non-word vocal signals. in his

insistence Repetition or reinforcement of previous utterance (adding no new information).

Mitigation/aggravation Paraphrases of original requests by either increasing indirectness or increasing directness.

reasons Statements providing explanation or justification for refusal to comply, or to influence other speaker.

counter speaker offers an alternative proposal.

conditional directive composed of two linked, complex propositions: (1) a promise and (2) a directive.

compromise Proposal for some form of sharing.

requests for explanation Used to elicit a reason or justification when partner has failed to provide either.

Physical force includes grabbing, taking object that partner has not released, hitting, struggling, and pushing.

ignores no response is made within 1.0 second.

church Book.indb 17 13/01/2009 12:11:33


study of disputing amongst part-Hawaiian children Boggs (1978) identified ten distinct verbal strategies: assertion, claim allegation, contradiction, challenge, insult, supporting argument/allegation, appeal to authority, and counter insult/threat/trial. Genishi and Di Paolo (1982) borrowed these categories to distinguish verbal strategies employed by children. the categories were designed to be mutually exclusive, and were grouped according to Eisenberg and Garvey’s (1981) definitions of (1) antecedent events, (2) initial oppositions and (3) resolutions. The categories are listed as (1) action, assertion, claim, request, (2) challenge, contradiction, denial, insult, refusal, threat and (3) acceptance, appeal to authority, compromise, supporting argument.

a prominent strategy in children’s adversative discourse is stating references to social rules. these rules are not necessarily invoked for their own sake, i.e. by a law-abiding speaker, but constitute a means-end approach. Maynard (1985a: 19) observes that ‘in disagreement episodes, while rules may be related to extraneous cultural values, they are not necessarily invoked because of a basic concern to support these values, even though that may be the unintended consequence. Primarily, rules are used to manage local social concerns which are indigenous to the children’s own social group’.

also, in each collection of data, threats emerge as a distinct category of opposition. an inherent aspect of conditionality distinguishes threats as type of argumentative move, as they ‘express the intention to hurt or punish the hearer with the purpose of altering the hearer’s behavior’ (Benoit, 1983: 315). Essentially, then, threats invoke undesirable outcomes. Benoit points to the importance of considering the hearer’s role (see Grimshaw, 1980) in response to a threat. The hearer is obliged to ‘produce an appropriate response to the threat to complete the unit’ (1983: 306). She further emphasises the collaborative nature of threats, rather than identifying threats as isolated utterances, because ‘threats as structural units … contribute to the sequential organization and collaborative development of discourse’ (Benoit, 1983: 307).

Haslett (1983) found that threats were used more frequently by four and five year-olds than two and three-year-olds; not surprisingly, given the prerequisite level of linguistic complexity. threats are most powerful when the speaker controls the projected outcome (e.g. harm-threats, withholding action/outcome), whereas threatening unspecified consequences or teacher retribution is less forceful. the response to a threat is typically rejection by the hearer: ‘the nature of the conversational unit does not promote open discussion between the interactants’ (Benoit, 1983: 327). Consequently, cycles of threats and counter-threats are implicated in escalating disputes (O’Keefe and Benoit, 1982; Haslett, 1983; Benoit, 1992).

it is not only the content and function of verbal strategies which have been reviewed in existing research; suprasegmental features in the discourse have also prompted investigation. Brenneis and Lein (1977), for example, observed a number of stylistic tactics which accompanied the verbal strategies used by the children, namely volume (most frequent amongst the younger children), speed,

church Book.indb 18 13/01/2009 12:11:33


stress and intonation. the distribution of these paralinguistic features was parallel to that noted by Boggs (1978): a pattern of escalation was characteristic in each. Visual cues (Camras, 1980), pitch leaps, vowel lengthening and dramatic contours have all been shown to be meaningful in challenges made in the course of play (Goodwin, Goodwin and Yaeger-Dror, 2002).

recycling the content of a prior turn constitutes a particular type of opposition strategy in children’s adversative discourse. as discussed in the previous section, Maynard (1985a) distinguished between mutual opposition as conflict, and two-turn sequences identified as occasions of repair. Once the argument has begun, however, what may constitute repair in adult speech can function as a conflict strategy among children. that is, partial repetition is a type of oppositional move used by children (Goodwin and Goodwin, 1987), a form of overt opposition which is distinguishable from the notion of correction used within the broader framework of (adult) repair. Partial repetition as an opposition move is distinct from other-initiated repair by difference in performance: no hesitation and no rising intonation. this type of opposition not only creates a challenge to the content of the preceding utterance, but also challenges the authority of the previous speaker. ‘Opposition can thus call into question not only what has been said, but also the general competence of someone who would produce such talk’ (Goodwin and goodwin, 1987: 210).

similarly, in her work with african-american children living in inner cities, Goodwin (1983) identified types of aggravation and mitigation strategies produced in argumentative sequences. The first of these are identified as aggravated partial-repeat correction formats: ‘in contrast to repair operations performed in adult conversation in a mitigated way, among children, pointing to the trouble source and supplying the correction may be collapsed into a single turn’ (p.659). Goodwin moves on to consider aggravated contradiction and replacement correction formats: ‘Both of these formats can be considered more aggravated than the partial repeat formats discussed above in that they provide unquestionable opposition to a prior turn’ (1983: 662).

Eisenberg and Garvey (1981) refer to the function of aggravation and mitigation in adversative episodes, in that they raise or lower the status of the speaker, and consequently manipulate the participatory role (see Labov and Fanshel, 1977). the term mitigation denotes the speaker’s attempt to soften the unwelcome effect of the utterance (Fraser, 1980).2 aggravated disagreements, on the other hand, are bald-on-record (Brown and Levinson, 1987) and are particularly salient in the peer culture of Italian preschool children (Corsaro and Rizzo, 1990). This strategy, one of augmenting the previous action, was most common in claim disputes and ritualised dispute routines.

2 fraser makes the point that mitigation is distinct from politeness: ‘Mitigation entails politeness, while the converse is not true’ (1980: 344).

church Book.indb 19 13/01/2009 12:11:33


Strategies and friendships

the relationship between strategy choice and social relationships has also generated considerable interest (e.g. Hartup, Laursen, Stewart and Eastenson, 1988; Hartup, 1995; fabes and eisenberg, 1996). the type of strategies chosen by children during disputes is influenced by the relationship existing between the participants. The relationship is not only defined by the relative power status but also by the degree to which each child nominates the other as a friend. ‘the point is not that close peers always avoid disruptive behavior; coercion prevails in voluntary and involuntary close relationships alike. instead, we suggest that close peers avail themselves of mitigation often enough during critical instances to preserve future rewarding exchanges’ (Laursen, Hartup and Koplas, 1996: 87).

Laursen, Hartup and Koplas (1996) do not claim that friends engage in fewer conflicts than non-friends, but rather that children are aware that aggravated strategies are not conducive to maintaining close ties over a period of time. children are motivated to negotiate their position during disputes with friends, because they have a vested interest in an outcome which is satisfactory to both partners. Consequently friends are more likely to use ‘softer conflict management strategies’ than non-friends.

it is interesting that a preference for negotiation rather than coercion exists between friends but not between family members (Laursen, Hartup and Koplas, 1996). it could be argued that the relationship with siblings and parents is sustained regardless of the child’s behaviour, but the relationship between peers will not withstand disregard for the other child’s wishes. ‘in sum, studies are compatible with the conclusion that close peers try not to allow conflict to interfere with previously established patterns of rewarding exchange. according to rizzo (1992), the absence of observed negative conflict outcomes suggests that scholars overestimate the actual threat of conflict to friendships’ (Laursen Hartup and Koplas, 1996: 90).

an additional aspect of children’s arguments is that help is seldom sought from the teacher, or at least rarely, by children who are more competent:

Elementary-aged children who experience interpersonal conflict with their peers typically are reluctant to go to an adult authority for assistance. Help seeking is perceived as a way of avoiding rather than resolving conflict. Children who are socially well accepted, in particular, prefer to use prosocial, constructive strategies (e.g. discussing the situation) without relying on adults (Newman, Murray and lussier, 2001: 398).

While acknowledging that this observation is applicable to relatively mild conflicts, the same authors underscore children’s preference for independence in resolving more serious disputes with peers. the most common reason given for not seeking help was that children want to resolve arguments on their own terms. the children involved in the study appeared to seek teacher intervention as a last resort, when

church Book.indb 20 13/01/2009 12:11:33


their own repertoire had been exhausted and proven ineffective (Newman, Murray and lussier, 2001: 406).

Whilst studies of conflict typically report boys using more aggressive or hostile strategies when compared to the more passive or mitigated disputing practices of girls (e.g. Chung and Asher, 1996: 138), we should be wary of over-extending these findings to claims of female passivity. ‘Female children are not devoid of aggressive actions; they simply have other strategies of control as well’ (Benoit, 1983). additionally, cultural differences should be recognised in disputing practices; chinese girls, for example have been shown to use as many direct strategies in managing conflict as American boys (Kyratzis and Guo, 2001).

In her study of Chinese preschool children in Taiwan, Farris (2000: 545) found that ‘the masculine-associated, direct ‘aggravated’ style is used interactively by both girls and boys as the unmarked, or normal mode for engaging in conflict in both all male and cross-sex groups’. fundamentally, both boys and girls demonstrate ability to use the same range of strategies. as mentioned above, dispute strategies, are influenced by differences in play activities and social organisation of groups. Most importantly, however, the similarities between boys’ and girls’ dispute structures and strategies are greater than the differences (Goodwin and Goodwin, 1987).

This overlap in boys’ and girls’ observed patterns of behaviour during conflict situations suggests that gender differences of this type may involve differences in emphasis rather than a quantitative discontinuity. rather than conceiving of sex differences in social development as reflecting two distinct paths, which is what Gilligan (1982) proposes – one concerned with ‘justice’ and the other concerned with ‘relationships’ – the results of this study suggest that there may be a continuum of responses to conflict. This continuum ranges from avoidance of conflict to aggressive or heavy-handed responses. Males and females are represented by overlapping distributions on this continuum that are centred more towards direct persuasion and negotiation for males, and more towards maintaining interpersonal harmony for females. Although males do engage in conflict mitigation, their predominant mode of dealing with conflict is initially more direct. Similarly, females do engage in heavy-handed persuasion, but their predominant mode of dealing with conflict is more indirect. In addition, there is no indication that boys and girls are not equally manipulative, they merely use different means to attain their respective ends (Miller, Danaher and Forbes, 1986: 547).

the variety of verbal strategies summarised above suggests that young children’s ability to use different approaches in promoting their own position is considerable. a better indication of developing communicative competence, however, lies in establishing just how children employ these strategies during arguments. that is, how do children attempt to manipulate the outcome of disputes by serially constructing verbal strategies in adversative discourse? the most fundamental organisation of children’s conflict, in terms of the structure of discourse, is found in the sequences of these strategies.

church Book.indb 21 13/01/2009 12:11:33


Sequences of strategies

The verbal strategies identified above have been considered in terms of patterns of argument, establishing which actions are likely to precede or promote subsequent strategies. Brenneis and Lein (1977) suggest that dispute sequences follow one of three patterned structures: repetition, escalation or inversion. they also point to the interrelatedness of the turns at talk, as ‘one remark indicates what the next remark will probably be, because the arguments are constrained by structural rules’ (p.60). furthermore, the participants must adhere to the subject or theme put forward by the previous speaker if the sequence is to be sustained, as Brenneis and lein (1977: 61) claim that ‘semantic continuity is the organizing rule for argumentative sequences’.

Building on this research, Lein and Brenneis (1978) looked for patterns of children’s argument in three different speech communities. they found a tendency for african-american and fijian indian children to respond to insults with a pattern of escalation (i.e. each insult is exaggerated by the following speaker). the white american children participating in the study, however, tended to negate the previous speaker’s insult (a pattern of inversion). Differences in manner of escalation were also found: both american groups escalated sentences semantically (by augmenting the expression of the previous statement). The Fijian Indian children would use either substitution of equivalent terms or syntactic escalation (increasing the number of morphemes). As in their previous research, Lein and Brenneis (1978) found increasing volume in subsequent turns to be a common occurrence in all three speech communities.

Boggs (1978) identified a pattern of argument amongst part-Hawaiian children, aged between one and eight, which he labelled ‘contradicting routines’. the organisation of these routines suggests a predictable sequence of events, as illustrated in figure 2.1. Boggs notes that ‘there is a tendency for disputes to escalate from contradiction to challenge, insult, counter insult, threat or trial’ (1978: 332). Each type of strategy may be repeated, but children do not revert to strategies used earlier in the interaction; the pattern of the contradicting routine is therefore one of progression. this pattern of escalation was also observed in paralinguistic features of the routines as there was a complementary pattern of increasing volume, stress and pitch, and a shortening of gaps between turns.

church Book.indb 22 13/01/2009 12:11:33


as suggested earlier, the sequence of argument is to some extent predictable from the form of initial opposition. For example, Phinney (1986) found that the development of an argument was highly influenced by the type of opening counter-assertion. indeed each turn was seen to be affected by the form of the previous utterance, as simple strategies (basic rejection, denial or contradiction) were more likely to elicit a simple response, whereas elaborated forms (reasons, explanations, justifications or query of preceding statement) usually prompted elaborate replies. Goodwin and Goodwin (1987) point out that the content-based escalation observed in children’s arguments is mirrored in the structural form of the argument itself. ‘Indeed, there is a nice fit between the social activity of escalating a sequence and challenging a prior move and the syntactic structure of these utterances, in which the prior move becomes an embedded subcomponent of the sentence used to answer it’ (p.219).

responding moves in argumentative sequences not only attend to the semantic and syntactic content of previous turns but also to the force of the utterance, or type of strategy. Eisenberg and Garvey (1981) emphasise the dynamic nature of strategy choice, in that each speaker attends to the form of the previous action:

the two participants in the adversative episodes did not use strategies randomly, but were responding to the strategies of their opponent. The process of conflict resolution was a highly interactive one. if the partner used a strategy which provided no new material for him to work on or with, the child was less creative in his own choice of alternatives (p.166-7, emphasis in original).

the serial dependency of turns has also been acknowledged in analysis of threats in conflict episodes:

Figure 2.1 Sequences in contradicting routines, Boggs (1978)

assertion contradiction supporting

claim challenge argument/allegation

insult allegation appeal to authority

counter insult/threat/trial

church Book.indb 23 13/01/2009 12:11:33


analyses of threats as structural units suggest emergent patterns. Harm-threats are preceded by threats and insults and followed by threats … the interactants both refuse to give ground. … Withhold-action/object threats are preceded by assertions, [objectionable] behaviour, and refusals and followed by rejection or acceptance … tell-authority threats are preceded by [objectionable] behaviour and followed by topic shift and explanation. … Unspecified-consequence threats are preceded by refusal and followed by acceptance or explanation (Benoit, 1983: 327).

in acknowledging the relationship between turns, it could be suggested that focusing on singular strategies within disputes obscures a central organising principle of interdependence (cf. Halliday and Hasan, 1976). It is proposed in this research, however, that a more illuminative approach to adversative discourse lies in understanding how each successive turn builds on prior moves, rather than isolating and categorising the moves themselves. similarly, goodwin and goodwin (1987) do not view episodes of opposition moves as one distinct action followed in turn, but rather as a development of interrelated utterances. they also highlight the importance of analysing opposition moves beyond the level of speech acts, as children manipulate syntactic structures of prior moves.

the sequential nature of children’s arguments is emphasised through consideration of format tying as a resource in adversative episodes. ‘according to goodwin, format tying generally involves participants’ strategic use of phonological, syntactic, and semantic surface structure features of prior turns at talk (Goodwin, 1990: 177; see also Goodwin and Goodwin, 1987)’ (Corsaro and Maynard, 1996: 158). format tying is not only achieved by rephrasing prior phonological, syntactic and semantic content, but is also accomplished by reusing the structure of previous utterances. in other words, the child uses the surface structure of the prior turn and manipulates this structure to promote his or her own position. essentially, format tying may be used as a powerful counter, because the prior speaker’s words can be turned and used against her/him. ‘format tying and substitution thus work hand in hand, the similarity of the structure between two utterances provided by format tying making the relevant difference in the second utterance, the substituted term, stand out with particular salience’ (Goodwin and goodwin, 1987: 220).

Multi-party disputes

Many of the studies reported above are based on data collected from contrived play situations in laboratory settings, and the majority of findings are specific to interactions between two children. although two-party disputes are common in naturalistic settings, restricting observation to dyads does not allow analysis of all manifestations of adversative discourse. children frequently participate in group disputes; so the full repertoire of argumentative styles and structures cannot be generalised from observing dyadic conflict.

church Book.indb 24 13/01/2009 12:11:33


Before reviewing the structure of conflict involving more than two participants, however, a metalinguistic problem should be acknowledged. goodwin and goodwin (1990) criticise the use of the term ‘multi-party’ to describe the interaction of more than two speakers. given that multi-party is used elsewhere to denote a speaker and hearer, Goodwin (1981) argues that the term appears insufficient in distinguishing between two party discourse and discourse involving three or more participants. However, as the term is used elsewhere (Maynard, 1986a), the Goodwins employ the term despite reservations about its appropriateness. goodwin and goodwin (1990) present a stronger argument against the use of the term ‘dyadic’, in that it suggests the interaction between two parties is somehow unique, operating under specific principles which are not necessarily related to patterns of discourse involving three or more participants. they would argue that the norm is constituted by multi-party configuration and that the dyad operates within this same structure. the jargon also appears redundant when the more neutral ‘two-party’ functions effectively as a label to identify the number of participants.

the necessity of distinguishing between disputes involving two participants and those involving more than two participants is justified by features which may only appear in arguments involving multiple participants. Opportunity for collusion is the most distinctive feature of multi-party arguments. as an argument begins with an opposition to a prior utterance or action, two distinct positions are attributed to two participants. a third speaker may then align him or herself with one of these positions, or raise an alternative objection. Maynard (1986a) notes that this alignment may or may not be accepted by the original opposer and consequently should be seen as an offer of collaboration. acceptance of an offer of this kind is not marked, but typically is displayed by the fact that the offer is not rejected.

Offers may be rejected if they are not content-tied to the original opposition. ‘thus, not only can an apparent collaboration offer be treated in various ways by its recipient so that it is more or less successful, but the offerer herself can follow with various strategies that retrospectively construct how an alignment display should be constructed’ (Maynard, 1986a: 274). Furthermore,

One important consequence of the parasitic organization of these utterances, and in particular of the way in which they second the action of prior speaker, is that the subsequent speaker affiliates himself to the position being taken by the party whose talk is being followed. … Principal parties within the dispute can reject as well as accept such offers of collaboration (Goodwin and Goodwin, 1990: 102).

collaboration is therefore not achieved simply through the support of a third party, nor solely by the acceptance of this participation as compatible with the position of the original opposer or opposee. as noted by goodwin and goodwin (1990) this ‘piggybacking’, as they call it – distinct from insertion sequences – is a collaborative achievement ‘accomplished as much through the actions of

church Book.indb 25 13/01/2009 12:11:33


the subordinate party (who actively demonstrates his willingness to change his behavior at the suggestion of the other) as through those of the dominant party’ (p.113).

Danby and Baker (1998) note that multi-party disputes typically begin as two-party confrontation, with other speakers rapidly aligning themselves with one position or the other. Yet Maynard (1986a) underscores the idea that the dispute does not simply consist of two sides (although it is initiated by only two parties). ‘rather, given one party’s displayed position, stance or claim, another party can produce opposition by simply aligning against that position or by aligning with a counter-position. this means that parties can dispute a particular position for different reasons and by different means’ (p.281). Consequently, multi-party disputes are generally not described as two-party disputes with additional speakers, because additional participants may attempt to align themselves with a particular speaker but not necessarily with the position of that speaker. in this light, collaboration may provide a platform for introducing a new objection or agenda.

Conflict outcomes

As discussed above, most research on child conflict illustrates the type of verbal strategies produced, with provisional attempts made to describe sequences of these strategies. consideration of the outcomes of children’s disputes is generally made only in passing. Although most studies specify the boundaries of conflict episodes – disputes ‘end with either clear settlements, physical movement of dispute participants from the interactive scene, or a shift away from the disputed event to a new topic or activity’ (Corsaro and Rizzo, 1990: 26) – attention to the form of closing sequences is limited.

Samuel Vuchinich (1990) is one of the few who has attempted to identify the characteristics of utterances which bring about the end of disputes. He proposes five categories of conflict termination: submission, dominant third-party intervention, compromise, stand-off, and withdrawal. By far the most frequent of these (from recordings of families during dinner time) was the stand-off (66 per cent), which is defined as neither party submitting to the position of the other. In the same paper Vuchinich (1990) suggests that the closing of argumentative sequences is characterised by a two-slot structure. this structure displays either a ‘dominant/submissive relationship between the participants’ or a ‘consensus on compromise’ (p.121).

The notion of a two-slot structure (recognisable in other terminal exchanges – see schegloff and sacks, 1973) in the ending of disputes, appears in genishi and Di Paolo’s (1982) work. However, Genishi and Di Paolo’s claim that arguments are brought to a close by unsuccessful attempts to participate (i.e. by not tying to previous content) appears circuitously flawed. In this case, the definition of closing is generated retrospectively and attempts are qualified as unsuccessful solely

church Book.indb 26 13/01/2009 12:11:33


because the dispute is abandoned. On other occasions, where the same type of utterance is understood as relevant to the dispute and taken up by another speaker, the move is no longer considered ‘unsuccessful’ because the dispute proceeds. it could be argued that prediction of outcome, while facilitated by the knowledge of the dispute ending, should instead be based on a pattern of discourse recognised by the participants and demonstrated as universal by the researcher.

Identification of patterns of discourse and utterance types which are instrumental in the closing of arguments is in many ways problematic. ditchburn (1988) proposes a number of categories of de-escalation strategies used by the children (aged 4.5-6 years) she observed in three preschools. The first of these is negotiated compliance, which, from the example provided appears to overlap the category of compromise used elsewhere (Eisenberg and Garvey, 1981). A second de-escalation strategy is labelled as a topic change, where one speaker shifts from the dispute and introduces a new topic. (This topic change is a collaborative action, in that the other participants accept the shift and simultaneous abandonment of the dispute.) tracking, a third category proposed by ditchburn, appears to be a shift from the pretend to real frame, rather than a de-escalation strategy. that is, the dispute constitutes a negotiation of the play script; when one child’s suggestion regarding the state of play is acceptable to the other child, the pretend play may continue.

Another de-escalation strategy put forward by Ditchburn (1988) is labelled trial and error, where the dispute may unravel at various points through unrelated discourse. ditchburn also presents third-party tracking as a de-escalation strategy, but the example used to illustrate this strategy fails to qualify as adversative discourse, because the child’s question does not constitute a challenge to the previous speaker but rather a request for information. negating the grounds for dispute identifies a justification which is not challenged by the play partner. similarly, the category of role-related grounds appears designed to qualify a particular dispute ending rather than a form of de-escalation produced as effective on multiple occasions. Ditchburn’s (1988) categories are reported here to highlight the difficulties associated with identifying properties of conflict closings.

An undisputed feature of conflict endings is that the conclusion is brought about by the collaborative effort of the parties involved. the successful resolution, dissipation or abandonment of conflict depends on the acquiescence of both or all parties. Vuchinich (1990) states that the end of a conflict episode is dependent upon the mutual participation of all participants. this is reached in one of two ways: either one child achieves a dominant position (which necessitates the resignation of the argumentative partner), or both parties negotiate an acceptable end to the disputing. As Eisenberg and Garvey (1981: 168) point out, the ‘successful resolution of an adversative episode is a mutual endeavor: a child is more likely to win if he considers his opponent’s intentions and more likely to concede if his own desires are taken into account’.

As the primary aim of Eisenberg and Garvey’s (1981) study was to determine which verbal strategies were most likely to lead to conflict resolution, some emphasis

church Book.indb 27 13/01/2009 12:11:34


was placed on defining clear-cut outcomes. However, the number of resolved disputes presented in their study must be interpreted in light of the method used to elicit arguments. for example, the small sample of children observed by genishi and Di Paolo (1982) did not arrive at as many mutually acceptable conclusions to disputes as put forward in other research. the authors ascribe the absence of definite resolution in many cases to the spontaneous nature of the data (cf. Brenneis and lein, 1977). Other differences in data collection procedure may also explain this discrepancy. For example, as Eisenberg and Garvey’s (1981) episodes were generated in pair-play situations in restricted space, a higher frequency of resolution should be anticipated. that is, in the laboratory setting the children had no other play partners to appeal to and nowhere else to go; resolution in this instance becomes necessary if any type of cooperative play is to be sustained.

Attempting to isolate successful examples of conflict resolution is further complicated by the fact that in many children’s disputes a clear outcome does not exist:

the majority of disputes, however, are terminated without any sharp indication that either position has ‘won’ or ‘lost’. in general, the end of an argument occurs when one of the two disputing parties does not tie his talk to the topic of the prior dispute, but instead produces an action that breaks the argument frame … and his adversary accepts this shift. although compromise is seldom reached, nor sought as a goal of the interaction, by shifting to noncompetitive talk (between former disputants), parties cooperate in bringing about the closure of the dispute. despite the absence of a clear outcome, disputing allows participants the opportunity to construct and display character, a process important in their social organization (Goodwin, 1982: 87-88).

The negotiation of social roles is an important feature of conflict, and not always dependant on outcome. Eisenberg and Garvey (1981) claim that the objective of the participants is to resolve the conflict, yet do not allow for the situation where the speaker’s aim may be to extend the conflict. That is, the type of conflict, or the child’s motivation for participating in the argument, will have bearing on the urgency of resolution. While the participant’s goal may be to resolve a dispute involving property rights, where attempting to assert status is a primary ambition, a cooperative conclusion may not be a satisfactory outcome. Patterns of closing sequences are also influenced by cultural communicative styles (e.g. Adger, 1986). Overall, ‘the reason for the empirical lack of resolution in children’s disputes is that a basic function of conflict is to achieve a concrete, particular social organization through the display of opposition and the construction of accountable alignment structures. such organisation is accomplished without resolution of a dispute episode’ (Maynard, 1985b: 212).

given the contention that resolution is not readily achieved in children’s disputing, further investigation of conflict outcomes is warranted. If children are not always ‘winning’ or ‘losing’ arguments, how is it that arguments are brought

church Book.indb 28 13/01/2009 12:11:34


to a close? and where disputes are resolved, how is this achieved? Other than the termination sequences identified above, what features of turn sequences are implicated in outcomes?

Limitations of existing research

The body of existing research in children’s conflict presents a thorough account of what children argue about and the types of strategies children use during disputes. essentially, what children do in disputes is well established. But questions remain as to how children co-construct conflict. The data in this book do not contradict the findings of earlier research, but rather extend beyond the preoccupation with types of ‘moves’ produced by children, to investigation of how these moves may be related to one another.

With the exception of the ethnomethodological studies of Majorie Harness Goodwin, Charles Goodwin and William Corsaro, existing child conflict research has essentially been limited to an analytic emphasis on single utterances or a discourse analytic approach,3 largely overlooking the inherent properties of connectedness in adversative discourse. discourse analysis, although moving beyond isolated speech acts, cannot adequately cope with the mechanics of how one turn relates to the next (cf. Jackson and Jacobs, 1980; see also Wooffitt, 2005). analysis of sequences of strategies has been restricted by pre-emptive nominations of strategies. in attempting to classify the structure of the discourse in terms of sequences of single actions, ordering principles may be overlooked. that is, the serial production of turns might not be organised according to the externally allocated force of the utterance but through other properties of the discourse. the purpose of this research is to approach the data from another perspective, with the intention of uncovering universal properties of adversative discourse, specifically closing sequences, which are not limited by categories of actions imposed by the analyst.

3 this denotes discourse analysis as conceived in linguistics, rather than the broader conceptualisation employed in social psychology (see Forrester, 1996).

church Book.indb 29 13/01/2009 12:11:34

chapter 3

conversation analysis

Introduction

In the previous chapter, contemporary research in child conflict was discussed in terms of categories of analytic emphasis, underscoring the lack of attention given to the sequences of turns in children’s arguments. emphasis has rested on the force of single utterances and the significance of these moves in a broader social context, yet the interrelatedness of the turns themselves has been largely overlooked. the premise here is that the method of conversation analysis is particularly suited to an investigation of the sequences and, subsequently, the outcomes of disputes.

the purpose of this chapter, then, is to identify the relevant attributes of a conversation analytic approach and demonstrate their applicability to the study of child conflict. Essentially this chapter sets out to (1) locate the current study in the expanding field of research in conversation analysis; (2) summarily identify key concepts in conversation analysis for readers who may be unfamiliar with this methodology; (3) present an argument for the efficacy of conversation analysis as a tool for investigating young children’s peer interaction; and (4) discuss properties preference organisation as a principle of sequential talk that is relevant to adversative discourse.

in the late 1960s, Harvey sacks’ deliberative approach to the order of social interaction distinguished itself from the contemporary work of Harold Garfinkel (1967, 1972) and Erving Goffman (1961, 1963, 1971). With his prolific collaborators emanuel schegloff and gail Jefferson, sacks developed a rigorous model for the study of spoken interaction, establishing conversation analysis (CA) as a distinct field in sociological research. Whilst the theory of CA did not emerge entirely independently of Garfinkel’s pioneering work (departing from Parsonian theory) in ethnomethodology (Heritage, 1984; Taylor and Cameron, 1987), Sacks’ early work represented a critical shift in treating the inherent order of spoken language – uncovered through microanalysis – as a vehicle of social organisation and behaviour. nor did conversation analysis rest on the platform of goffman’s ideas; rather goffman’s work opened the path that sacks and schegloff, in particular, would follow (Schegloff, 1988b).

a discussion of the organic history of conversation analysis within contemporary sociological inquiry will not appear here. not only does a thorough retrospective introduction fall outside the boundary of immediate relevance, the ontology of CA is comprehensively provided for elsewhere (e.g. Heritage, 1984; Schegloff, 1995; Psathas, 1995; ten Have, 2007; Hutchby and Wooffitt, 2008). Similarly, the present chapter does not pretend to serve as a review of collections of conversation

church Book.indb 31 13/01/2009 12:11:34


analytic research (e.g. Sudnow, 1970; Schenkein, 1978; Atkinson and Heritage, 1984; Button and lee, 1987; Psathas, 1979, 1990; Boden and Zimmerman, 1991; drew and Heritage, 1992; Watson and seiler, 1992; firth, 1995; ten Have and Psathas, 1995; ford, fox and thompson, 2002, richards and seedhouse, 2005; McHoul 2008). the discussion here is not concerned with exploring the breadth of studies in this field, but rather in highlighting the fundamental concepts in CA that serve as a basis for the investigation of disputes among preschool children.

attempts are continually made to classify the varying approaches to analysing spoken language (Coulthard, 1985; Schiffrin, 1994; Wooffitt, 2005), however, the borrowing and modification of methods suggests that the categorisation and interpretation of existing discourse theory is often blurred (Pomerantz and fehr, 1997). Other models of discourse analysis are not discounted, but the present discussion is concerned with describing the particular advantages of a conversation analytic approach. some commentary should be made, however, on the limitations of speech act theory, as this type of analysis essentially dominates earlier research in children’s adversative discourse. even where not theoretically framed as such, labelling strategies as particular types of actions – as illustrated in the previous chapter – presents a classification of speech acts. Searle (1969, 1975a and b) developed this notion of speech act from Austin’s (1962) initial work on performatives in language, identifying the locution, illocution and perlocution of utterances. Whilst general accounts of speech act theory are provided for elsewhere (e.g. Allan, 1994; Mey, 2001; Levinson, 1983) it is pertinent to briefly identify weaknesses of speech act theory in its application to spoken (connected) discourse.

An obvious difficulty of identifying acts within utterances is due to the fact that a single utterance may represent more than one speech act at any given time. ‘One serious weakness with speech act theory has been to pretend that each u [utterance] has only one illocutionary point’ (Allan, 1994: 4132; see also Labov and fanshel, 1977). the notion of one-to-one mapping of a single act to each turn does not allow for the common performance of more than one speech act within an utterance (Levinson, 1981). Not only does this model fail to adequately account for multiple actions achieved in single utterances, not all moves can be affiliated with the catalogue of speech acts. speech act theory does not account for all possible interpretations of utterances, be they direct or indirect, as demonstrated by the misinterpretation or confusion of questions and pre-sequences (Schegloff, 1988a).

another weakness in speech act theory concerns the opacity of speaker intention (Allan, 1994: 4132), as the illocutionary force is not always clearly displayed. The hearer’s response may not be consistent with the speaker’s original meaning. in other words, the type of action an utterance realises can be considered dependent upon the manner in which it is understood by the hearer. an utterance cannot, therefore, be understood to represent a particular speech act in the absence of the conversational context in which it occurs. speech acts as hypothetical constructs (Emihovich, 1986: 496) present conceptual problems, as the acts themselves are only realised through actual conversation. consequently, a limitation of speech

church Book.indb 32 13/01/2009 12:11:34

Conversation Analysis 33

act theory lies in the secondary importance of the immediate context in which conversation develops. acknowledgment of context is essentially restricted to broader semantic fields.

recent research has also begun to reveal that participants pay very close attention to their local environment, for example the exact words spoken in the immediately prior talk, and use that knowledge to build appropriate subsequent talk. such phenomena become inaccessible to study when analysis takes as its point of departure a gloss of a turn’s talk as an instance of a particular type of speech act (Goodwin and Goodwin, 1990: 85).

conversely, ‘the ca perspective embodies a dynamic approach in which “context” is treated as both the project and the product of the participants’ own actions and therefore as inherently locally produced and transformable at any moment’ (Drew and Heritage, 1992: 19). Conversation analysis is not only better equipped to deal with the influence of prior turns (local context), but to consider multiple meanings inherent in any single utterance.

the merits of speech act theory are certainly not dismissed; nor is conversation analysis upheld as an infallible or exhaustive tool for the study of connected discourse. However, the focus on the sequence of turns in talk-in-interaction promotes ca as an apposite tool for the analysis of young children’s adversative discourse.

Methodological advantages of conversation analysis

the following summary illustrates procedural aspects of conversation analytic methodology which are particularly suited to the study of children’s conversations. although multiple features may be shown to be ‘pertinent to a process-focused analysis of conflict talk’ (Garvey and Shantz, 1995: 95), three significant components will be discussed here. The first of these is the insistence on naturally occurring data which constitutes the empiricism of ca. secondly, data-driven analysis is found to be more fruitful than a pre-theorised approach to children’s verbal interaction. thirdly, ca is derived from the very rules of interaction that the speakers themselves orient to and is therefore particularly relevant to a study in which the researcher does not have member access to the group involved. a fundamental interest in the sequential organisation of conversation is also recognised as a dominant strength in ca and will be discussed further in this chapter.

The recording of real interaction

in order to analyse the rules of conversation that speakers themselves orient to, the issue becomes how these rules may be discovered; that is, what should constitute the data. in this regard, the development of ca was aligned with existing sociological practices rather than the contemporary methods in linguistics (namely

church Book.indb 33 13/01/2009 12:11:34


the chomskyan approach of constructing ideal phrases) given that emphasis is placed on recording naturally occurring data.

[a] base for using close looking at the world for theorizing about it is that from close looking at the world we can find things that we could not, by imagination, assert were there (Sacks, 1984a: 25).

this method in conversation analysis is seen as preferable to other sources of data: those being generated by interview; observations recorded through fieldnotes or preconceived categories; native intuitions (or inventions); and contrived situations (Heritage, 1984). An additional advantage of reproducing naturally occurring conversation for analysis is that the analysis itself is open to review and the findings may be called into question. Results cannot remain an idiosyncratic set of observations ‘because others could look at what i studied and make what they could, if, for example, they wanted to be able to disagree with me’ (Sacks, 1984a: 26).

authentic conversation is seen as preferable to an imagined series of turns for a number of reasons. One of these is that a single phrase may be reasonably designed by intuition, but the development of a sequence of turns cannot be accurately predicted, and only unfolds authentically in talk-in-interaction. indeed the complexity of turn-taking itself with speaker shift, pause and overlap (see discussion below) is a barrier to a fabricated account. additionally, discourse does not unfold in a contextual void, and it is the speakers themselves (through their shared knowledge) who construct the framework of interaction. Specifically related to research in early childhood is the fact that the researcher is not a member of the subject group, and is therefore unqualified to assume what may or may not be feasible in a conversation produced by four-year-olds; William Corsaro (1997) makes a similar argument. Most obviously, only naturally occurring interaction can illustrate the richness of authentic conversation. in order to study conversation, therefore, the analyst should turn to naturally occurring data.

the use of interviews would also be inappropriate given the age of the participants in the current study. it is arguable that preschool children’s stage of development limits the metalinguistic ability necessary in deconstructing verbal moves (cf. Becker, 1988). Yet regardless of the age of conversational partners, understanding of processes in conflict is best examined through actual events rather than through secondary reporting. experimental procedures are similarly viewed to be insufficient in CA tradition, as they may be considered unrepresentative of natural behaviour. although it could be argued that conversations recorded in laboratory settings follow the same rules of discourse as those in spontaneous exchange, the motivation of the speakers involved is inevitably altered.

Obviously inseparable from the recording of naturally recorded data is the manner in which the interaction is transcribed. transcription theory in ca allows for analysis not only of talk but of paralinguistic features of interaction which may be significant or meaningful to the participants. Consequently, transcripts used by

church Book.indb 34 13/01/2009 12:11:34


conversation analysts mark every single utterance by each of conversationalists, turn-taking and overlap, pauses, hesitations, stutters, inhalations and exhalations, laughter, stress, intonation contour, pitch rate of speech, changes in volume and nonverbal actions such as gestures, gaze, body posture etc. (a discussion of transcription theory and procedure appears at the beginning of chapter 4). importantly, the task of transcribing the recorded interaction is assumed by the researcher her or himself, because repetitive review of the recorded data serves as a preliminary form of analysis. additionally, the recorded interaction constitutes the data rather than the resulting transcript. the transcript serves as a representation of the conversation rather than a flawless mirror of the conversation itself, given the incompatibility of the written word and the many nuances of the spoken word (Moerman, 1988).

Data-driven analysis

another advantage of employing conversation analysis in the study of young children’s arguments is the emphasis on data-driven analysis in favour of a pre-categorised approach. this is particularly relevant given the purpose of this study, namely to determine what it is that children are actually doing in constructing adversative discourse. the concept of unmotivated looking used in ca provides a theoretical route to discovering features of conversation, as opposed to features the researcher has established prior to analysis. although certain categories of action may be generated as a result of the analysis, these are derived directly from the unfolding talk.

an unwillingness to dismiss features of conversation as unrelated to the focus of investigation constitutes a particular strength of conversation analytic research. By allowing analysis to be directed by the data, ca distinguishes itself from other methods of discourse analysis.

Rather than starting with a set of theoretical specifications of ‘structure’ or ‘action’ (cf. Parsons 1937) or with an a priori theoretical specification of particular actions (for example, Searle’s [1969] speech act specifications) or with a theory of the motivation of action such as the theory of ‘face’ (Goffman 1955, 1959, 1971; Brown and levinson 1987), ca has avoided premature and idealized theory construction in favor of the empirical identification of diverse structures of practices (Heritage, 1995: 397).

This emphasis on empirical identification ensures that any feature of the interaction may be considered as possibly significant in the development of conversation. Although it can be argued that the researcher does not arrive at the data uninfluenced by a particular theoretical orientation, at best the analysis is not constrained by rigid boundaries of observation criteria. in other words, ‘the order found in conversational materials is not imposed by the analysts’ use of a priori conceptual schemes or coding categories, but discovered’ (Zimmerman, 1988: 418). The

church Book.indb 35 13/01/2009 12:11:34


data-driven nature of ca methodology not only enables a broader approach to conversation (broad in the sense that any feature of conversation may be viewed as significant) but ensures that the conversation is not removed from the very source of its design. rather than observing the aspects of conversation predetermined by a hypothesis, the researcher is able to attend to the actual production of conversation; that is, features of talk which are salient to the speakers themselves.

The emic perspective of CA

a fundamental issue in conversation analytic research, is a requisite preoccupation with the features of conversation which are significant or meaningful to the participants. this is related to the point made above that the analysis is data-driven: the researcher’s observations must be drawn from the turns constructed and organised by those involved in the interaction. This allows for findings which are based exclusively on the evidence which is open to, or indeed constituted by, the participants. the fact that the participant’s understanding of the development of the topic at hand is demonstrated on a turn-by-turn basis, means that this understanding is also on display for the analyst (Atkinson and Heritage, 1984). In other words:

while understandings of other turns’ talk are displayed to co-participants, they are available as well to professional analysts, who are thereby afforded a proof criterion (and a search procedure) for the analysis of what a turn’s talk is occupied with. since it is the parties’ understandings of prior turns’ talk that is relevant to their construction of next turns, it is their understandings that are wanted for analysis (Sacks, Schegloff and Jefferson, 1974: 729, emphasis in original).

this focus on the participants’ own orientation to the development of conversation is of particular value to the study of children’s verbal interaction. ca provides an approach to the discourse which is not removed from the children’s own understanding of the relatedness of each utterance. consequently, by attending to the data in this manner, we are perhaps better able to identify those aspects of argument which are salient to the children involved. As discussed in the first chapter, an aim of this research is to determine how children manage conflict, as opposed to how adults interpret this management. importantly, if the children ‘themselves do not display an obvious orientation to the ideas and concepts that the analyst thinks might be important, then it is hardly a tenable position to insist that such constructs are critical or even important’ (Forrester, 1996: 95). As ‘CA insists that the categories used to describe participants, action and context must be derived from orientations exhibited by the participants themselves’ (Goodwin and Heritage, 1990: 295), this approach to spoken language is particularly suited to discover the properties of verbal disputes which the children themselves respond to as significant. It is therefore necessary in the analysis of the conflict episodes (or,

church Book.indb 36 13/01/2009 12:11:35


from a ca perspective, any conversation) to restrict observation to those functions which are apparent to participants and investigator alike.

Sequential organisation of conversation

Having established the importance of attending to features of conversation which participants themselves recognise as significant, it is necessary to clarify how these features may be identified. How can the analyst be confident that she is attending to features recognised by the participants? the answer lies in the sequential organisation of turn-taking systems in conversation. the pioneering work by Sacks, Schegloff and Jefferson (1974) established this fundamental notion in CA, outlining the rules by which the turn-taking system operates. the order of turns in conversation is such that each follows the last, where each new speaker attends to the previous turn in a way that is deemed relevant by all members.

conversation analytic research focuses on sequences of actions rather than single utterances removed from conversation (Atkinson and Heritage, 1984). Attention is given to the relationship between turns, rather than focusing solely on the function of each turn (cf. earlier discussion of speech act theory). By restricting analysis to single utterances, the interpretation of that utterance displayed by the next speaker in their turn at talk is neglected. the following discussion of turn-taking, repair and adjacency pairs outlines basic concepts established in conversation analysis which serve to illustrate participant orientation to talk-in-interaction.

Turn-taking and repair

a fundamental concept used in conversation analysis, underlying the ordered nature of social interaction, is the organisation of turn-taking. although the features or conditions of turn-taking in conversation were developed throughout Harvey sack’s lectures in the 1960s and early 1970s, they are presented most succinctly in the seminal publication ‘a simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking in conversation’ (Sacks, Schegloff and Jefferson, 1974). In this paper, the organisation of conversation is identified as both context-free in that the rules of turn-taking apply across any variety of social contexts, and context-sensitive in that any situational restraints may be incorporated in the interaction.

By way of introducing their model for the organisation of conversation, sacks, Schegloff and Jefferson (1974: 700-701) make the following observations:

(1) Speaker change recurs, or at least occurs(2) Overwhelmingly, one party talks at a time(3) Occurrences of more than one speaker at a time are common, but brief(4) Transitions (from one turn to a next) with no gap and no overlap are common. together with transitions characterized by slight gap or slight overlap, they make up the vast majority of transitions

church Book.indb 37 13/01/2009 12:11:35


(5) Turn order is not fixed, but varies(6) Turn size is not fixed, but varies(7) Length of conversation is not specified in advance(8) What parties say is not specified in advance(9) Relative distribution of turns is not specified in advance(10) Number of parties can vary(11) Talk can be continuous or discontinuous(12) Turn-allocation techniques are obviously used. A current speaker may select a next speaker (as when he addresses a question to another party); or parties may self-select in starting to talk(13) Various ‘turn-constructional units’ are employed; e.g. turns can be projectedly ‘one word long’, or they can be sentential in length(14) Repair mechanisms exist for dealing with turn-taking errors and violations; e.g. if two parties find themselves talking at the same time, one of them will stop prematurely, thus repairing the trouble.

Following these observations, Sacks, Schegloff and Jefferson (1974: 704) propose that the turn-taking system for conversation can be exemplified by a turn-constructional component, a turn-allocation component, in the following set of rules:

(1) For any turn, at the initial transition-relevance place of an initial turn-constructional unit:

(a) If the turn-so-far is so constructed as to involve the use of a ‘current speaker selects next’ technique, then the party so selected has the right and is obliged to take next turn to speak; no others have such rights or obligations, and transfer occurs at that place.(b) If the turn-so-far is so constructed as not to involve the use of a ‘current speaker selects next’ technique, then self-selection for next speakership may, but need not, be instituted; first starter acquires rights to a turn, and transfer occurs at that place.(c) If the turn-so-far is so constructed as to not involve the use of a ‘current speaker selects next’ technique, then the current speaker may, but need not continue, unless another self-selects.

(2) If, at the initial transition-relevance place of an initial turn-constructional unit, neither 1a nor 1b has operated, and, following the provision of 1c, current speaker has continued, then the rule-set a-c re-applies at the next transition-relevance place, and recursively at each next transition-relevance place, until transfer is effected.

an important feature of the turn-taking system is that turns do not simply occur one after the other, serially, but that each new turn refers to or builds upon the preceding turn(s) sequentially (Hutchby and Wooffitt, 2008: 38). This sequential organisation, most importantly for the analyst, allows for a demonstration of the

church Book.indb 38 13/01/2009 12:11:35


hearer’s explication of the previous turn at talk. in other words it is ‘a systematic consequence of the turn-taking organization of conversation that it obliges its participants to display to each other, in a turn’s talk, their understanding of other turns’ talk’ (Sacks, Schegloff and Jefferson, 1974: 728). As the participants demonstrate their understanding of the previous utterance in their own turn at talk, this understanding or synthesis is also on display for the analyst. given that an appraisal of an utterance (or an interpretation of the illocutionary force) is produced by the hearer in their turn at talk, the speaker of the first turn is able to correct any misunderstanding of their own contribution made in the previous turn. it is important to note that this continual opportunity to check and maintain mutual comprehensibility exists precisely through the placement of turns, the ‘next positioned linkage’ (Heritage, 1984: 256), that each utterance is relevant (unless overtly stated)1 to the immediately preceding turn.

Indeed, where misunderstanding occurs, the opportunity for clarification or correction is located in the contiguous turn. the term ‘repair’ is used in conversation analysis to denote discourse revisions, and this label is not restricted to notable errors or replacement (Schegloff, Jefferson and Sacks, 1977; see also sidnell, 2005). it is the turn-taking system that allows for repair initiations to be made throughout a conversation, where the inherent rule of relevancy ensures the trouble source can be recognised as occurring in the previous turn.

the compatibility of the model of turn-taking with the facts of repair is thus of a dual character: the turn-taking system lends itself to, and incorporates devices for, repair of its troubles; and the turn-taking system is a basic organisational device for the repair of any other troubles in conversation. the turn-taking system and the organisation of repair are thus ‘made for each other’ in a double sense (Sacks, schegloff and Jefferson, 1974: 724).

it should be noted that a preference for self-repair exists in conversation (Schegloff, Jefferson and Sacks, 1977). That is, repair structure lends itself to the speaker correcting his or her own speech, primarily self-initiated or failing this where the repair is initiated by a co-conversationalist. Previous trouble sources, then, are only likely to be actively identified and replaced by another speaker when the original speaker forgoes the opportunity provided to correct his or her own error. this preference for self-repair may be deliberately revoked in verbal disputes, however, as other-initiated repair could be produced as a form of direct opposition. Indeed, other-initiated repair (suggesting an error has been made) may itself be treated as an antagonistic move. While it remains to be seen if overt repair made by another speaker represents a form of opposition in children’s arguments (cf. Maynard, 1986a), the organisation of turn-taking and repair indicates that the place to look for repair performed as a challenge lies in each subsequent utterance.

1 that speakers attend to the sequential nature of conversation is also evident where the expectation to make following turns is not met, with prefaces such as ‘by the way’ acknowledging an accountable departure from the preceding talk (Schegloff, 1984: 37).

church Book.indb 39 13/01/2009 12:11:35


Adjacency pairs

the concept of the adjacency pair is a particularly robust example of sequentially ordered turns, in that it consists of two turns where the first sets up an expectation of a specific second turn.2 Examples of these ‘basic sequential units’ (Schegloff, 1979: 210) include, greeting/greeting, question/answer, and invitation/acceptance. Built into the structure of adjacency pairs is the notion of conditional relevance3 (Schegloff, 1972) in that the first pair part places certain constraints on the type of utterance that is acceptable as a second pair part.

a basic rule of adjacency pair operation is: given the recognizable production of a first pair part, on its first possible completion its speaker should stop and a next speaker should start and produce a second pair part from the pair type of which the first is recognizably a member. … A given sequence will thus be composed of an utterance that is a first pair part produced by one speaker directly followed by the production by a different speaker of an utterance which is (a) a second pair part, and (b) is from the same pair type as the first utterance in the sequence is a member of. Adjacency pair sequences, then, exhibit the further features (4) relative ordering of parts (i.e., first pair parts precede second pair parts) and (5) discriminative relations (i.e., the pair type of which a first pair part is a member is relevant to the selection among second pair parts) (Schegloff and Sacks, 1973: 296).

the adjacency pair serves as a powerful demonstration of the hearer’s interpretation of the previous turn. the position of the second pair part, namely occurring directly after a first pair part (with the exception of insertion sequences, discussed below), directly addresses the previous turn.

What two utterances produced by different speakers can do that one utterance cannot do is: by an adjacently positioned second, a speaker can show that he understood what a prior aimed at, and that he is willing to go along with that. also, by virtue of the occurrence of an adjacently produced second, the doer of a first can see that what he intended was indeed understood, and that it was or was not accepted (Schegloff and Sacks, 1973: 298).

2 Whilst most units consist of pairs, adjacency triples are found in conversation and institutional talk, e.g. in the classroom question-answer-evaluation sequences are common.

3 schegloff acknowledges the compatibility of the notion of conditional relevance (recognised in the constraints of summons-answer sequences (1968)), with the category of utterance pairs (later adjacency pairs) put forward by Sacks, and ‘use[s] these terms interchangeably’ (1972: 77).

church Book.indb 40 13/01/2009 12:11:35


Failure to acknowledge a first pair part may be manifest by ignoring the other speaker. that is, supplying a relevant second is not the only type of hearer response; failing to respond is also heard as an accountable action. as the adjacency organisation creates an expectation of second pair part, when this second turn is not forthcoming it is heard as ‘noticeably absent’ (Schegloff, 1968). A common example of this can be found in the repetition of a greeting when the initial greeting receives no response. if the hearer’s failure to respond to the greeting cannot be attributed to inaudibility, the absence of a response is noticeable and may be interpreted as evidence of rudeness. for any second pair part, ‘its non-occurrence is an event, upon which inferences can legitimately be based (by co-conversationalists)’ (Schegloff, 1972: 77).

an alternative explanation for the absence of a second pair part arises when a response is produced as another first pair part. This exception, however, does not indicate inattention to the adjacency pair structure, as the subsequent first pair part may simply be a manner of clarifying the original utterance in order to supply a second pair part. two related utterances introduced between an adjacency pair are recognised as an insertion sequence:

Speaker A (Q1): Are you going to go see Jack?Speaker B (Q2): What time are visiting hours?Speaker A (A2): From three thirty till eight.Speaker B (A1): Yeah, I’ll go this afternoon.

indeed, the inclusion of an insertion sequence does not represent a departure from the inherent obligation of adjacency pairs but rather operates within these boundaries. Given that a response to a first pair part is constrained by an expectation of relevance, another first pair part is heard as addressing the initial utterance in some way. In other words, ‘since the insertion sequence is specifically done and heard as prefatory to the activity made conditionally relevant by the question, attention to that activity and to the question is thereby exhibited’ (Schegloff, 1972: 114).

consequently, adjacency pairs account for a highly structured organisation of turn-taking, occurring throughout conversation. ‘the rule that seems to obtain is extremely neat: An adjacency pair first part can go anywhere in conversation, except directly after a first pair part, unless the second first pair part is the first pair part for an insertion sequence’ (Sacks, 1995b: 534). As Sacks (1995b: 536-537) goes on to demonstrate, the observation that first pair parts can occur at any point has considerable implications for the hearer(s) as they may be called on as the next speaker at any time and consequently must listen throughout the conversation.4 this obligation to listen is placed on the speaker also, as he/she must be accountable for his/her own prior contribution.

4 Related to the notion of scorekeeping put forward by Lewis (1979).

church Book.indb 41 13/01/2009 12:11:35


the observation that speakers must attend to the previous utterance highlights the fundamental importance of sequencing in conversation. as schegloff and sacks (1973) demonstrate, the accomplishment of any utterance (its locally determined meaning) must be looked for in the placement of the utterance in the organisation of conversation. Consequently, the basic unit of analysis (Heritage, 1984: 245) and the primary focus of conversation analysis is the sequence of turns.

As the escalation or resolution (or indeed existence) of argument is dependent upon the orientation of subsequent turns to the development of the dispute, focusing on the sequential organisation of the discourse is pointedly appropriate. As noted by Jacobs and Jackson (1982: 228) ‘the characterization of argument in terms of sequential expansion is theoretically important because it emphasizes the collaborative work that goes into having and making arguments’; collaborative work which is on display for the analyst through the organisation of turn-taking. Built into the notion of sequential turn-taking, particularly in adjacency pair structure, is the concept of preference organisation, which we shall see features significantly in young children’s arguments.

Preference organisation

the concept of preference employed in conversation analysis is one which accounts for the fact that not all second pair parts are heard as having equal status. a ranking of alternatives operates in conversation, and the ranking is determined by the local context. as discussed in the previous chapter, the composition of adjacency pairs is such that a first pair part sets up an expectation of a relevant second pair part. This relevance, however, extends beyond the type of action (e.g. answer) to the selection within an action category (e.g. acceptance). In other words, ‘the first part of an adjacency pair not only makes one of a set of type-fitted second parts relevant in next turn, but typically displays a preference for one of them’ (Schegloff, 1979: 36; emphasis added).

essentially preference organisation exists in the taxonomy of possible actions and operates at varying levels in conversation, from referential identification options for recipient design (Sacks, 1979) through to topic organisation. At all levels, inferences may be drawn when a first preference is not selected.5 to illustrate this point, Sacks (1995b: 368) uses the example of an invitation to dinner; serving food is only a part of the evening’s activities but preferred in the invitation itself, given that “Would you like to come over for a drink?” suggests that dinner will not be provided (as it should be mentioned in preference to other partial features of the evening).6 the idea of scaling alternative components operates not only

5 Inferences are also drawn where preferred (immediate) responses are produced, but derive directly from the response itself rather than its absence.

6 from this example it becomes apparent that the concept of preference is related to Grice’s maxims of conversation (1975, 1978), in this case the maxim of quantity (provide

church Book.indb 42 13/01/2009 12:11:35


within utterances (regulating content) but governs the sequential organisation of conversation. this organisation, the manifestation of preference in turn-by-turn interaction, is explored throughout the first part of this chapter.

Linguistic markedness

typically, preferred responses are produced without delay or hesitation and the action is stated directly or ‘properly done’, (Levinson, 1983: 333). Dispreferred seconds are recognisable from the following features: (1) they are delayed by pauses, and/or (2) they are introduced with prefaces (markers such as ‘well’, ‘uh’, partial agreement/appreciations/apologies, or qualifications); (3) they include accounts (explanations for not providing preferred response) and (4) a declination component which addresses the first pair part. Thus ‘the two essential features of dispreferred actions are thus (a) they tend to occur in marked format, and (b) they tend to be avoided’ (Levinson, 1983: 333). Consequently, markedness, or the absence of these markers, is indicative of the preference status of the turn. although these features are not universally accepted as defining criteria of preference (as discussed below) they are overwhelmingly recognised as characteristic of preference in CA literature (e.g. Heritage, 1984; Atkinson and Heritage, 1984; Goodwin and Heritage, 1990; Hutchby and Wooffit, 2008).

an ubiquitous example of preference organisation is found in the following pairs of invitation and acceptance/rejection sequences published in atkinson and Drew (1979: 58), where extract (i) provides a preferred second pair part and (ii) a dispreferred response:

(i) B: Why don’t you come up and see me some[timesa: [i would like to

(ii) B: Uh if you’d care to come over and visit a little while this morning i’ll give you a cup of coffee.

a: hehh Well that’s awfully sweet of you, i don’t think i can make it this morning .hh uhm i’m running an ad in the paper and – and uh i have to stay near the phone.B: Well all righta: [and- uhB: [Well sometime when you are free to give me a call because i’m not always home.

as illustrated in the examples above, the preferred response is produced immediately and clearly, whereas in the dispreferred response the refusal is deferred until later in

adequate information to be understood). the common ground of preference, gricean co-operative principle, face-work (Goffman, 1967) and politeness theory (Brown and Levinson, 1987) will be discussed briefly in the final chapter.

church Book.indb 43 13/01/2009 12:11:35


the turn and accompanied by an account (reason) for the rejection. The difference in position or ordering of items in preferred and dispreferred turns was originally noted by Sacks (1984b: 59):

insofar as disagreements are pushed into the back, then there is a variety of things that go in front of them, that then can get treated as ‘going in front of disagreements’, and that may have an import in signalling the future forthcomingness of a disagreement. components like ‘well’ and/or ‘i don’t know’, for instance, as the beginning of an answer turn, characteristically precede something less than agreement.

that is, a pause or hesitation frequently precedes the production of a dispreferred second action, and in itself may be interpretable as indicative of a forthcoming dispreferred response by the next speaker. delays not only allow the prior speaker to pre-empt a dispreferred response, but also provide an opportunity to ‘modify or revise the first utterance to a more ‘attractive’ or ‘acceptable’ form, rather than simply using it to formulate an anticipation of rejection’ (Heritage, 1984: 274). The delay or pause may even be heard as the beginning of a failure to provide a second pair part, a zero response, which is also heard as dispreferred, given that silence is accountable. similarly, such is the sensitivity of the immediacy of a preferred response that ‘when an acceptance is not done at this point, that is, immediately after a possible sentence completion point and in overlap with any components occurring after this point, that an inviter or offerer may take this absence of acceptance at this point as being possibly rejection-implicative’ (Davidson, 1984: 116). The final components of a first pair part, then, may be designed to preview the preferred or dispreferred nature of the response.

As with delays or hesitations, preface markers (e.g. ‘well’, ‘but’)7 are also heard consistently as indicative of dispreference in conversation. in her study of speaker interruptions, Ahrens (1997: 83) found that most interruptions occurred after turn prefaces such as ‘well’, ‘well then’, ‘okay but’, ‘yes but’, ‘but’, ‘yeah no’ and so forth, and labelled these as ‘interruption[s] of a potential rejection’. given that markers serve as an indication of preference status, the hearer may begin a subsequent version as soon as these items are performed. consequently, interlocutors orient the subsequent turn to the dispreferred shape of the previous utterance (as demonstrated elsewhere, e.g. Davidson, 1984; Pomerantz 1975). fundamentally, pauses, hesitations, and preface markers serve to hold the illocution of the turn until the end of the utterance. contiguity, therefore, is incorporated into the identity of preferred turns. for example, ‘there is an apparent interaction between the preference for contiguity and the preference for agreement, such that, if an agreeing answer occurs, it pretty damn well occurs contiguously, whereas if

7 Belonging to the category of discourse markers detailed by Schiffrin (1987). See also Sprott (1992).

church Book.indb 44 13/01/2009 12:11:35


a disagreeing answer occurs, it may well be pushed rather deep in to the turn that it occupies’ (Sacks, 1987: 58).

Another feature of dispreferred turns is that accounts or justifications are usually provided. Although accounts are identified as characteristic of dispreferred turns, description and discussion of this feature is scarce in comparison to analysis of prefatory markers. accounts have been seen as evidence for the dispreferred status of certain second pair parts, such as rejections to invitations (Atkinson and Drew, 1979: 139).8 Elsewhere (Toolan, 1989: 262), parallels have been drawn between accountability as a defining feature of preference organisation and Grice’s (1975, 1978) maxims of conversation – quality, quantity, relevance and manner – which are discussed below.

In sum, the dispreferred status of turns at talk are reflected in the arrangement of each turn. Levinson (1983: 333) notes that whilst preferred turns have little in common other than their relative brevity, dispreferred turns share many characteristics, although designed to respond to a wide range of first pair parts. Pomerantz (1984: 64) states that the preference status of actions can be located in the turn shape: preferred actions are typified by turns which are produced with minimum gap and overtly stated function; dispreferred actions, on the other hand, are produced in turns characterised by delay and ‘nonexplicitly stated action components’.

Structural rather than psychological concept

It is the form of the utterance, not the wishes of the interactants that typically defines the linguistic (abstract) concept of preference. That is, ‘the term “preference” refers to the structural disposition, to the fact that conversational organization conspires to make it easier to use the preferred type of turn, not to the participants’ wishes’ (Brown and Levinson, 1987: 38).

Of course, the fact that speakers may attend to the preferred character of some actions over others in the design of turns containing those actions should not be taken as exhibiting, or as proof of, participants’ ‘actual feelings’ or intentions at the time. … thus the term ‘preference’ in this context does not refer to a speaker’s psychological predisposition: instead it describes the systematic features of the design of turns in which certain alternative but non-equivalent actions are taken, as well as sequential organisation of such actions (Atkinson and drew, 1979: 59).

8 Atkinson and Drew (1979) use the term ‘defence’ to identify reasons which are given in response to allegations, distinct from ‘accounts’ in other contexts, as each form of accounting serves different purposes (the former to avoid blame, the latter to reduce the offence to the other speaker).

church Book.indb 45 13/01/2009 12:11:36


this interpretation of the term ‘preference’ distinguishes it from the normal lay interpretation. the concept was originally used by sacks to identify an abstract principle operating in conversation:

if there is what we are talking about, namely, an abstract or formal preference for agreement, then we have to see that the questioner is designing the question not just to get a personal preference, but is designing the question with an orientation to getting agreement. … so the linkage of contiguity and agreement is oriented to by both questioners and answerers, can operate to avoid a disagreement, and is an aspect of a formal and anonymous apparatus for agreement/disagreement, rather that being a matter of individual preferences (Sacks, 1987: 63, 65).

‘Preferred’ actions are ones which are sought out; dispreferred actions are not. Sacks (1987: 64) notes ‘that there is one sort of way that a questioner can be seen to be orienting to getting agreement, i.e. they try to end up with a form that can be agreed with’. this orientation to elicit preferred responses is not only found within adjacency pairs, but is also manifested in surrounding talk. Pre-sequences, for example, ‘constitute a further procedure through which speakers can collaborate in forwarding preferred sequences or actions and avoiding (or aborting) dispreferred ones’ (Heritage, 1984: 278). It has been shown that pre-sequences, particularly to requests and invitations (Atkinson and Drew, 1979), are intended to avert the possible production of a dispreferred response. conversational devices for avoiding dispreferred responses are not limited to pre-sequences. As Drew (1984: 146) demonstrates in his study of speaker reportings in invitation sequences, ‘through just reporting, recipients not only manage to avoid outrightly or directly doing a rejection; particularly, they also have speakers (co-participants) collaborate in seeing that, objectively or reasonably, an acceptance is not possible’. it is the organisation of the turn itself, therefore, that creates the expectation of a particular second action.

While a general tenet of ‘preference’ is identifiable, as presented above, this does not equate to a uniform understanding of the theory, and as a result there is a muddiness in inference and application. given that the concept of preference originates from Harvey sacks’ lectures, and, due to his untimely death, the concept was not expanded or developed as originally conceived, it has ‘been construed in a variety of mutually incompatible, and sometimes methodologically questionable, ways’ (Bilmes, 1988: 161). The confusion in interpretation represents a fundamental problem in applying preference theory, a problem we move on to consider.

church Book.indb 46 13/01/2009 12:11:36


Problems with preference9

Problems in applying preference theory arise from the disparity of interpretation, specifically in relation to the blurred distinction between linguistic and psychological paradigms. the fact that the linguistic form and the wishes of the participants overlap more often than not, causes considerable problems in sustaining a homogenous definition of preference that refutes psychological inferences. The following discussion not only identifies the debate concerning the abstract identity of preference, but also orients the interpretation of preference organisation as a framework for the current study of children’s arguments. furthermore, the essential problem of categorising actions as either preferred or dispreferred will be exemplified in the conversational domain of arguments.

Disparity of interpretation

The features of preference described above have been challenged, specifically by Bilmes (1988) and Boyle (2000), for overextending the criteria of preference and for overlooking the inherent property of accountability (see Boyle, 2000). This constitutes a significant oversight given that the notion of accountability is a principal concept underlying conversation analysis theory (Heritage, 1984: 291). Specifically, the speaker is accountable for failing to provide a preferred response (accountability being tied to dispreferred responses, or silence).

In Bilmes’ review (1988: 176), Levinson’s model is criticised for confusing reluctance with dispreference and for classifying actions based on the proportion in which they occur. commentary on frequency of occurrence as a property of preferred turns (Levinson, 1983; Heritage and Watson, 1979; Atkinson and Drew, 1979; sacks and schegloff, 1979; schegloff, Jefferson and sacks, 1977) can be challenged, as quantity does not serve as a criterion of preference. Whilst preferred turns may be performed more often than dispreferred turns, the frequency itself does not constitute preference status. Quantification, when broadly applied, as in this instance, ignores the fundamental importance of local context. although supporting Levinson on certain points, Bilmes (1988) advocates returning to the original concept of preference proposed by Harvey sacks and subsequently focuses on two aspects: the principle of ordering and that of relevant absence (i.e. where a preferred action is not performed). Bilmes (1988) reiterates that the concept of preference must be isolated from the motivation or expectations of the speakers to avoid the assumption of psychological conditions.

Although Boyle (2000: 586) acknowledges that Levinson’s account of preference is well regarded, he also claims that levinson’s ‘description of preference is not fully coherent’. Boyle recognises that ‘markedness and frequency of occurrence

9 different scholars using the term to describe different phenomena is the essential problem. the fact that turns at talk are performed in distinctive ways is not in dispute (Pomerantz, 2003).

church Book.indb 47 13/01/2009 12:11:36


are aspects of preference organisation’, but he argues that ‘the concept can only be adequately understood in terms of normative accountability and its role in achieving intersubjective understanding’ (Boyle, 2000: 601). In response to the confusion of defining preference, rather than castigating varying interpretations of preference as ‘misconstruals’ (see Bilmes, 1988), Boyle describes them as ‘aspects’ of sacks’ original concept of preference.

However, even where the concept is most closely related to sacks’ original idea – expectation indicated by interpretation of an absent response – the interpretation of preference is blurred. Pomerantz (1984: 81) for example, does not use the term with any reference to social psychology, yet still opens the door to possible misinterpretation by identifying certain preferred actions as ‘natural, right and/or desirable’. Although the turn is not identified as preferred because of these qualities, using descriptions that invoke the speaker’s subjectivity obscures the line between psychological preference and the more abstract, sequential (linguistic) organisation operating in conversation. the supposed misapplication of the term ‘preference’ begs the question whether this line needs to be constantly redrawn. Confusion and debate is prompted by inferring a lay definition of the technical label. As Mey (2001: 152) comments, ‘markedness’ would serve as a more suitable term. i would add that continual effort to drag the concept of preference into the domain of abstractness is misdirected.

Certainly, preferred (or dispreferred) turns do not always mirror the personal preferences of either the speaker or the hearer, but it does not follow that conversational preference is therefore entirely extraneous to psychological preference. Perhaps too much effort has been made to disassociate the concept of linguistic preference from psychological inferences. undoubtedly preference organisation is identified by specific linguistic structures and does not necessarily reflect the motivations of the speaker. For example, a speaker may realise their personal preference in a dispreferred turn shape, such as declining an invitation. Yet, whilst linguistic preference may be identified as distinct from psychological preference it does not necessarily follow that the concept must wholly reject any organic relationship between linguistic markedness and broader social expectations of preferred actions. Why is it that preferred actions are, in fact, preferred? evidently this preference is set up by the prior turn, but why is it that this prior turn orients to a particular type of response?

Most CA researchers are at pains to adhere to a definition of preference that does not encompass the speaker’s wishes, yet it would appear overly ideological to insist that preference exists entirely independently from the participants’ expectations. While preference is recognisable as an abstract concept operating in conversation, that is, each turn can be shown to orient to the form of the preceding turn, the idea that this concept is built upon underlying conventions of social expectations (Lewis, 1969) should not be dismissed. In sum, while the properties of preference (specific turn shapes) can be identified and distinguished as functions of discourse organisation, it does not automatically follow that these functions have no relationship with broader social expectations.

church Book.indb 48 13/01/2009 12:11:36


extending the observation that personal preference and linguistic preference frequently overlap but are nevertheless distinguishable, Heritage (1984) suggests that preference is closely related to the maintenance of face (Goffman, 1955; Brown and Levinson, 1987) where ‘the term “face” may be defined as the positive social value a person effectively claims for himself by the line others assume he has taken during a particular contact’ (Goffman, 1967: 5). Furthermore, if we acknowledge that the concept of preference need not necessarily be stringently disassociated from psychological preference, the relevance of facework and politeness theory (Brown and Levinson, 1987) becomes apparent.

the question posed above, as to why certain actions take on preferred status, could be answered in terms of concessions to face needs and, subsequently, forms of politeness. that is, if an action is perceived as face threatening it is likely to be performed in a mitigated, less direct, dispreferred format. conversely, as preferred actions are likely to be preferred because they do not threaten face, these actions can be performed directly. It follows, then, that preference norms may be flouted in performing intentionally face-threatening acts.

Indeed, in a defence of their politeness model, Brown and Levinson (1987: 38) argue that face considerations are implicated in the preference status of actions; that is, dispreferred actions are typically face threatening acts. elsewhere it has been less cautiously claimed (e.g. Holtgraves, 2000: 97) that dispreferred turns operate as face-threatening actions. This suggests that markedness not only signifies the expectation of a dispreferred response but that this response should be interpreted as managing a probable face threatening move. this point, however, should be challenged on the same platform as proclaiming particular categories of action as preferred or dispreferred; whilst certain face-threatening turns may be marked as dispreferred, dispreferred turns are not always face threatening, as illustrated in adversative discourse.

Essential problem of categorising actions

Having considered the blurred interpretation of conversational preference, the discussion now moves to the secondary problem of assigning fixed preference status to classes of actions. as is apparent from the examples used to illustrate features of preference above, preference organisation is often studied in specific sequential contexts, in invitation sequences, for example, or commenting on prior assessments. as such there is a tendency to attribute preferred status to a particular class of action, such as a preference for agreement (Sacks, 1987). However, ‘preference organization is not synonymous with the organization of agreement/disagreement’ (Lerner, 1996: 305). Sweeping generalisations about classes of action present a flawed characterisation of preference organisation.

categorising types of action as preferred or dispreferred overlooks the fact that the ranking of alternatives is determined locally, by the preceding turn, and that preference organisation is not a hierarchical set that exists detached from interaction. Atkinson and Drew (1979), for example, identify certain actions

church Book.indb 49 13/01/2009 12:11:36


(denials, justifications/excuses, counter-accusations) as preferred, rather than acknowledging that it is the local context which assigns preference status. again, the overwhelming thrust of preference organisation is not that categories of actions be heard as preferred or dispreferred, but that each action may be interpreted as such given the expectations arising from the immediately prior turn.10 Perhaps the majority of denials following accusations can be shown to be preferred, but this frequency does not characterise the action as invariably preferred. identifying turns as dispreferred or preferred without taking into account the immediate, sequential context in which they are produced (e.g. Kakavá, 2003) overlooks the very context that determines preference status.

the misrepresentation of preference organisation is therefore found where types of turns are identified categorically as preferred or dispreferred. Attributing preferred or dispreferred status to a particular class of action (cf. Pomerantz, 1978, 1984; ahrens, 1997) disregards the context-sensitivity of preference organisation. essentially it is the manner in which an action is performed as expected or otherwise which is indicative of preference rather than the type of action performed in the turn. If emphasis remains on the turn shape (i.e. absence or presence of markedness, such as delay and accounts) rather than turn action, all-encompassing (and subsequently false) categorisation of preference may be avoided. for example, agreement is not universally preferred, but rather, more often than not, agreement is performed in an utterance which has a preferred turn shape (i.e. immediate and overt).

to list categories of actions as preferred or dispreferred:

glosses over the fact that all language is indexical (Garfinkel, 1967: 4-7) and that preference can only be determined in the circumstances in which action is constituted. Thus, as Coulter (1983: 362-363) points out, there might be a generalised preference in society for agreement, but there are clearly situations where disagreement is preferred, as for example, in responses to self-deprecations (Pomerantz, 1984: 83-95) or in argument sequences (Kotthoff, 1993) (Boyle, 2000: 587).

indeed, argument sequences serve as the most striking example of types of actions being performed as preferred or dispreferred depending upon the local context (Bilmes, 1991: 464). Kotthoff’s (1993) study of preference organisation in adult disputes demonstrated that there is not a ubiquitous preference for agreement in conversation. Kotthoff noted that in her examples of university students arguing with professors, the pattern of preference changes throughout the interaction, stating that ‘a dispute is performed by a change in preference structure’ (1993: 196). this change, however, is not due to a change in markedness per se, but simply underscores the fact that the assumption of agreement as preferred second pair part

10 Clayman and Heritage (2002: 307) give the example of political news interviews where a question may invite disagreement.

church Book.indb 50 13/01/2009 12:11:36


does not operate in this conversational domain. in other words, while disagreement may occur in dispreferred turn format at the beginning of the conversation, each subsequent objection becomes less marked until overt action of disagreement appears in preferred turn format. Once the argument is collaboratively recognised as such, ‘it is no longer preferred to agree. On the contrary, it seems to be very important to contradict quickly and in a coherent manner’ (Kotthoff, 1993: 203). this idea of inference drawn from failure to immediately oppose the prior speaker is taken up by Bilmes (1991: 466): ‘Once in a state of argument, disagreement is preferred in that if one does not explicitly disagree, it may be presumed that one has not found grounds to disagree and that (however reluctantly) one agrees’.

the performance of disagreement as preferred appears to occur at the onset of children’s arguments, rather than gradually over a series of turns. it has been noted that children’s arguments are typified by opposition occurring in a preferred turn shape:

rather than being preceded by delays, turns containing opposition are produced immediately. Moreover, such turns frequently contain a preface that announces right at the beginning of the turn, characteristically in the first word said, that opposition is being done (Goodwin and Goodwin, 1987: 207).

it follows that one cannot claim that agreement is a preferred action and disagreement a dispreferred action, as the local context determines the expectation set up by the prior turn. if preference cannot be assigned to categories of actions, we need clarify how the preference status of a second pair part is assigned. as demonstrated in this chapter, preference status refers to an organising principle operating in the local context of contiguous turns at talk – regardless of the degree to which underlying social expectations are recognised or dismissed.

essentially, the preferred or dispreferred nature of any action is performed by the speaker and consequently recognisable to the hearer (who performed the first pair part). Preference organisation is not, therefore, something to be guessed at, but rather is conspicuous to all participants. the place to look for preference status, then, is in the organisation of turns, in the construction or shape of each utterance. the turn shape remains a constant indicator of preference, with direct responses produced without delay indicative of a preferred response, while turns prefaced with delay and/or hesitation (reluctance) markers are characterised as dispreferred. Although Bilmes (1988) and Boyle (2000) argue that pauses, hesitation markers and accounts are not criteria of preference, they do not adequately discount these markers as indicators of preference. turns are not preferred or dispreferred because of the absence or presence of these markers; rather these markers serve as an index of the preference status of the turn in which they appear.

church Book.indb 51 13/01/2009 12:11:36


Applicability of conversation analysis

Preliminary review of the data suggests that oppositional second pair parts are usually performed in one of two turn shapes, which points to the relevancy of preference organisation. as discussed above, the concept of preference organisation has become blurred due to variations in interpretation and accompanying application of the theory. it has been argued here that attention should be re-focused on linguistic markedness as evidence or manifestation of preference.

essentially, the confusion outlined above could be addressed by using a more neutral term than ‘preference’ to describe the phenomena of unequal second pair parts. it remains to be seen, however, what label may serve as a suitable replacement. Presumably preference organisation operates in children’s adversative discourse by regulating the responses to possible forms opposition. indeed, in the analysis of children’s arguments presented throughout the remaining chapters, turn shapes will be identified as sustaining or non-sustaining in terms of conflict outcome. It is premature, however, to propose a substitute term for ‘preference’ at this stage, prior to uncovering the role of preference organisation in the sequential organisation of children’s arguments. for this reason, turn shapes are referred to as ‘preferred’ or ‘dispreferred’ throughout the next chapters, specifically to denote opposition which is immediate and direct (preferred turn shape) and opposition which is delayed, either by pauses or makers, and incorporates accounts (dispreferred turn shape). the constancy of these features elucidates preference organisation in young children’s adversative discourse.

church Book.indb 52 13/01/2009 12:11:36

chapter 4

Peer disputes

An introduction to the data

the previous chapter outlined fundamental principles of conversation analysis and presented this approach as ideally suited to the study of young children’s talk-in-interaction. Preference organisation in particular was considered as an organising principle of talk, as the prevalence of preference features in the children’s disputes will become evident in this and the subsequent two chapters. this chapter is concerned with providing the reader with a background to the data in this research, before systematically analysing the turn shapes of utterances in the children’s disputes.

children attending two long daycare centres in inner Melbourne participated in the main study. children, parents, teachers and each centre director consented to be involved in the research, which effectively allowed observations (video and audio recorded) of the children’s spontaneous peer interactions each morning for a period of two months. all children participating in this study were aged between 3;11 and 5;3 at the time of recording, and all but one of these children (the youngest) would be entering formal schooling in the following year. some children attended the centre five days a week, but all children were enrolled at least three days per week. A total of 36 children participated in the study; 15 girls and 21 boys. As identified by socioeconomic rating of residential suburb, children were from middle class families and English was the dominant language; the few children whose first language was not English had developed near-native proficiency.

A pilot study (undertaken with the four-year-old group in a long daycare centre near a university campus which is frequently involved in research projects) resolved issues of age of participants (three-year-olds resorted to physical conflict in many cases, so the four-year-old group was selected to allow focus on verbal processes); viability of naturalistic observation of conflict (spontaneous disputes were observable, recordable, without compromising ethical responsibility); and activity type as observation context (recording to be undertaken indoors for audibility; and video camera to remain stationary as moving equipment proved distracting to the children).

Observations were recorded over a period of six weeks in each centre (two weeks were spent in the centre prior to recording observations, to allow children the opportunity of familiarity with the researchers and video and audio equipment). recording usually took place in the mornings as this time of day proved optimal for peer interactions in free play situations. acknowledging the observer’s paradox (Labov, 1972a) and particular limitations of recording in preschool environments

church Book.indb 53 13/01/2009 12:11:36


(e.g. Graue and Walsh, 1998; Fine and Sandstrom, 1988), the data was collected with seemingly minimal disruption to the children’s environment (see also Corsaro, 1985).

The transcripts

The data are not only influenced by collection procedure, but also by the manner in which the verbal dialogue is represented for analysis, deserving some further discussion here. A primary concern is the extent to which the final transcript is representative of the recorded interaction. transcription is universally recognised to be constrained by the perspective of the researcher and the purpose of the research. consequently, the shift of recorded data from oral to written form is inherently theory bound. As noted by Ochs (1979: 43, emphasis in original text), ‘the problems of selective observation are not eliminated with the use of recording equipment. they are simply delayed until the moment at which the researcher sits down to transcribe the material from the audio- or videotape’.

central to the concern of valid interpretation of data, then, is the manner in which it is transcribed. features of transcription which provoke theoretical discussion include spatial representation of text1 (Ochs, 1979; Edwards, 1993), segmentation of text (Gumperz and Berenz, 1983; Lampert and Ervin-Tripp, 1993; Bloom, 1993; Johansson, 1995) and appropriacy of transcription conventions (Du Bois, 1991; edwards, 1993; du Bois, schuetze-coburn, cumming and Paolino, 1993). Given that ‘no transcript is completely theory-neutral or without bias’ (Edwards, 1993: 3), considerable effort should be made to validate the written organisation of verbal data. the transcript should also be recognised not only as theory bound, but also as theory shaping, because inclusion or exclusion of particular features promote specific recognition (Du Bois, 1991).

a particular concern in generating a written record of talk-in-interaction is the representation of turns at talk. Obviously, a new speaker signifies a new turn, but subsequent utterances produced by the same speaker are not so clearly distinguishable. Establishing what constitutes a new utterance proves difficult to tie down, given that transcribers frequently work from an intuitive basis and attempt to construct a retrospective justification or definition of the turn as a unit. essentially new turns by the same speaker are distinguished by a combination of intonational contour and pause length (Edwards, 1993: 20). In other words, the turn can be defined as ‘a rhythmically bounded, prosodically defined chunk, a

1 Ochs (1979) argues that the researcher must consider the ‘conceptual underpinnings’ (p.51) of a transcript and evaluate the bias associated with spatial alignment and organisation of speakers. Although she advocates participant columns and justification of speaker assignment, it should be noted that this recommendation is particularly relevant to adult/child discourse, and not compatible with many software programs designed for transcription of speech.

church Book.indb 54 13/01/2009 12:11:37

Peer Disputes 55

lexical string that falls under a single intonational contour’ (Gumperz and Berenz, 1993: 95). This working definition is employed in the current study, to distinguish between intra- and inter- turn pauses.

As research presented in this monograph adopts a conversation analytic (CA) framework for the study of children’s arguments (see Chapter 3), the method of transcription adheres to the model generated by Gail Jefferson (Sacks, Schegloff and Jefferson, 1974: 731-734; see appendix a). in conversation analytic research the transcripts serve as an account of the features of the discourse identifiable as pertinent for analysis (Psathas and Anderson, 1990). While a list of transcription conventions is given at the beginning of appendix a, a brief account of the most frequent features in the transcripts follows. given the interest in turn-taking in ca, attention is given to transition relevance places: terminal contours are marked (e.g. rising or half-rising) and overlap or pauses between turns are recorded. emphasis within utterances is recorded in a number of ways. emphatic stress is recorded by underlining letters or syllables and lengthening of syllables is demonstrated by the use of a colon. changes in pitch are marked within the transcript with arrows,2

changes in volume are noted with capital letters (louder) or degree signs (softer). A convention not employed universally in CA (although certainly recognised), but used in this study, is the dollar symbol ($) to indicate ‘smile talk’ (where the child is on the verge of laughing).

Elsewhere, overlapping speech is marked on the page at the point of overlap (i.e. indented in the text so the phrase occurs directly below the point at which it overlaps the prior utterance). throughout the text and in appendix a, however, overlaps in the data are simply marked with square brackets [overlapping utterance] and are kept flush left on the page to avoid formatting problems. For clarity, double square brackets are used [[overlapping utterance]] in instances of multiple overlap. Where single utterances are provided as examples in the discussion (particularly in Chapter 4), brackets are retained despite the non-inclusion or reproduction of overlapping talk. the brackets could be omitted where the turn is discussed in isolation, but it is important to remember that these examples are taken from extended sequences of talk where overlap does occur. due to background noise in all of the recordings, inbreaths (.hhh) and outbreaths (hhh) were marked only where audible. Likewise only exaggerated emphasis is underlined in the transcripts. Where speech is unintelligible the letter ‘x’ represents a syllable. Features of significance noted in the analysis/discussion are marked in bold. information provided in the headers for each episode was abbreviated for inclusion in appendix a.

in the transcripts presented in later chapters, there is little deviation from standard orthography, and the exceptions represent an atypical production made by the speaker. although a ca approach advocates conveying the closest approximate description of the word production, readability of the transcripts (particularly in

2 although gail Jefferson continued to expand the range of suprasegmental features recorded in CA transcription (see Gardner, 2001 for a succinct discussion of shifts in pitch), only exaggerated shifts were marked in the present study.

church Book.indb 55 13/01/2009 12:11:37


the case of child speech) is a competing issue. although the manner in which the spoken word is reproduced (other than standard spelling) can be shown to be analytically significant (Jefferson, 1996), in the current study conventional orthography is for the most part appropriate (as idiosyncratic pronunciation did not prove to be particularly significant in dispute outcomes). The most common exception to this is abbreviations used by the children (e.g. the appearance of ‘coz’ as a shortening of ‘because’).3

Most importantly, conversation analytic tradition underscores the necessity of referring to the original audio or video recording as the ‘data’ and fundamental substance for analysis. the analysis is concerned with what occurs in the conversation rather than what appears in the reporting of the conversation. the transcripts should be seen as providing those not present with an opportunity to review the interaction in a secondary form. it is important to recall, therefore, that throughout the following chapters, although the transcripts are used to illustrate specific features of the adversative discourse, the analysis itself is based on continual review of the audio and video recordings.

Additionally, the transcripts serve a more significant function than simply providing the outsider with an image of the discourse under observation. as the ca tradition calls for the researcher to transcribe his or her own data, the transcription itself serves as a form of analysis. the process of transcribing one’s own material allows the researcher to become aware of salient features of the interaction. through constant repetition and review of the audio recordings, notable phenomena begin to appear.

a total of 60 verbal disputes were recorded in two preschool centres and transcribed (35 arguments recorded in Observation 1 and 25 arguments in Observation 2; full transcripts are provided for all episodes in appendix a). the discrepancy in the number of arguments between the two groups is not necessarily representative of a higher incidence of conflict in the first observation environment for a number of reasons. the most conspicuous of these is a difference in audibility; the second observation playroom was noisier, making children’s voices indistinguishable at times. any discussion of the differences in the arguments recorded in the two preschools must therefore be made cautiously. the intention to record in similar play contexts, for example, was not always realised, as inaudibility in the second observation environment precluded the inclusion of a number of episodes, and the movement of children to outside play or to other activities meant fixed recording in the block corner was not always feasible. Neither does the number of arguments recorded definitively reflect the proportion of arguing in the children’s play, as the observer was located in a fixed position in the playroom and witnessed only those disputes occurring between children within the proximity of recording equipment.

3 for the purpose of establishing the reliability and accuracy in transcribing the children’s arguments, the transcripts were submitted to a panel review of researchers experienced in ca methodology.

church Book.indb 56 13/01/2009 12:11:37

Peer Disputes 57

although not all recorded disputes occurred in block corner, the inclusion of dramatic play and other activities (e.g. fishing with magnets) did not secure an equal distribution of girls’ and boys disputes as hoped for. indeed, half of the 60 disputes included in the data were between boys. Whilst this study does not set out to compare frequency of disputes or differences which are specifically attributed to gender, the disproportion of the data set is acknowledged. However, given that a almost a third of the disputes involved only girls, and the remaining episodes were generated by both girls and boys, some degree of representativeness has been maintained.

comparison of frequencies or distribution of disputes in the two child care centres should also be made warily due to age differences between the two groups. given the difference in time of observation, the children in the second observation environment were (on average) five months older than those in Observation 1. A discrepancy in ability to manage conflict may be looked for here. Differences in pedagogic style (see discussion below) can also be acknowledged as a probable influence on conflict in the playroom – the teacher in the second observation environment was not heard to intervene in the disputes recorded. furthermore, differences may also be attributed to the higher proportion of children in Observation 1. Conditions which can, however, be more definitively tied to frequency of adversative episodes in this study are discussed in the next section. this preliminary discussion of the data evidently does not account for all social features which influence the manifestation of peer conflict, but rather introduces the data by way of features identified in existing research in child conflict (see chapter 2).

Frequency and types of conflict

A measurable condition influencing the frequency of conflict can be attributed to the physical play area and available resources. this type of constraint can be defined as both micro-local (related to the particular play scenario) and macro-local (the physical space of the playroom). An example of the first condition is found where access to play equipment is restricted. for example, numerous arguments in the first observation environment developed during the magnet fishing game, because there were only two fishing rods available for the children to play with (Episodes Ob1.6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11; transcripts provided in Appendix A).

The second condition (physical play space)4 also appears to influence the frequency of conflict, specifically according to the number of children in a certain area. In the first child care centre, there were fewer arguments directly after nap-time, for example, because the resumption of play was staggered, with children

4 although more children were enrolled in Ob2, the proportion of space and number of children playing inside was relatively stable across the two observation environments.

church Book.indb 57 13/01/2009 12:11:37


waking and returning to the playroom at different times.5 in the second preschool, where children were free to move from inside to outside play areas, the greatest number of disputes (Ob2.8, 9, 10, 11, 12) were recorded on a very wet morning when all children were forced to play inside. consequently, a greater demand on resources (micro- and macro-local constraints) suggests a higher incidence of disputes.

in order to discuss the frequency of particular types of disputes a temporary classification needs to be made. The following classes of types of disputes refer back to the categories discussed at the beginning of chapter two. although it could justifiably be argued that rigorous definition of these categories should be provided (as the proportion of occurrence is wholly influenced by the categorisation itself) the following labels are not intended to quantify types of argument precisely, but simply to facilitate a general description of – and introduction to – the types of arguments recorded. in other words, these categories do not directly inform the current analysis, but rather serve as a preliminary review of the data in line with findings from existing studies.

To this end, four major classes of disputes were identified in the audio/video recordings: object/ownership (cf. Phinney, 1986); play script (elsewhere categorised as ‘nature of play’ – see Corsaro and Rizzo, 1990); local rules (cf. Malloy and McMurray, 1996); and truth (cf. Genishi and Di Paolo, 1982). It should be noted that categories overlap due to shifts of focus within disputes. for example, a dispute may initially be recognised as an object dispute (rights to a cardboard box) but could also be labelled as a negotiation of the play script (the application or use of the cardboard box) – e.g. Ob1.24. for the purpose of this discussion, episodes were categorised according to the nature of the opening of the dispute.

Object/ownership disputes were common in both groups, arising in situations where children would argue over rights to an object, or claim prior ownership (e.g. Ob2.2). Occasionally the access rights under dispute pertain to non-concrete entities (e.g. a song in Ob1.4). Arguments about the organisation of play (play script) were dominant in Observation 1 (13 of 35) but were least frequent in Observation 2 (2 of 25). Typically this type of dispute focused on negotiating the function or role of objects in the play context (e.g. Ob1.31). Local rule disputes arise from challenges to behaviour deemed acceptable within the playroom (again, more frequent in Observation 1). This encompasses both broader social expectations (e.g. Ob1.23) and rules proscribed by the teacher (e.g. Ob2.21). The final category (truth) refers to challenges of knowledge or factual accuracy (e.g. Ob2.3), the majority occurring in the second observation environment.6

a notable difference between the two groups lies in the proportion of the varying types of disputes. While ownership disputes are relatively common in

5 On two occasions, observation sessions were held in the afternoon in Ob1 due to morning activities scheduled for the four-year-old group.

6 a summary of dispute types is given in appendix a.

church Book.indb 58 13/01/2009 12:11:37

Peer Disputes 59

both preschools (28.6 per cent in Observation 1 and 56 per cent in Observation 2), the remaining three categories show an inverse proportion: play script (Ob1 – 37.1 per cent, Ob2 – 8 per cent), local rules (Ob1 – 25.7 per cent, Ob2 – 8 per cent), and truth (Ob1 – 8.6 per cent, Ob2 – 28 per cent). However, if ownership/object disputes and arguments over the play script are recognised as intrinsic to the development of play, and local rules and truth disputes are grouped as not organically derived (i.e. monitoring behaviour rather than imbedded in the play scenario), the proportion of disputes in both preschools is strikingly similar (65.7 per cent: 34.3 per cent in Ob1 and 64 per cent: 36 per cent in Ob2).

However, any discussion of the ratio of disputes must be made cautiously. not only is the categorisation of children’s disputes inherently subjective (despite best efforts to define objectively), the number of participants and length of observation in the current study prevents grand, sweeping commentary on definitive classification of preschool disputes (not to mention criticisms of quantitative analysis with a limited sample). furthermore, given that existing studies use idiosyncratic categorisation of types of disputes, it is difficult to compare findings. The prevalence of object disputes, however, is reported universally (Shantz, 1987; Hay and ross, 1982; eisenberg and garvey, 1981; genishi and di Paolo, 1982) and the frequency of play script disputes was also reported to be high in non-laboratory settings (Corsaro and Rizzo, 1990).

Additionally, no firm conclusions can be drawn from the correlation existing between gender and frequency of disputing. although a greater number of arguments recorded in the transcripts involve boys, this may indicate manner rather than prevalence of conflict. That is, boys’ arguments are typically more overt and subsequently more likely to attract the observer’s attention due to a greater incidence of raised voices and overtly physical play. activity type has also been acknowledged as influencing the proportion of disputes according to gender, even though both boys and girls played in block corner, and nearby activities are included in the data. Omitting analysis of gender and frequency of disputes does not suggest that no correlation exists, but rather that the procedure of the data collection in this study precludes sustainable conclusions.

Whilst conflict patterns can be considered as gendered (Aronsson and Thorell, 1999), the purpose of this research is to identify patterns which are intrinsic to adversative discourse, to identify turn shapes which are produced by both girls and boys. that is, this research seeks to identify common disputing practices as a prelim to looking for variation within these practices. What is proposed here is further exploration of generic linguistic practices in children’s disputes with the intent of uncovering patterns of discourse which are related to outcome; patterns attributable to both girls and boys. from this platform, differences in children’s gender, age and friendship groups may be looked for. the primary consideration remains to better understand governing principles of how children go about resolving disputes.

church Book.indb 59 13/01/2009 12:11:37


Teacher attitudes to conflict intervention

As discussed in earlier chapters, external (non-linguistic) influences on children’s arguments, although not focused upon in this monograph, should be acknowledged. While the relative social status (power relationships) among children has been recognised elsewhere (see Chapter 1), as has the link between friendship and the frequency of arguments (see Chapter 2), the role of the teacher in establishing and monitoring group dynamics may also be influential in the prevalence of conflict in the preschool playroom. although this feature is not directly incorporated in the analysis presented here, it is prudent to note that the expectation of appropriate behaviour of preschool children is influenced by the teacher. To ascertain staff attitudes to assisting children to manage peer conflict, informal interviews were held with teachers at the completion of each observation round. While both teachers reported similar theoretical approaches, their practical intervention strategies were performed in markedly different ways, a difference which may have been informed by pedagogic experience; the teacher in Observation 1 was younger and comparatively new to the profession.

The teacher in the first observation centre stated that she was inclined to let the children negotiate their own disputes and would intervene only when the children were crying (see Danby and Baker, 1998), shouting or otherwise visibly upset or angry, or if the conflict escalated to physical exchanges such as hitting. She reported that once involved she would ask each child to tell their own version of events, thereby creating an opportunity for each child to listen to the other, as well as establishing for herself the nature of the problem. if the children were not able to propose a viable solution she would impose one. the children’s individual abilities to manage conflict were noted by the teacher, with reference to children’s varying needs of staff support to negotiate with peers. in response to questions about the instructional phrase ‘use your words’ the teacher indicated that children were coached to express how the other’s behaviour made them feel, encouraging children to recognise the emotions of others.

in relation to the frequency of disputes in the playroom, the teacher in Ob1 commented that there was a greater proportion of adversative discourse at the beginning of the year and that as time progressed the children were arguing less. she attributed this to familiarisation with the new playroom, teacher and increased challenges, and children recognising certain limitations, specifically sharing toys. the teacher also noted that the children were more likely to ‘work out’ a dispute if they were friends (as discussed in Chapter 2). She added that the motivation to argue was not always driven by the play context, but sometimes by the mood of the children, who were more likely to argue ‘for the sake of it’ or be easily annoyed when they were tired.

the teacher in the second observation environment saw her role as clarifying the perspective or intention of each child for his or her playmate(s). She believed in talking through the problem because one (or both) participant(s) may not have the resources to explain their internal state. she noted that it was important to

church Book.indb 60 13/01/2009 12:11:37

Peer Disputes 61

clarify each child’s motivation before moving on to consider what action could be taken to resolve the problem. the teacher spoke of the importance of not assigning blame in these situations, as most offences are not made intentionally. the teacher insisted that the self-esteem of the children involved in a dispute remain a priority, perceiving her responsibility being to assess which child’s needs appeared greater, recognising that it is not always the child who has been wronged who is in greater need of support.

As far as suggesting strategies for children to manage conflict, the teacher in Ob2 noted that the advice would vary for each individual child, given their specific needs. it was her intention to provide the children with strategies for them to cope independently rather than focus on solving the immediate problem. as a general strategy, the teacher referred to the common theme of identifying internal states, in other words ‘tell the other child how you feel’. in relation to the instruction ‘use your words’ the teacher emphasised the importance of following this through by monitoring the response. she expanded this point by underscoring the fact that most children of this four-year-old age group are able to express their dissatisfaction (“I don’t like it when you do that”), therefore attention should be given to the other child’s ability or willingness to listen. the teacher also acknowledged a relationship between language skills and ability to manage conflict situations; that children with less fluency were unable to articulate their position and consequently were more likely to become more frustrated and resort to physical confrontation. she emphasised the fundamental importance of communication skills for a successful future.

Types and sequences of strategies

Whilst acknowledging the influence teachers may have on children’s peer interaction, the purpose of this study is to determine how children manage disputes without the direct support of an adult. In earlier research (see discussion in Chapter 2) attention was given to the types of strategies young children used in arguments (Eisenberg and Garvey, 1981; Genishi and Di Paolo, 1982; Brenneis and Lein, 1977; Boggs, 1978). Whilst previously established categories of strategies (e.g. insistence, modification, reasons, counter assertions, conditional directives, compromise, denial, requesting evidence, and insults) were evident in my data, quantitative evidence is not reported here as it does not contradict earlier findings and is not the primary focus of the analysis. relevant to this research however, are existing claims relating to possible or probable sequences of these verbal strategies.

elsewhere it has been noted that one utterance prompts a particular type of response, and that semantic continuity is a distinguishing feature of adversative discourse (Brenneis and Lein, 1977). This continuity, however, has been looked for within categories of strategic actions mentioned above. Whilst sequences of strategies may follow particular patterns (Boggs, 1978), given that the strategies are an imposed categorisation, the sequence is also externally imposed. these

church Book.indb 61 13/01/2009 12:11:37


sequences may indeed operate probabilistically, yet the task at hand is to establish if an organising principle is evident to the participants themselves. as hearers, the children involved in disputes may not recognise prior utterances as a particular type of strategy, but may attend to other features of the discourse. Of particular interest is the absence or presence of pauses, hesitation or direct opposition markers and the plausibility of accounts. Consequently (as with outcomes of disputes) a thorough discussion of sequences of disputes appears in the following chapters.

We now turn our attention to the organisation within the disputes that become apparent when viewed from a different perspective – an alternate methodology. as detailed in chapter 3, conversation analysis is proposed as eminently useful in uncovering significant features of children’s arguments. Existing research and preliminary review of the data suggests that preference organisation is pertinent to the sequences of turns in these disputes. so this chapter progresses to consider features of turn shapes in the children’s adversative discourse.

during the process of transcribing the 60 disputes recorded with both groups of four-year-old children, preference features emerged as overwhelmingly present. that is, utterances in these naturally-occurring arguments appeared to be consistently performed in either preferred or dispreferred turn shape. although the data presented here may appear to apply preference organisation as an analytic framework, it is important to emphasise that these patterns emerged from the data. unmotivated looking while repeatedly transcribing the children’s disputes uncovered particular and regular types of turn in the dispute. the reader is reminded that analysis presented here is reported after the fact: the data, and particular features of the data, came first.

Preference features in the children’s utterances

If a principle for agreement operates in conversation (Sacks, 1987), then it stands that this principle is revoked in conflict situations. That is, if speakers do not disagree with one another, adversative discourse is not sustainable. a purpose of the analysis, therefore, is to determine if the performance of preference organisation in disputes (i.e. linguistic markedness) mirrors this reversal of conversational preference. the purpose of this and subsequent chapters is to illustrate typical features of preference, and to demonstrate how these features are significant in children’s disputes by influencing the outcome of disputes. If we continue on the assumption (see discussion in Chapter 3) that disagreement is preferred in order for adversative discourse to be sustained, it remains to be seen if the turn shape (preferred or dispreferred) of the opposition influences the subsequent turn(s). Before establishing a possible interdependence between preference and the progression and conclusion of disputes, however, features of the turn shapes in the children’s arguments need to be examined. This chapter exemplifies the prevalence of the following turn components: immediate responses, short turn

church Book.indb 62 13/01/2009 12:11:37

Peer Disputes 63

length, direct action (preferred turn shape), pauses, delay markers, and deferred statement of intent (dispreferred turn shape).

Preferred turn shape

as discussed in chapter 3, preferred turns are typically produced without delay, the turn length is usually short and the action (locution) is overt and direct. These elements (immediate response, turn length and directness) were identified throughout the arguments recorded in both observation environments. the data recorded are presented below by identifying each characteristic of preferred turn shape in turn: immediacy; brevity of utterance and explicitness of action being done.

Immediate responses

Turns are identified as occurring immediately or contiguously where less than 0.2 seconds elapsed, marked as a zero time lapse (appearing in the transcripts abutting the prior turn). Where the inter-turn pause is timed under 0.2 seconds, the gap is not noticeably hearable as a significant pause. Pauses of less than 0.2 seconds made by the speaker within an utterance were heard as noticeable, and are subsequently recorded as (.) in the transcripts. This type of preferred format (produced without delay) is seen throughout dispute episodes, in initial opposition moves, in utterances during the argument and in later turns once the argument is well established. The notable finding here, then, is that immediate responses are not limited to the opening of adversative discourse.

Ob2.41 JAK: oh(thenthetwoofuscan)doittoday?2 LOU: noicandoit¿

immediate responses are not limited to simple contradiction of the prior utterance (although frequently used in this type of inversion) because counter-challenges are also made without delay, as are criticisms of the prior speaker.

Ob2.227 PAU: iwreckedmythi↑ng(0.2)anditwasn’tyours¿8 NIG: yeahandiputthosethingsupthere¿

Ob1.712 JON: nottillyou(0.2)saysorrySam. (0.4)13 TES: ((sillyvoice))sorrySamdee↑dee:huh.14 SAM: ↑no: (.) properly.

church Book.indb 63 13/01/2009 12:11:38


responses are also considered to be produced without substantial delay where there is less than a 0.3 second delay between turns. Whilst a 0.2 second pause between utterances is marked in the transcripts, the gap (as with delays of less than 0.2 seconds) is not heard as significant. The brevity of this time lapse is not noticeably hearable as a pause, whereas a 0.3 second or greater silence or absence of nonverbal behaviour is distinguishable as a gap or delay between turns. Consequently, when turns are produced with less than (0.3) seconds delay, this is considered to be an almost immediate response. contiguous responses, then, are identified where there is no delay (latched utterances) or following a pause of less than 0.3 seconds.

Ob2.18 MIR: gimmeoneofthem. (0.2)9 CAZ: iamnotgoingto.

Ob2.72 ELI: that’snotagirlthat’sabo::y. (0.2)3 CAZ: girlswearpants.

immediate utterances constitute varying types of responses. usually, preferred turn shapes are tied in semantic content and syntactic structure to the previous turn, often with minimal addition of novel information – an example of format-tying (Goodwin, 1990; see Chapter 2).When turns are repeated or partially repeated (adding to prior content) the previous turn, in most cases there is no significant delay.

Ob2.42 LOU: noicandoit¿ (0.2)3 JAK: NO:IWANNADoit.

Often this type of repeat is used to contradict the prior speaker, with the repeat produced as an inversion of the previous utterance. these simple inversions are labelled elsewhere as ‘contrastively-matched counters’ (Coulter 1990: 196).

Ob2.196 SIM: myparty’sbefo:reyou:rs¿7 GAR: noMYparty’sbeforeyours.=

church Book.indb 64 13/01/2009 12:11:38

Peer Disputes 65

Ob1.43 HIL: it’smyso:ng¿4 TES: it’smysongtoo:andit’snotyoursong....12 HIL: itismysongtoo:.13 TES: it’snotyoursongtoo::¿

There is also evidence of no significant delay when the speaker’s objection is a repeat of his/her own earlier opposition:

Ob1.2814 JON: nodon’tbreakit! (0.2)15 FEL: iwill[breakit]?16 JON: [otherwise]i’lltelltheteacher. (0.5)17 FEL: iwillbreakitJohn.18 JON: DON’TBREAKitOTHERWISEIWILLTELL[THETEACHERS onyou].

although felicity’s turn in line 17 in Ob1.28 is also a repeat of her earlier utterance, this turn does not serve as a direct opposition to the prior turn (line 16), but rather a re-initiation and repeat of an earlier threat intended to provoke John. This interpretation is significant given that Felicity’s turn is preceded by a short pause. it should also be noted that whilst the content of John’s utterance was repeated, the turn is aggravated through increased volume (see Brenneis and Lein, 1977 and Boggs, 1978 for discussion of paralinguistic features as demonstrative of escalation in disputing).

from the examples presented here, it becomes apparent that turns made without delay usually present little new information. in some cases, each speaker continues to repeat the form of earlier utterances, providing no novel content to promote their position.

Ob1.253 KOY: iwasus[ingit-],4 SAM: [BUTI]thoughtyouweren’tusingi:t,=5 KOY: =I’m using it (0.3) i wanna- (.) tha[t’s (mine)].6 SAM: [ithoughtyou]weren’tusingi::t.=7 KOY: =iwanna(.)but(.)iwas-thatwasmi:ne.8 SAM: but↑ithoughtyouweren’tusingi:t.

church Book.indb 65 13/01/2009 12:11:38


throughout the episodes we also see examples where opposition pre-empts the close of the previous utterance (the transition-relevant place), where the beginning of the challenge overlaps the prior turn.

Ob1.13 NOR: ºlet’s[gotothejettyº].4 MIN: [no (.) no (0.3)] nono(0.4)no(we)don’twant those(0.4)biganim[alsx-],

and later in the same episode:

14 CHE: we’re[goingthroughit].15 LIA: [uh uh].((expressesobjection))

turns are also produced with zero delay, where no discernible lapse between one utterance and the next is heard. the following examples identify turns which are latched to the prior utterance.

Ob2.45 LOU: no:w (.) i know which day (0.2) and i can do it¿=6 JAK: =i can do it too.

Ob2.197 GAR: noMYparty’sbeforeyours.=8 SIM: =not bef[ore mine].9 GAR: [butmineis](0.3)yours-(0.6)my:mumsaid yoursisinFebruary.

Ob1.225 KOY: ↑no(.)you’renotpacking¿=6 ADM: =YES I AM.

Turns are also considered to be produced immediately (without delay) if the utterance overlaps or occurs contiguously to a nonverbal action by another party.

Ob2.16 MIR: (ifyoudon’t)theni’lljusttakeitthen. %act: reachestograbplasticlid.7 CAZ: STO::P!

church Book.indb 66 13/01/2009 12:11:38

Peer Disputes 67

Ob1.102 TES: 0 ((%act: attempts to take JONS’s fishing rod which he has put on the ground to pick up a fish))3 JON: ((risingpitchthroughout))no no no no no.

Ob1.131 ADM: 0((%act:drivesduplocartowardsgarage))2 KOY: no big ↑cars!

Ob1.166 ADM: that(.)thatcanbe(0.5)umm, (2.5) %act: pullsdownablockthatSAMhasplacedupright7 SAM: ↑no: (0.4) that is UP.

Ob2.161 PAU: 0 ((%act: turns volume control to another headset))2 FRE: he[::y].

Ob1.221 KOY: 0((%act:knocksblockoffshelf))2 ADM: ((whines))NO:: (.) YOU’RE BREAKING IT.

Ob2.221 PAU: 0((%act:knocksovertowerofblocks))2 NIG: you WRECKER.

Ob2.256 JIM: 0((%act:pushestherampstogether))7 PAU: ↑hey you’re making it differe::nt.

turns can similarly be made contiguously to the prior utterance and its accompanying nonverbal action.

Ob1.1313 ADM: [ihavetostayout]ofthegargage(0.2)(get ou:t),= %act: putshiscarnexttotheblocks14 KOY: =STO::P!

church Book.indb 67 13/01/2009 12:11:38


Turn length

not only are preferred turn shapes characterised as produced contiguously to the prior utterance, the length of the turn is also indicative of preference status: preferred turns are typically short. Whilst the content of preferred turns may demonstrate little homogeneity (Levinson, 1983), the brevity of utterances is a uniform feature. as seen in the following examples, immediate opposition is often made in short utterances, the shortest being one-word objections.

Ob1.131 NOR: up ↑he↓re [i’m] up here.32 LIA: [no].

Ob2.175 SIM: Ga↑ry:(1.0)canihavealittleplayofyours? (0.2)6 GAR: no. (1.3)7 SIM: cani?8 GAR: no.

Ob1.351 ADM: now(0.2)(i’mgonnaputthatthere).2 PET: HE::Y.

Ob1.1834 TES: NOIDIDN’TDOITdidi↑Nancy(0.5)Koyodid it¿=35 KOY: =no.

These shortest preferred turn shapes (one-word objections) follow nonverbal actions as well as verbal turns.

Ob2.2 %act: girlsattempttoenterthespaceship1 JAK: no!

Ob2.259 PAU: 0((%act:pullsblocksapart))(2.3)10 JIM: o::y:.

Ob1.328 KOY: 0((%act:triestoshutflaps))9 SAM: no:.

church Book.indb 68 13/01/2009 12:11:38

Peer Disputes 69

10 KOY: theshow(.)is(.)fin↑ished(.)[(now)].11 SAM: [no]:.((whines))

Brief utterances (preferred turn shapes) need not necessarily denote one-word objections: the turn may also be considered short where it contains more than one item. a short turn, then, typically consists of a single clause.

Ob2.203 GAR: it’sjustalittleone¿ (0.2)4 ROB: hey don’t!

Ob1.205 LUK: 0((%act:pushesPET’shandaway))6 PET: ((whines))don’t draw mi::ne.

Ob2.231 LUK: lookSam(0.3)owow.=2 SAM: =don’t do that(.)that’s-,

Ob1.71 TES: ((sillyvoice))thesearemine(.)that’smine (.)that’smine(.)tha-myyeeiyeei[yeiyei], %act: grabbingboxes2 JON: [hey(.)hey,]=3 SAM: = ↑hey sto:p (0.5) TE::S[S]::!

Ob1.221 KOY: 0((%act:knocksblockoffshelf))2 ADM: ((whines))NO:: (.) YOU’RE BREAKING IT.

Ob2.18 MIR: gimmeoneofthem. (0.2)9 CAZ: i am not going to.

Preferred turn shapes are also evident in sequences where short turns are made in succession, often in overlap.

Ob2.82 PAU: giveittome!3 WIN: i[foundit].4 PAU: [noi-](.)noihadi:t.5 WIN: ifoundit¿

church Book.indb 69 13/01/2009 12:11:38


the repetition of short turns was evident elsewhere in the data:

Ob1.1114 FEL: mmm.15 NAN: don’tsaymmm. (1.1)16 FEL: mmm.17 NAN: don’t(0.3)don’t say THAT! (0.2)18 FEL: mmm. (0.4)19 NAN: DON’T SAY THAT!

Ob1.2616 ADM: you[havetosay]“doggiedoggiewho’sgotthe bone”.17 CHE: [goaway].18 CHE: GO away from us!19 ADM: don’tyouknow“doggie[doggiewho’sgot]-,20 TES: [wedon’t]ca:redon’twe?=21 CHE: =go away from us!

Ob1.315 ADM: nowedon’tneedtoputcorksin.=...7 SAM: [no]they’refood(0.7)they[‘re] carro[ts.]8 ADM: [no],...10 ADM: nothey’renot. (0.2)11 SAM: they’re carrots!

a common type of short preferred turn shape in argumentative discourse occurs when an utterance is a simple contradiction of the prior term (often inversion of previous turn).

Ob2.88 PAU: ihaditawhileago.=9 WIN: =no you did[n’t].

Ob2.147 DON: [one]o’clo:ck(0.4)yea::h(.)it’soneo’clock. (0.2)8 TOM: no it’s not.

church Book.indb 70 13/01/2009 12:11:38

Peer Disputes 71

Ob1.171 ADM: i’mgonnabuildxxxx. (0.2)2 PET: ohnoyou’renot. (0.2)3 ADM: yes i am. (0.2)4 PET: no.

Ob1.237 SAM: don’tyoulikeyourmummy.8 LUK: ºyes i doº.

Ob1.2826 JON: welldon’tbreakmyhouse(0.8)coz(0.2)it’s (0.3)very special[whatimade].27 CHE: [is not]?

Ob1.343 PET: no↑I’mnot¿ (0.2)4 ADM: yes you are¿

Ob2.243 BRI: yoursisyuck(.)Gary¿4 GAR: no it isn’t¿

criticism of the previous speaker was also made in one-word utterances with little or no pause.

Ob1.144 SAM: =iwastryingtobal[anceit].5 LUK: [tstoh]oh[ohohno:].((whining))6 SAM: [iwastryingtobalance]i:t=7 LUK: =NAUGHTY!

Opposition stated directly

As demonstrated in the examples above, preferred turn shape can be identified by both brevity of response and absence of delay. a third feature of preferred status is found in the directness of the utterance, as the turn’s purpose is stated overtly (essentially achieved through contiguity and brevity). In argumentative sequences, then, clarity of intention can be identified where the opposition is not only stated

church Book.indb 71 13/01/2009 12:11:38


clearly, but specifically at the beginning of the turn (given that the illocutionary intent in dispreferred turns is typically delayed).

the most striking examples of direct and overt opposition being performed at the beginning of the turn are found when the adversative response is a single-word utterance.

Ob1.62 TES: [no:ineedr]e:d(0.3)cozilikethatcolour aswell.3 JON: NO:¿4 SAM: no:.

Ob2.183 SIM: plea:secanihaveit. (0.2)4 GAR: n:o:.

Ob2.95 PAU: 0((%act:continuestotouchblocks))6 LOU: do:n’t!

Ob2.123 LOU: 0((%act:knocksanothersetofblocks))4 WIN: DO:N’T!

Ob2.151 MIR: ican’thea:rit. %act: fiddleswithbuttons (0.2)2 PAU: ↑hey.

Ob2.214 NIG: you’renotallowedtogooutside,5 SIM: yea:h¿

these single word items used to challenge the prior turn serve as opposition markers, because they function as immediate and overt indicators of challenge to the prior speaker. not only are these opposition markers heard as demonstrably argumentative, their placement must also be considered. in relation to the directness of opposition, the significance of the initial position in the utterance should be emphasised. Evidently, if the first word of a turn is an opposition marker (such as ‘no’) the turn is immediately recognisable as one of dissension.

church Book.indb 72 13/01/2009 12:11:39

Peer Disputes 73

Ob1.92 TES: takeeverything(out),=3 JON: =notthe-,4 TES: 0((%act:continuespackinguptheboats))5 SAM: NO (0.5)leaveithe↑re!

Ob1.189 KOY: [see(.)$yo:u]didit$. (0.2)10 TES: NO:: IDIDN’:T.

Ob1.211 PET: 0((%act:picksupafewblockswhichareonthe groundnearCHE))2 CHE: don’t breakoursPeter?

Ob2.243 BRI: yoursisyuck(.)Gary¿4 GAR: noitisn’t¿

Ob1.3015 LUK: Johndidit.16 JO2: nothe[tabledoneit].

The attention-getting device ‘hey’ (McTear, 1979) also functions as an opposition marker:

Ob2.256 JIM: 0((%act:pushestherampstogether))7 PAU: ↑heyyou’remakingitdiffere::nt.

On one occasion in the data, however, the item ‘hey’ served as an indicator or marker of compromise (the distinction made by different intonation). When Paul proposed an alternative solution to circumvent opposition from another speaker, it was prefaced with ‘hey’.

Ob2.2513 PAU: heythatcanbebothofou:rs. (0.3)14 JIM: yeah.

elsewhere, although an opposition marker does not appear in utterance-initial position, the opposition is clearly exhibited. in the next-turn positioning, the speaker explicitly rejects the prior turn.

church Book.indb 73 13/01/2009 12:11:39


Ob2.311 TOM: you’re(.)you’re(0.3)you’retrickingme:. (0.2)12 GAR: i am not!

Ob1.1218 ADM: [yestheydo:]. (0.2)19 LUK: ((singsongvoice))the:y do: no:t.

Ob1.18 %act: blocksknocked(acidentally)offshelfbyKOY1 SAM: o:hh[hhuhhuhhuh][[huhhuh,]]2 KOY: [hahhahhah,]3 TES: [[THAT’S]](.) VERY NAUGHty....40 ADM: youMissMu:shroom?41 TES: I’MNOTAMISS[MUSHROOM]I’M[TE::SS].

Ob1.276 CHE: noididn’t.7 FEL: yes i did i hear you.

In each of the examples above, features of preferred utterances have been identified in the children’s arguments, specifically brief and direct turns being produced without delay, that is, contiguously to the prior action or utterance. these turns shaped were heard persistently and consistently throughout the disputes. each of these features is typified in the following sequence of preferred turn shapes:

Ob1.308 JON: it↑wasn’t(0.2)itwasthatJohn.9 JO2: iwa-ididn’tdothat.10 FEL: yesyoudid.11 JO2: no[ididn’t].12 LUK: [youdid]so:!13 JO2: didno:t.

Preferred turn shapes, then, are omnipresent in adversative discourse in preschool peer interaction. Having identified the prevalence of preferred features, it needs to be established if these features are performed consistently throughout the data.

church Book.indb 74 13/01/2009 12:11:39

Peer Disputes 75

‘Atypical’ preferred turn shapes?

As discussed and exemplified throughout this chapter so far, preferred turn-shape is reflected in the immediacy (no inter-turn delay), brevity and directness of the utterance. although these features are recognised as a taxonomy of preference, they are not always produced cohesively or uniformly in the children’s argumentative episodes. Or rather, preference organisation in these disputes does not entirely emulate preference features in adult speech. the audio recordings reveal otherwise preferred turn shapes (brief, direct opposition) occurring after pauses. Similarly, turns may be made without delay, but demonstrate otherwise dispreferred features (as discussed below).

Pauses appear between some adjacency pairs, in similar contexts to sequences of preferred turns (i.e. those produced without significant delay) noted in the examples above. One of these contexts is delay which prefaces repeats or partial repeats of the prior speaker’s turn.

Ob2.711 CAZ: nothat’smine(igotmi:ne)mine! (0.4)12 ELI: it’smine.

Ob2.98 LOU: ((toWIN))Paul’sspoiling-(0.3)((toPAU))we wereherefi:rst. (0.5)9 PAU: wewereherefirst.

Ob2.209 GAR: then(youcan’t)cometomyparty. (2.7)10 ROB: i>don’twannacometoyour<party.

Pauses were also found to occasionally preface repeats of the speaker’s own earlier utterance.

Ob1.171 ADM: i’mgonnabuildxxxx. (0.2)2 PET: ohnoyou’renot. (0.2)3 ADM: yesiam. (0.2)

church Book.indb 75 13/01/2009 12:11:39


4 PET: no. (0.8)5 ADM: ºiamº.

Ob1.44 TES: it’smysongtoo:andit’snotyoursong. (0.2)5 HIL: itismysong. (0.5)6 TES: NOTYOUR:SONG.

Ob2.244 GAR: noitisn’t¿ (0.4)5 BRI: yesitis. (1.0)6 GAR: NOITISN’T.

Of primary interest here is the considerable shift in volume after the delay. it could be suggested that a marked change in prosody signifies novel content, perhaps accounting for the slight delay, yet no pause occurs prior to the shouted turn in line 18 in Ob1.28 (presented earlier in this chapter). The data also revealed examples of delay occurring before otherwise preferred format turns which overtly contradicted the prior speaker, providing no new content to support the contradiction.

Ob2.36 GAR: i’mgoingbefo:relunch. (1.0)7 TOM: noyouare::n’t.

Ob1.413 TES: it’snotyou:rsongtoo::¿ (0.2)14 HIL: itis. (0.4)15 TES: no:.

Ob2.52 LOU: youdidit. (0.4)3 ELI: noididn’t?=

church Book.indb 76 13/01/2009 12:11:39

Peer Disputes 77

Ob2.1023 PAU: ididn’tididn’tevenmakeabuilding. (0.5)24 JIM: yesyoudi:d¿

Ob1.126 ADM: youHAFtaSHARE. (0.6)7 LUK: NO:? (0.6)8 ADM: yeahbuttheteachersays(0.4)“share”. (0.5)9 LUK: NO:?

Ob1.1713 ADM: yeahBUTYOUHAVETO. (0.8)14 PET: no. (0.3)15 ADM: .hhNOBUTYOUHAVETOSHARE. (1.1)16 KOY: NO.

Ob1.1822 TES: [ii]ididn’tdoitdidiNancy? (1.1)23 KOY: yeahyoudiditidid[n’t].

Ob2.197 GAR: noMYparty’sbeforeyours.=8 SIM: =notbef[oremine].9 GAR: [butmineis](0.3)yours-(0.6)my:mumsaid yoursisinFebruary. (1.3)10 SIM: noitisn’t.

Ob1.222 ADM: ((whines))NO::(.)YOU’REBREAKINGIT. (0.2)3 KOY: BECAUSEYOU’RENOTPACKINGUP. (0.6)4 ADM: yesiam.

church Book.indb 77 13/01/2009 12:11:39


the relative frequency of ‘atypical’ turn shapes, however, is of less interest to us here, as although these turns are prefaced by a pause, the turns are explicitly oppositional because the objection of the speaker is clearly on display. Of most relevance to establishing the role of preference organisation in children’s verbal disputes is the relationship between conflict outcomes and the sequential organisation of the talk-in-interaction. the turns above are perhaps ‘atypical’ only in comparison with preference features noted in adult speech. indeed, it may turn out that prefatory delays are not influential in the preference organisation of children’s disputes. the sequential positioning of these turn shapes will be considered further in chapter 6.

Multi-party disputes

Before moving on to illustrating dispreferred turn shapes heard in the children’s disputes, some comment needs to be made regarding the number of speakers involved in the examples provided thus far. not all disputes are restricted to two parties, and the influence of more than two participants on the structure of conflict episodes is acknowledged. It has been argued (Maynard, 1986a) that multi-party disputes should not be represented as two-party disputes with additional speakers, as new speakers may align themselves with an original speaker by introducing a novel contention.

Whilst it is recognised that a third speaker may attempt to add his/her own agenda, in the present data the addition is usually aligned with one existing position or another. so while more than two speakers may present more than two points of contention, these points are typically directed to one of the two opposing positions. in the sequential organisation of multi-party disputes then, there are essentially two sides. Whilst the individual form of opposition may vary (multiple speakers on the same side) it is nevertheless unilateral opposition to the other (antipathetic) position. furthermore, there is little room for peer mediators in disputes between four-year-olds.7 typically, external participants either align themselves with either opposing party or remain neutral and therefore outside the dispute.

in Ob1.17 below, for example, Peter solicits support from sam and Koyo (who are also playing with the blocks, and are overhearers up until this point). Koyo’s response (line 10) is not only collaborative, it is content-tied to Peter’s earlier taunt. Koyo’s subsequent turn (line 12) is a faithful repeat of Peter’s prior opposition (line 11).

Ob1.176 PET: i’mgonnagetallofthese(0.4)littleblocks,= %act: PETstartsremovingblocksfromshelf.

7 There are exceptions in specific cultural settings, e.g. the ritualised role of a third party in resolving standoffs (brogez) between Israeli children (Katriel, 1985).

church Book.indb 78 13/01/2009 12:11:39

Peer Disputes 79

7 ADM: =yeahbutYOUHAVETOSHARE. (1.5)8 PET: butwe’renotgonnasharewithourtoys[arewe]¿ %com: PETisaddressingSAMandKOY.9 ADM: [yeahbut]you[HAVEto].10 KOY: [>wedon’twanttoshare]with[you<.]11 PET: [NO.] (0.2)12 KOY: no.

in relation to the earlier sections of this chapter, the interpretation of inter-turn pauses becomes more complex in multi-party disputes. for example, in Ob1.11 below, Cherie’s contradiction (line 12) may be considered an ‘atypical’ preferred turn shape due to the length of the pause preceding this short, direct rebuttal. However, up until this point, it was felicity who had been opposing nancy’s attempts to appropriate a fishing rod.

Ob1.114 NAN: [iwan]iwannatu:rn(0.7)iwannaturnofthat. (0.4)5 FEL: well↑we(0.3)gotherefi:rst? (0.3)6 NAN: wehavetoshare(0.6)haveto[share].7 CHE: ((sings quietly to herself)) [get the] little fishiesout (0.2)inthelittlebox.8 CHE: ((toFEL))(these[areyours]).9 FEL: ([fishes]), (0.5)10 CHE: youputthemin. (2.6)11 NAN: youhavetosha:re(.)don’tgetaway. (1.2)12 CHE: we (.) ↑a:re↓. (0.6)13 NAN: noyou’renotºsharingº(.)you’re(0.4)taking alongtime. (3.4)

the delay in this example is not necessarily heard as directly attributed to cherie’s turn, as the nominated speaker at the turn transition relevance place could be assumed by Felicity in the first instance, as she had been the only vocal opposer to nancy up until this point. Pauses in prefatory positions of preferred format turns (in multi-party disputes) may therefore be explained by obscured speaker rights

church Book.indb 79 13/01/2009 12:11:39


to the next turn. Where more than two children are engaged in verbal conflict, the position of next speaker is not automatically selected (given multiple hearers). in two-party disputes, inter-turn pauses may be heard as delayed, whereas when more than two children are engaged in the dispute the gap may indicate hesitation of speaker selection. inter-turn pauses, then, can be considered in light of multi-party configuration of disputes.

Dispreferred turn shape

Having identified preferred turn shapes in the children’s arguments, the next stage of analysis is designed to illustrate features of dispreferred turns heard in the audio (and video) recordings. Specifically, the features noted in the children’s disputes were pauses between turns, hesitation or delay markers and accounts for opposition – all identifiable as characteristic of dispreferred turn shape. Although it is the synthesis of these features that points to dispreferred turn shape, for the purpose of analysis, each will be discussed in turn.

Delay: Pauses

as discussed in chapter 3, the saliency of pauses occurring before dispreferred turns signifies the delay itself as accountable or meaningful to the hearer (i.e. something other than a preferred response may be forthcoming). However, before attempting to interpret the significance of prefatory pauses in children’s disputes, their occurrence in the data must be established. the numerous examples below, point to the prevalence of pauses delaying turns (turns which also demonstrate other dispreferred features).

Ob1.83 JON: no(0.3)noyougotmy↑blueone. (0.4)4 TES: butwe(0.3)but(0.5)butwearejustsharing.

Ob1.106 JON: sodon’t(.)take(0.2)this(0.2)fishingrod offme. (0.6)7 TES: well Milly (0.5) Milly wants to have a turn (0.2)((thentoMIL))do[n’tyou].8

8 It has been noted elsewhere that using address forms (stating another child’s name in the utterance) serves to align or disalign with other speakers (Aronsson and Thorell, 1999).

church Book.indb 80 13/01/2009 12:11:39

Peer Disputes 81

Ob2.132 LOU: iwanttou:se(.)iwasusingthatcar. (0.4)3 WIN: noyouwereusingthatcar.

Ob2.2 %act: pushesCAZasshetriestoenter.9 TOM: it’sarocketship(.)youguys. (1.1)10 CAZ: we’replayingwewereplayingintherefi:rst¿

Ob1.48 YYY: [Tess]areyouokay? (1.3)9 TES: Hilaryjustsaidthesongishersandit’snot it’smi:ne. (0.9)10 HIL: wellitisminetoo:....13 TES: it’snotyou:rsongtoo::¿ (0.2)14 HIL: itis. (0.4)15 TES: no:. (2.5)16 HIL: ihearditontheradio.

Ob1.23 ADM: [nonono](.)no[no]thisonehasn’tgotanyle:gs.4 JON: [but-], (0.9)5 JON: but(0.3)but(0.3)but(0.2)butthisone(0.3) it’snotrea-thespace-(.)this(0.2)we’re justnotreadyyet.

Ob1.64 SAM: no:. (1.0)5 TES: noilikethatcolouraswe:ll¿ (0.8)6 SAM: drop(0.2)(John’sgotthose)(0.7)yougotthose onesJohn’sgottheseones. (0.9)

church Book.indb 81 13/01/2009 12:11:40


7 TES: but(0.3)igotthreecozineed(1.3)thatmany. (1.6)8 SAM: butthen(0.4)Johnwillhavethree(0.3)and youdon’tlikepinkdoyouJohn.

Ob2.72 ELI: that’snotagirlthat’sabo::y. (0.2)3 CAZ: girlswearpants. (0.9)4 ELI: well(0.5)that’s-iknowthat’saboy.

Ob2.96 LOU: do:n’t! (1.1)7 PAU: youcanstill(.)fixit¿

Ob2.1016 FRE: DON’T(.)WRECKi:t! (0.2)17 PAU: iwannamakesomething(.)andyouweren’teven usingit. (1.0)18 FRE: buti(.)iwilluseit↑later.

Ob2.154 PAU: he:ydon’tyou’llbreakitliketha:t. (1.2)5 MIR: butican’thea:r.

Ob2.1712 SIM: >Garydoyouwannacome<tomyparty? (0.8)13 GAR: if you- (0.3) if you don’t give those (0.4) thosethingstome(.)youwon’tcometomypar:ty.

Ob2.202 ROB: heythat’smineGary:. (1.2)3 GAR: it’sjustalittleone¿

church Book.indb 82 13/01/2009 12:11:40

Peer Disputes 83

Ob2.224 PAU: thatwasmyoneimade. (0.6)5 NIG: well(0.2)doyouknowwhatyoudidtoit?

Ob1.114 NAN: [iwan]iwannatu:rn(0.7)iwannaturnofthat. (0.4)5 FEL: well↑we(0.3)gotherefi:rst?

Ob1.127 LUK: NO:? (0.6)8 ADM: yeahbuttheteachersays(0.4)“share”.

Ob1.132 KOY: nobig↑cars! (2.4)3 ADM: yeahbutLukesaidicanºcomeinº.

Ob1.164 SAM: no. (1.3)5 ADM: yeahbutwehaveto.

Ob1.1810 TES: NO::IDIDN’:T. (0.9)11 SAM: Te:ss(.)too:lou:d.

Ob1.212 CHE: don’tbreakoursPeter? (1.2)3 PET: butweneedlotsof(these). (1.6)4 CHE: butbutdon’ttakeo:urs. (0.5)5 PET: nowewon’t.

Ob1.233 SAM: don’tdothatLuke¿.4 LUK: iwanttocrackit. (2.2)

church Book.indb 83 13/01/2009 12:11:40


5 SAM: if you crack heads you’ll ↓die: (0.3) do you wantto↑die::(0.3)andthenyourmummywill cry:?

In each of the examples above, the turn shape following (incorporating) the pause is performed as dispreferred. inter-turn pauses, however, are not universally indicative of preference status. there are pauses heard in the children’s arguments which are not necessarily attributed to dispreferred turn shape. in some instances, for example, the speaker is not responding to the immediately prior turn, but rather reinitiates a contention, challenge or provocation.

Ob1.19 LIA: ((tothegirls,teasingvoice))youcan’tgoon (0.4)we:ma:dei:t. (1.1)10 MIN: but‘ceptbut‘cept[they↑cango]on(.)theyca:n.11 CHE: [butwe’renew]. (1.4)12 CHE: going. %com: producedasstatementofintent (1.7)13 FEL: measwell. (1.5)14 CHE: we’re[goingthroughit].

Ob1.293 JON: yes(.)she(.)did. (1.2)4 JON: Felicitydid. (1.4)5 CHE: Felicitydidn’t. (0.4)6 JON: Felicity’s(0.2)shoedidit. (2.6)7 JON: iknowthat(1.6)really.

Ob1.342 ADM: you’rehavingalongturn. (0.3)3 PET: no↑i’mnot¿ (0.2)4 ADM: yesyouare¿ (1.4)5 FEL: Peter’shavingalongturn.

church Book.indb 84 13/01/2009 12:11:40

Peer Disputes 85

in other words, some pauses heard in the disputes are of such length as to suggest that the prefaced utterance is not a response to the prior turn but instead a re-initiation of the topic/conflict.

Ob2.711 CAZ: nothat’smine(igotmi:ne)mine! (0.4)12 ELI: it’smine. (1.1)13 CAZ: theni’llhavethese. (3.3)14 ELI: i wanna have (.) a gir:l (0.4) i wanna have a one ↑girl....18 ELI: butidon’tlikethatgirl. (6.8)19 ELI: you can’t have two girls.((petulanttone))

Ob1.278 CHE: no:ididn’tsayyourname.9 FEL: iknow:[becauseyou-(.)iheared].10 LUK: [you’regoingtobeatChe]riearen’tyou. (2.2)11 LUK: ((toCHE))last is you.

Delay: Markers

Another delaying feature of dispreferred turns (which may or may not also be prefaced by a pause) is markers that defer the opposition in the utterance. the marker ‘well’ appears in the data as a typical preface to – or turn-initial item in – dispreferred turn shapes. Whilst in children’s arguments the marker appears in similar position to dispreferred turn shapes recorded elsewhere (e.g. Pomerantz, 1984) and serves to render the opposition less direct, the marker does not necessarily serve to mitigate the disagreement. in adult disagreement the marker ‘well’ can genuinely be identified as a delay or hesitation, but this dispreference marker is not necessarily used hesitantly in the children’s disputes.

although there are differences noted in the use of markers in children’s adversative discourse, they nevertheless signify dispreferred turn shape. each turn prefaced with a marker such as ‘well’ (and indeed ‘but’ as evidenced below) also demonstrates accountability and is frequently delayed by a pause. importantly, turn-initial markers, do not appear in the data in short, overtly oppositional, immediately produced and unaccounted for utterances (preferred turn shapes).

church Book.indb 85 13/01/2009 12:11:40


Ob1.41 TES: everybodycansingit(0.5)notjustyou. (4.6)2 HIL: well isingmysongifiwant.

Ob1.114 NAN: [iwan]iwannatu:rn(0.7)iwannaturnofthat. (0.4)5 FEL: well↑we(0.3)gotherefi:rst?

Ob1.271 LUK: look(0.7)look(0.5)((singsongvoice))i:beat you(.)didn’tI:. (0.4)2 CHE: welli’mstilldoingmineso(youcan’txxxx).

Ob2.72 ELI: that’snotagirlthat’sabo::y. (0.2)3 CAZ: girlswearpants. (0.9)4 ELI: well(0.5)that’s-iknowthat’saboy.

in the following examples, each marked utterance began as a seemingly dispreferred turn shape (given the utterance-initial marker) but was abandoned.

Ob1.348 ADM: =iwannahaveaturn.9 PET: buti:’mnotfin(.)ishedye::t.=10 FEL: =yeah: (0.6)11 PET: well .hh,

Ob2.186 GAR: no(0.2)youwillbe-(0.3)youwill(0.4)be(.) behere(0.2)butiwon’t.7 SIM: well-, (4.7)8 SIM: whattimeareyougoingho:me?

in other utterances, the use of ‘well’ serves as an introduction to a statement of intention or statement of fact, the declaration of which serves as inherent account for opposition.

church Book.indb 86 13/01/2009 12:11:40

Peer Disputes 87

O1.2822 JON: don’tbreakmyhouse(.)likethat! (1.1)23 CHE: [i(break)mythings].24 LUK: [howaboutmaking](0.2)tram[tracksxxxx],25 GGG: [thiscanbeWinne]thePooh’shouse. (0.7)26 JON: welldon’tbreakmyhouse(0.8)coz(0.2)it’s (0.3)veryspecial[whatimade].

Ob2.89 WIN: =noyoudid[n’t].10 PAU: [well]i’mtellingonyou.

Ob2.121 WIN: do:n’tyou’rewreckingeverything.2 LOU: welli’mtryingtogoround.

Ob2.165 PAU: ican’thearanything. (1.1)6 FRE: wellicanhearit.

Ob2.228 NIG: yeahandiputthosethingsupthere¿9 PAU: wellitdoesn’tneedthem.

although the item ‘well’ would not be labelled a hesitation marker in the examples above (the children are not hesitant in challenging the prior speaker), it consistently prefaces turns which demonstrate other dispreferred features, specifically justification of the speaker’s position (see discussion below). This suggests that ‘well’ and other markers do not always denote hesitation, but rather that they preface qualified opposition. Whilst dispreference markers may be produced as a form of delay, they most significantly function as an indicator that the utterance will contain some form of support for the speaker’s opposition. in other discourse contexts the turn-initiator ‘well’ may give little indication of what is to follow (Schiffrin, 1985), but in children’s argumentative utterances ‘well’ performs invariably as a preface to justified objection.

the item ‘well’ also appears in children’s disputes as a preface to questions which are not strictly argumentative, i.e. requests for clarification or permission. In the first instance, when requesting further information, the marker ‘well’ is typically produced with a degree of indignation (Ob1.30, Ob2.10, Ob2.22).

church Book.indb 87 13/01/2009 12:11:40


Ob1.309 JO2: iwa-ididn’tdothat.10 FEL: yesyoudid.11 JO2: no[ididn’t].12 LUK: [youdid]so:!13 JO2: didno:t. (0.7)14 JON: well whodidthat.

Ob2.103 JIM: yeshei:s. (0.2)4 PAU: wellthen(1.2)thenhowcomeyou’renotusingit¿

Ob2.224 PAU: thatwasmyoneimade. (0.6)5 NIG: well(0.2)doyouknowwhatyoudidtoit?

Otherwise, ‘well’ serves to mark the speaker’s disregard for the content of the prior turn (e.g. Ob2.17 – heard as ‘well, you may think no, but can I break it anyway?’).

Ob2.171 SIM: canibreakthis? (0.5)2 GAR: n:o.3 SIM: well>canihavea-<cani(breakthis).hhh¿=

in similar contexts to the item ‘well’, the marker ‘but’ was also used by the children, typically to introduce support for their opposition. the function of ‘but’ has been noted elsewhere as a boundary marker in verbal challenges. “But is operating on the action level because it marks an adversative relation between speech acts rather than a contrast in propositions” (Kyratzis and Ervin-Tripp, 1999). Similar observations are made of the marker ‘well’.

Ob1.19 LIA: ((tothegirls,teasingvoice))youcan’tgoon (0.4)we:ma:dei:t. (1.1)10 MIN: but‘ceptbut‘cept[they↑cango]on(.)theyca:n.11 CHE: [butwe’renew].

church Book.indb 88 13/01/2009 12:11:40

Peer Disputes 89

Ob1.23 ADM: [nonono](.)no[no]thisonehasn’tgotany le:gs.4 JON: [but-], (0.9)5 JON: but(0.3)but(0.3)but(0.2)butthisone(0.3) it’snotrea-thespace-(.)this(0.2)we’re justnotreadyyet. (3.6)

Ob1.75 SAM: ↑Tess(0.4)don’tSNA:tch!6 TES: but (0.3)iamdoingfishing.

Ob1.83 JON: no(0.3)noyougotmy↑blueone. (0.4)4 TES: butwe(0.3)but(0.5)butwearejustsharing.

Ob1.95 SAM: NO(0.5)leaveithe↑re! (1.0)6 TES: b[utwe(.)we-,]7 SAM: [leave(.)all]ofthemhere.

Ob1.203 LUK: no:you’redrawingonthemoo::n.=4 PET: =butthisiswherethesunis.

Ob1.212 CHE: don’tbreakoursPeter? (1.2)3 PET: butweneedlotsof(these). (1.6)4 CHE: but butdon’ttakeo:urs. (0.5)5 PET: nowewon’t.

Ob1.252 KOY: it’smi::ne. (0.9)3 KOY: iwasus[ingit-],4 SAM: [BUTi]thoughtyouweren’tusingi:t,=

church Book.indb 89 13/01/2009 12:11:41


Ob1.352 PET: HE::Y.3 ADM: >yeahbut<youleftithere? (1.3)4 PET: buti:-(0.6)leaveittherewhereiputit.

Ob2.25 CAZ: no:westillhaven’tfinished.6 JAK: well[wehave-],7 MIR: [butthat]wasourfairy[spaceship].

Ob2.154 PAU: he:ydon’tyou’llbreakitliketha:t. (1.2)5 MIR: but ican’thea:r.

similar to earlier examples of the item ‘well’, the marker ‘but’ occasionally prefaces requests which are not necessarily challenges to the prior speaker. in the example below, the marker ‘but’ performs slightly differently to the illocution carried by ‘well’. a repeated request prefaced with ‘well’ suggests a discounting or disregard of the prior speaker’s objection (e.g. Ob2.17 above). The prefatory ‘but’, on the other hand, suggests acknowledgement of the prior speaker’s opposition in the repeated request.

Ob1.154 ADM: [igot]anotheroneofthespecialcar? (0.3)5 PET: but [butcanihave]thisone?

the data were further analysed to determine the distribution of ‘well’ and ‘but’ in the disputes, to see if children would repeat the marker used previously in the episode by another speaker, or indeed produce the same marker themselves.

Ob1.66 SAM: drop(0.2)(John’sgotthose)(0.7)yougotthose onesJohn’sgottheseones. (0.9)7 TES: but (0.3)igotthreecozineed(1.3)thatmany. (1.6)8 SAM: but then (0.4)Johnwillhavethree(0.3)and youdon’tlikepinkdoyouJohn.

Whilst it was most common for the same marker to reoccur in a dispute episode, there were examples of different turn-initial items performed later in an argument.

church Book.indb 90 13/01/2009 12:11:41

Peer Disputes 91

Ob1.203 LUK: no:you’redrawingonthemoo::n.=4 PET: =but thisiswherethesunis. (1.9)...10 ADM: iwannahave(.)iwannahave(the)petroltruck.11 PET: yes.12 LUK: ((toPET))↑wha-(.)wellnotifyoudonot(.) notifyou’regonnagoon(.)onmine.((ie.draw onLUK’spartofthepaper)) (0.3)13 PET: iwo:n’t.

Ob2.718 ELI: butidon’tlikethatgirl....20 ELI: wellthat’stheboyandihateboys.

A final, striking use of the marker ‘but’ was frequently produced by one of the boys in the first observation environment. Adam usually produced the marker ‘but’ prefaced with ‘yeah’, with ‘no’ produced on one occasion. in the recorded interaction, this particular turn opening was produced idiosyncratically by this child (with the exception of Peter in Ob1.15, line 12 who is responding to Adam). although essentially limited to adam in the present study, this “yes, but” preface has been recorded in preschool dispute data elsewhere (e.g. Sheldon, 1996: 65).

Ob1.128 ADM: yeahbuttheteachersays(0.4)“share”.

Ob1.133 ADM: yeahbutLukesaidicanºcomeinº.

Ob1.1510 ADM: [yeahbut]butah(0.2)cozidon’thavea-but idon’thaveatrai:ler....12 PET: [nobuti:]buti:want(.)oneofthose. (1.2)13 ADM: yeahbuti(.)butidon’thaveanymore.

Ob1.163 ADM: yeahbut(0.6)weneedthose(.).hhhcoz(0.2) .hhthisis-(0.2)howboutwemakecrecheSam¿...

church Book.indb 91 13/01/2009 12:11:41


5 ADM: yeahbutwehaveto....12 ADM: =yeahbut(0.2)butthat’stheriveryouremember that(.).hhhthat’stheriver.

Ob1.1713 ADM: yeahBUTYOUHAVETO. (0.8)14 PET: no. (0.3)15 ADM: .hhNOBUTYOUHAVETOSHARE.

Ob1.2610 ADM: [yeahbuti]butijusthavetoshowyoubecause-,

Ob1.353 ADM: >yeahbut<youleftithere?

the context and content of each of the turns above indicate that ‘yeah but’ essentially has the same function as the marker ‘well’ in each dispute. that is, the turn-initial phrase indicates that the content of the prior content was heard but is about to be contradicted (cf. the acknowledgement implied by the marker ‘but’ on its own).

Opposition delayed and justified

In summary, delays (pauses and/or markers) at the beginning of responses serve to push oppositional content further into the turn. earlier in this chapter, it was demonstrated that in preferred turn shapes, the opposition is usually made overtly at the beginning of the turn. in contrast, dispreferred turn shapes illustrate the deferral of opposition in the utterance through the inclusion of prefatory delays.

Ob1.2 (0.9)5 JON: but(0.3)but(0.3)but(0.2)butthisone(0.3) it’snotrea-thespace-(.)this(0.2)we’re justnotreadyyet.

Ob1.20 (1.3)8 LUK: theni’m-(0.5)wellthen(.)iwon’tletyou haveaturnon(0.2)thepetroltruck.

church Book.indb 92 13/01/2009 12:11:41

Peer Disputes 93

Ob1.35 (1.3)4 PET: buti:-(0.6)leaveittherewhereiputit.

Ob2.17 (0.8)13 GAR: if you- (0.3) if you don’t give those (0.4) thosethingstome(.)youwon’tcometomypar:ty.

‘Atypical’ dispreferred turn shapes?

it has been established that in the children’s disputes, dispreferred turn shapes are characterised by delay (pauses and markers) and action pushed to latter part of turn. the data were analysed further to determine if these turn shapes were produced consistently (i.e. uniformly displaying these features). This process demonstrated that accounts (discussed in detail below) are occasionally produced immediately as a form of opposition.

Ob1.193 LUK: isawyou:putoneaway¿=4 SAM: =thatdoesn’tmattercauseitwasn’tablockit wasacylinder. %com: LUKmakesnofurthercomment.

Ob1.3414 ADM: [tha]t’salongtu:rn. (0.2)15 PET: i’vegotfourmoreminutes(left).

Ob2.13 CAZ: no:(0.3)(I’vegotthese).4 MIR: thengiveonetomeCarolinebecauseyou’vegot lotsthere.

Ob2.312 GAR: iamnot!13 TOM: youyouyouaresoyou’vegotasmileonyourface.

in contrast to preferred turn shapes, dispreferred turn shapes are more constant in the adversative discourse. Whilst in some cases the opposition may not be pushed deeper into the turn (may even begin with an opposition marker such as ‘no’), the turn shape, with hesitation, restarts, and, most significantly, accounts provided, is identifiable as dispreferred rather than preferred (exemplified in episodes Ob1.15,

church Book.indb 93 13/01/2009 12:11:41


2.18, 1.33, Ob2.5, and Ob2.7 below). that is, dispreferred utterances seek to resolve rather than continue the dispute.

Ob1.155 PET: but[butcanihave]thisone?6 ADM: [thatthat-], (0.2)7 ADM: nocozthatone’slittletinyand(.)it’sgot .hhh little pieces (0.3) .hhh and you might chokeonthem(0.4).hhh[and]it’s(0.2)and there’sasharpthinguptheback.

Ob2.185 SIM: =andthenthisafternoonyoucanmakeitagai:n.6 GAR: no(0.2)youwillbe-(0.3)youwill(0.4)be(.) behere(0.2)butiwon’t.

Ob1.333 PET: ye:sit’s[xx],4 CHE: [no](0.2)coz(0.2)firstweneedtodoitagain (0.3)atthestart.

Ob2.53 ELI: noididn’t?= LOU: =cozyouwere-(0.4)youwereputting(0.3)your (.)h:andsonit.

Ob2.74 ELI: well(0.5)that’s-iknowthat’saboy. (0.2)5 CAZ: cozshe’swearing↑pants(0.3)she’sagirl? %act: pointingtotheobserver

threats in children’s arguments are also performed in ‘atypical’ dispreferred turn shape, distinguishable primarily by absence of turn-initial pauses or delay markers. this type of utterance has a unique function in the discourse as each threat imposes conditionality on hearer’s reaction. importantly, threats share no characteristics of preferred turn shapes discussed earlier in this chapter; they are neither brief nor produced contiguously to the prior turn. although not performed in standard dispreferred turn shape, the promise of unwanted outcomes in threats could be considered in the position of accounts.

church Book.indb 94 13/01/2009 12:11:41

Peer Disputes 95

Accounts in dispreferred turn shapes

the examples above illustrate that pauses and markers are not only precursors to delayed opposition, they may be readily and noticeably heard as dispreferred features. Perhaps the most striking feature of dispreferred turn shapes, however, is the accompanying account for opposition. a universal feature of utterances beginning with a delaying marker, is the justification which is provided in the turn. typically, accounts serve to support the position, authority or rights of the speaker; they provide reasons for the opposition.

In adult discourse, particularly in non-conflict situations, accounts serve to explain the absence of a preferred response. in the children’s arguments, however, the dispreferred turn shape constitutes a mitigating move in the conflict episode. essentially, accounts are recognisable as mitigation given that ‘each represents an attempt by the speaker to make the request to the hearer [or, in this case, opposition] more palatable’ (Fraser, 1980: 346). The inclusion of an account or justification proves of particular significance in the children’s disputes. Before considering their influence, however, the types of accounts must be identified. The purpose of this section, then, is to describe the variety of accounts produced as justifications for opposition.

not surprisingly, the categories of accounts generated in the analysis share features with the taxonomy of types of arguments discussed at the beginning of this chapter. Parallels can be seen with possession (objects) as a dispute topic and ownership rights as a form of justification. Accounts which invoke expectations of appropriate behaviour mirror argument topics provoked by supposed infractions of local rules. similarly, the theme of disputes regarding truth values is replicated in the category of accounts where justifications are based on factual information. elsewhere, accounts are produced as epistemological or factual claims, or based on the personal wishes of the speaker. it should be noted that the categories proposed below are designed to facilitate description of accounts heard in the data rather than provide rigid classification boundaries.

Volition, necessity and personal preference

this category incorporates accounts which overtly state the personal wants and needs of the speaker. The justification for opposition may be realised through stating volition (“I want”), necessity (“I need”) or personal likes and dislikes. Each of these types of accounts may represent the position of the individual (“I”), or the speaker may claim to speak for the desires or wishes of his or her playmates (“we”). These types of accounts are inherently subjective, as the speaker’s own wishes serve as the basis for opposition.

accounts which are based on personal volition promote the wants of the speaker as a justification for opposition.

church Book.indb 95 13/01/2009 12:11:41


Ob1.108 SAM: [welli:] wanttohaveaturn?

Ob2.43 JAK: NO:I WANNADoit.

Ob1.1512 PET: [nobuti:]buti: want(.)oneofthose.

Ob1.234 LUK: i wanttocrackit.

this type of account may also be expressed as a negative by identifying the prior actions of the hearer as antipathetic to the wishes of the speaker.

Ob2.1710 GAR: [i don’t want]thosejets(going)off.

the speaker may claim to represent the wishes of those children aligned with her/his position in the dispute. in the following examples the intent is realised through verb negation, as in the utterance above, and employing a plural subject pronoun.

Ob1.1710 KOY: [>we don’t wanttoshare]with[you<.]

Ob1.2612 TES: we don’t wanttohearthedoggiedoggie.

On one occasion in the data, the speaker claims to represent the wishes of another child, and uses this attributed desire as an account for her own opposition (attempting to gain possession of the other fishing rod).

Ob1.107 TES: well Milly (0.5) Milly wants to have a turn (0.2)((thentoMIL))do[n’tyou].

the second type of account included in this category is based on claims of necessity. as with accounts of volition, the need may be stated as belonging to the individual or to the party with shared interests in the disputes.

Ob1.67 TES: but(0.3)igotthreecozi need(1.3)thatmany.

church Book.indb 96 13/01/2009 12:11:41

Peer Disputes 97

Ob2.258 PAU: you’rech↑eati:ngi needo:ne.((whining))

reference to necessity was, however, more frequently attributed to more than one child (i.e. the speaker and aligned participants).

Ob1.163 ADM: yeahbut(0.6)we needthose(.).hhhcoz(0.2) .hhthisis-(0.2)howboutwemakecrecheSam¿

Ob1.242 RON: [notha-](0.3)weneedtha:t¿

Ob1.334 CHE: [no](0.2)coz(0.2)firstweneedtodoitagain (0.3)atthestart.

Ob1.213 PET: butweneedlotsof(these).

The necessity claim may also be negated (as observed in the category of personal volition) to form an account.

Ob1.315 ADM: nowe don’t needtoputcorksin.=

Ob2.115 FRE: we don’t needthemºdoweº?

Ob2.229 PAU: wellit doesn’t needthem.

In Ob2.22, the speaker attributes the need to the object (a tower – the topic of the dispute), which does not require nigel’s additions, according to Paul. On one other occasion (Ob1.12) the need is attributed to a second party, in this case to the hearer himself. there is evidence, then, that an appeal to necessity is used in attempts to persuade the other participant(s) to construct the play in a way which conforms to the wishes of the speaker.

Ob1.122 ADM: noyou needtomakea↑hu:gehouse.

church Book.indb 97 13/01/2009 12:11:41


the third type of account in which the personal wishes of the speaker are overtly stated refers to personal preference. to avoid confusion with the theoretical concept of preference employed in the analysis, this reference to personal choice is identified as likes/dislikes. Only one utterance was heard in the data where the speaker stated a partiality as a justification for her objectionable actions. In this instance, the personal ‘like’ is stated as an account for ‘needing’ the red fish.

Ob1.62 TES: [no:i needr]e:d(0.3)cozi likethatcolour aswell.

it was more common for children to claim an antipathy as an account for their opposition. indeed in response to the previous example, to secure possession of three boxes, sam points to the dissatisfaction of his play partner.

Ob1.68 SAM: butthen(0.4)Johnwillhavethree(0.3)and you don’t like pinkdoyouJohn.

Elsewhere this negative construction was performed in the first person to express displeasure.

Ob1.1125 NAN: D[O::N’T(.)((whimpers))i don’t] likeit.

Ob1.3123 SAM: [i (.) don’t](.) like that¿=

it should be noted that this represents a typical response when a child is encouraged to “use your words” by a teacher. children are instructed to express their disapproval of another child’s behaviour if it bothers them (“I don’t like it when you …”). the offending child is instructed to ‘listen’ to their playmate, thereby recognising their own behaviour as an infraction of sorts. they may be so instructed, but whether this is effective in being acknowledged by the offending party remains to be seen.

additionally, an expression of dislike produced as an account for opposition may be upgraded.

Ob2.718 ELI: buti don’t likethatgirl....20 ELI: wellthat’stheboyandi hateboys.

church Book.indb 98 13/01/2009 12:11:42

Peer Disputes 99

Ob2.113 FRE: i hatethishelmet.=

One feature of expressing likes/dislikes as a type of account is that no example was found using the first person plural subject. In other words, the children were not heard to say “we like” or “we don’t like”. in this way, ‘liking’ performs differently from the other inculcations of personal motivation (i.e. volition, necessity), where the speaker may make claims on behalf of other children (e.g. “we need”). Although in one of the examples above (Ob1.6) a child claims to speak on behalf of his friend, there was no evidence that personal likes/dislikes are claimed by more than one speaker. the strength or effectiveness of claims when speaking as an individual or on behalf of other members will be considered in chapter 6.

Ownership rights

to support an oppositional utterance, children may claim prior ownership of an object under dispute, or invoke prior rights to the play space. as with the personal accounts discussed above, ownership rights are attributed to the speaker, or the speaker and his/her playmates. these accounts, whilst justifying the objection, are sometimes produced in relatively short utterances. the length of turn is not equated to preferred turn shape, however, as the turn accomplishes more than simple opposition, through provision of an account.

Ob2.202 ROB: heythat’s mineGary:.

Ob2.711 CAZ: nothat’s mine(igotmi:ne)mine!

an assertion of prior claim might be made by stating the ownership through a verb phrase instead of a personal possessive pronoun.

Ob2.84 PAU: [noi-](.)noi had i:t.

Ob2.164 FRE: i’ve gotthiso:ne.

rights to an object may also be stated by identifying how the object came to be in the speaker’s possession.

Ob2.83 WIN: i[foundit].

church Book.indb 99 13/01/2009 12:11:42


In the example above, the speaker asserts her own actions as sufficient to claim ownership. external conferment of object rights is also produced as authoritative.

Ob2.813 PAU: umCarolinegaveittome.

in the next utterance, louise begins with an objection based on personal volition (“I want”) but restarts with a prior claim to the object.

Ob2.132 LOU: iwanttou:se(.)i was usingthatcar.

Prior claim to ownership may be extended to assume rights to future exclusive use of the object or space.

Ob2.1018 FRE: buti(.)i will use it ↑later.

Ownership rights can also be invoked according to equitable opportunity for parties involved in the play.

Ob1.66 SAM: drop (0.2) (John’s got those) (0.7) you got thoseonesJohn’sgottheseones.

as mentioned above, ownership rights are not inherently restricted to individual children; speakers frequently account for their opposition by stating that the object of the dispute belongs to their particular play group (plural possessive pronoun).

Ob1.214 CHE: butbutdon’ttakeo:urs.

Ob2.27 MIR: [butthat]wasourfairy[spaceship].

typically, his type of multiple ownership is claimed when referring to access rights to a particular play space. unsurprisingly, multiple ownership is invoked when the play space was shared by children who subsequently, collectively (even if only one child is vocal in opposition) challenge attempts by outsiders to access the space. Primary rights to the play space are usually based on having occupied the area prior to the entry (intrusion!) of other children.

Ob1.115 FEL: well↑we(0.3)gotherefi:rst?

church Book.indb 100 13/01/2009 12:11:42

Peer Disputes 101

Ob2.98 LOU: ((toWIN))Paul’sspoiling-(0.3)((toPAU))we werehere fi:rst.

Ob2.22 MIR: Jack<wewereplayingintha:[:t>].((whines))...10 CAZ: we’replayingwewereplayingintherefi:rst¿

This prior claim (Ob2.2) to the play space is further accounted for in Caroline’s subsequent turn (11), as she provides an explanation for their absence (an absence which, in her opinion, does not forgo access rights to the play space).

Ob2.211 CAZ: andthenwe’rejustnexttothere(0.3)andwe got some fir:st [and we] just went to get married.

accounting for opposition by stating ownership rights is also realised in the children’s disputes by the speaker identifying him/herself as architect. in other words, rights to an object may be assumed if the speaker was involved in the construction of the object in dispute.

Ob1.19 LIA: ((tothegirls,teasingvoice))youcan’tgoon (0.4)we:ma:dei:t.

Ob1.169 SAM: butit’smybui:ldi:ng(.)i:didthisbridge.

Ob2.174 GAR: =NONO:(0.3)(noibuiltit)don’t!

Ob2.224 PAU: thatwasmyoneimade.

accounts are not limited to invoking personal or group rights to objects or play space. Challenges may also be justified by negating the opposing party’s ownership rights.

Ob1.1718 ADM: THEYARENOTYOU:RBLOCKS.

church Book.indb 101 13/01/2009 12:11:42


Ob1.3124 ADM: =NOTHAT’SYYY’s.((YYYistheteacher))

Ob1.353 ADM: >yeahbut<youleftithere?

Properties of objects, play space and play script

Opposition is made by children in both observation environments by producing accounts which refer to properties of objects, space and the state of play. each of these sub-categories will be defined in turn through examples heard in the data. The first type of property account or justification is one based on identifying features of the object, which challenges the authority of the other speaker, or at least the validity of their perception of the object under dispute.

Ob1.23 ADM: [nonono](.)no[no]this one hasn’t got any le:gs.

Ob1.36 ADM: nothat’sa-that’sgotehhmno only jets and rockets.

Ob2.75 CAZ: coz she’s wearing ↑pants(0.3)she’sagirl?

in the following example, adam provides an elaborate account for his refusal of Peter’s request. the refusal is based on the unsuitability of the car for Peter’s use (as he may choke on the little pieces).

Ob1.157 ADM: nocozthatone’slittletinyand(.)it’sgot .hhh little pieces (0.3) .hhh and you might chokeonthem(0.4).hhh[and]it’s(0.2)and there’sasharpthinguptheback.

Clarifying or re-defining the properties of the object also serves as an account for opposition.

Ob1.194 SAM: =thatdoesn’tmattercauseitwasn’tablockit wasacylinder.

church Book.indb 102 13/01/2009 12:11:42

Peer Disputes 103

Properties may also be incorporated into accounts where they refer to the play space or the play script. in other words, children may justify their opposition by stating criteria or constraints imposed by the local play context. the content and force of these types of accounts is varied. in the following two examples, properties of the play space (restricted play space in Ob1.3 and identity of play space in Ob1.28) are used as reasons for exclusion.

Ob1.38 ADM: no:cause(0.3)rocketsarenotallowedtocome in(.)only(0.4)arocketandajet(0.4)cause there’s no space in there.

Ob1.2812 JON: noitdoesn’t(.)it’s a different sort of house.

the following utterance depicts a property of the play script itself which serves as an account for the speaker’s challenge.

Ob1.332 CHE: [↑no](0.3)there’snobabyinthisone.

the third type of property account groups together utterances which incorporate justifications based on the state of play. These include accounts which state the time constraints of the play.

Ob1.3415 PET: i’vegotfourmoreminutes(left).

Ob1.25 JON: but(0.3)but(0.3)but(0.2)butthisone(0.3) it’snotrea-thespace-(.)this(0.2)we’re just not ready yet.

In John’s account (Ob1.2, line 5), he hesitates to organise his own supporting evidence, and eventually settles with ‘we’re just not ready yet’. the point to be emphasised here is that John makes a revision of the spaceship not being ready, and attributes that unreadiness to both himself and adam.

In the following accounts which refer to the state of play (emphasis on temporal limitations), the speaker alludes to a reasonable point of conclusion of play (reasonable according to the promotion of his or her own interests!). This type of account recurs in the data.

church Book.indb 103 13/01/2009 12:11:42


Ob1.324 KOY: the show is finished(0.4)Samthe(.).hhhshow isfinished↑Samyoucan’t-(0.2)[nowyou],

Ob1.349 PET: buti:’mnotfin(.)ishedye::t.=

Ob2.25 CAZ: no:westillhaven’tfinished.

the play state is also monitored by identifying roles and actions assumed by participants in the course of play as accounts for behaviour. Most of these accounts serve as a justification (clarification) of the activity itself.

Ob1.66 TES: but(0.3)iamdoingfishing.

Ob1.262 CHE: nowearenotsingingthatsong,=

Ob2.55 ELI: no.hhcoziwashelpingwithHilary.

Ob2.122 LOU: welli’mtryingtogoround....5 LOU: welli’mtryingtogetthroughandyouputso manythingshere.

in the next example, sam accounts for his objection by clarifying the mode of the play situation (‘we’re just pretending’).

Ob1.99 SAM: leave-(1.5)iknow↑that(0.4)but we’re just pretending(.)andleave(0.3)theboats(0.4) out (0.4) you can put the fishes in (0.2) but (0.3)uh(0.4)nottheboats.

Behavioural obligations

The accounts identified in this category contain references to behavioural constraints or obligations to support opposition. each challenge is essentially based on criticising the appropriateness of the other’s actions. these accounts may be seen as underscoring a breaking of rules, rules which relate to expectation of behaviour.

church Book.indb 104 13/01/2009 12:11:42

Peer Disputes 105

Ob2.207 ROB: [[youcan’ttakeitFROMSOMEONEELSE]]!

Ob2.154 PAU: he:ydon’tyou’llbreakitliketha:t.

Ob2.54 LOU: =cozyouwere-(0.4)youwereputting(0.3)your (.)h:andsonit.

Ob1.79 SAM: but(0.5)shediditfi:rst.

The previous example (Ob1.7) refers to an infringement made by the other speaker. That is, if Sam’s behaviour is deemed unacceptable, so too must the actions (taking boxes) of tess.

Other types of accounts which appear in this category denote broader social expectations or behavioural constraints. in Ob1.5 a challenge is made to tess’ maturity, as her behaviour is criticised as ill-mannered (“rude”) and inappropriate for her age. in Ob1.23 the opposition is accounted for by identifying the consequences of Luke’s actions (hitting his own head with a block).

Ob1.54 SAM: ((serioustone))Tess:(0.3)[it’srude]....7 SAM: babiessaythatsortofthing?

Ob1.235 SAM: if you crack heads you’ll ↓die: (0.3) do you wantto↑die::(0.3)andthenyourmummywillcry:?

children may also employ local rules to support their position or challenge to the prior speaker. in the following example, Koyo accounts for his objection by referring to rules established by the teacher (i.e. pack-up time).

Ob1.223 KOY: BECAUSEYOU’RENOTPACKINGUP.

similarly, the rules imposed by the teacher which comprise the routine of the preschool environment feature in the following example.

church Book.indb 105 13/01/2009 12:11:42


Ob2.212 NIG: noyou’renotallowedto¿ (1.0)3 SIM: wha:t? (0.3)4 NIG: you’renotallowedtogooutside,

Ob1.192 SAM: leave them there (0.3) ↑Adam’s (.) Adam’s in charge of putting them away(0.3)Luke?

the most common type of account which challenges forms of acceptable behaviour, invokes the rule of sharing. common expectation both within and outside the preschool dictates that children are obliged to share resources, typically toys, with other children. this type of account was prevalent in dispreferred turn shapes produced by children in the first observation environment.

Ob1.177 ADM: =yeahbutYOUHAVETOSHARE.

Ob1.82 TES: ↑no:wearesharingJohn?...4 TES: butwe(0.3)but(0.5)butwearejustsharing.

Note the use of the mitigating ‘just’ in Tess’ second (successful) attempt. This item is used in Ob1.2 with similar effect.

In the example below (Ob1.11), in response to the previous turn which claimed prior ownership, nancy negates the claim by invoking the common rule of sharing

Ob1.115 FEL: well↑we(0.3)gotherefi:rst? (0.3)6 NAN: wehavetoshare(0.6)haveto[share].

As found with justifications based on ownership, occasionally an account constitutes the entire turn.

Ob1.126 ADM: youHAFtaSHARE.

the sharing rule is upgraded – discussed further in chapter 6 – where the obligation is underscored by reference to teacher instructions.

church Book.indb 106 13/01/2009 12:11:42

Peer Disputes 107

Ob1.128 ADM: yeahbuttheteachersays(0.4)“share”.

a sharing rule may even be invoked where the rule is not overtly stated but implied by drawing attention to another child’s excessive property.

Ob2.14 MIR: thengiveonetomeCarolinebecauseyou’vegot lotsthere.

Ob2.719 ELI: youcan’thavetwogirls.((petulanttone))

Epistemological accounts

this description of accounts produced by children in the disputes may appear to serve as an ‘other’ category, an amalgamation of justifications which do not share features of the accounts identified in the previous four categories. Closer attention, however, delineates each of the utterances below as referring to claims to understanding, or facts or truths which may be verified. Challenges to the previous speaker, then, may be accounted for by supplying factual information.

Ob2.1410 TOM: it’snotthat’steno’clock.

Ob1.204 PET: =butthisiswherethesunis.

While the previous two examples refer to stable facts to justify their opposition, the following utterances report others’ behaviour as factual evidence.

Ob2.239 NIG: yeahi↑did(0.2)>youdidn’t<seeus¿

Ob2.313 TOM: youyouyouaresoyou’vegotasmileonyourface.

the speaker’s own knowledge of events is also invoked as an account for opposition.

Ob2.185 SIM: =andthenthisafternoonyoucanmakeitagai:n.6 GAR: no(0.2)youwillbe-(0.3)you will (0.4) be (.) be here(0.2)butiwon’t.

church Book.indb 107 13/01/2009 12:11:42


Occasionally, accounts refer to external authority for the opposition, challenging the claim of the prior speaker.

Ob1.416 HIL: ihearditontheradio.

The authority need not be an extraneous (non-present) third party as in the previous utterance, but can be localised to the preschool where the agent is another child or the teacher.

Ob1.133 ADM: yeahbutLukesaidicanºcomeinº.

Ob2.44 JAK: thetheteachersaid↑iwilldoit.

In the following turns, the speaker invokes knowledge as a form of justification for their opposition. These types of epistemological expressions (“I know but”) have been reported elsewhere as mitigating devices in conflict situations (Walton, 2000).

Ob2.45 LOU: no:w(.)iknowwhichday(0.2)andicandoit¿=

Ob2.74 ELI: well(0.5)that’s-iknowthat’saboy.

A variety of accounts with disparate referents, then, have been identified in the data. a constant feature of dispreferred turn shapes, accounts have been grouped here as stating personal wishes, claiming ownership rights, referring to object properties, invoking behavioural obligations or making epistemological or factual claims. Whilst dispreferred turns are not always prefaced with delay markers or pauses, a justification is always provided and distinguishes a dispreferred from a preferred turn shape. As accounts are the most salient (and probably most persuasive) feature of dispreferred turns, they will be considered further, in the extended sequential context of the disputes, throughout chapter 6.

Prevalence of preference features

the summary of analysis in this chapter has demonstrated the prominence of preference features in the children’s disputes. Preference features described in existing conversation analytic research (e.g. Pomerantz, 1984) have been identified throughout the data confirming the validity of investigating preference

church Book.indb 108 13/01/2009 12:11:43

Peer Disputes 109

organisation in verbal conflict. Typically, opposition is made in the children’s disputes in one of two ways: (1) overtly in short turns or (2) in longer turns which are often delayed and always accompanied by a reason for opposition. it remains to be seen how these features are treated by the hearer. if there is an overriding discourse preference for conflict to continue, turn shapes must be considered in light of dispute outcomes (as defined in Chapter 5).

A particular finding reported in this chapter is the inconsistency of pauses as dispreference markers. turns which demonstrate preferred features are occasionally prefaced by this form of delay (not only in multi-party disputes), and, in some instances, dispreferred turns are produced contiguously to the prior utterance. the disparity of inter-turn pauses in otherwise preferred and dispreferred turn shapes suggests that this feature is not necessarily indicative of preference organisation in young children’s disputes. Whilst the significance of pauses has been demonstrated in adult speech, the present analysis indicates that this type of delay is not consistently indicative of a specific turn shape in children’s adversative discourse. if inter-turn pauses, then, are not necessarily attributed to preference organisation in children’s arguments, the significant features, those that influence the sequential or serial development of disputes, need to be identified. The primary analysis presented in this chapter suggests that it is accounts or justifications accompanying opposition which will prove to be of fundamental import.

church Book.indb 109 13/01/2009 12:11:43

chapter 5

dispute Outcomes

Introduction

The previous chapter identified features of preference repeatedly produced throughout the children’s disputes. in particular, the provision of accounts in particular types of opposition turns was noted. We shall come to see (Chapter 6) that these accounts are implicated in the resolution of disputes, but before considering the persuasiveness of accounts in dispreferred turn shapes produced by the children, properties of what constitutes a ‘win’ in child peer conflict needs to be established. Persuasiveness is inextricably tied to the outcome of the dispute, the manner in which the argument is brought to a close. if a child is successful in resolving a dispute, more often than not they have been successful in persuading (or defeating) the opposing party. But it remains to be seen how this ‘success’ realised in the data, and how resolution may be co-constructed.

it stands to reason that once an argument has begun there are only two possible outcomes: continuation or dissipation. Once children have engaged in verbal conflict the only alternatives are to sustain the dispute or to arrive at some sort of ending. it is the closing of disputes, then, that is of particular interest because the continuation of conflict is defined purely by the absence of a conclusion. throughout this chapter the analysis of the closings of the disputes is documented, namely by distinguishing three possible closings: resolution; abandonment; and teacher intervention. threats as a particular type of dispute closing are discussed in the final section of this chapter.

In Chapter 2, it was noted that Vuchinich (1990) identified conflict closings as being achieved through mutual orientation, where both participants essentially agree to move to a new topic. this agreement may be one of mutual satisfaction or be prompted by the subordination of one party’s wishes. this idea of mutual acceptance of conflict endings (distinct from mutual satisfaction) is worthy of further consideration, particularly to distinguish types of dispute closings. Mutual acceptance implies that some sort of resolution has been achieved, that the conflict is recognised by the involved parties as concluded (even where one party may be dissatisfied with the outcome). However, disputes may also come to an end without overt acknowledgement by either party – a cessation of disputing despite any clear conclusion. i describe acceptance of the outcome as ‘resolved’, and unacknowledged dissipation as ‘abandoned’. the differentiation between these two outcomes will become apparent in the following discussion of dispute endings.

the fundamental distinction between resolution and abandonment of disputes lies in the maintenance of established play partnerships. that is, children continue

church Book.indb 111 13/01/2009 12:11:43


to play together once a dispute is resolved but do not when a dispute is abandoned. alternatively, where the children are unable to orchestrate some sort of conclusion themselves, one may be imposed through teacher intervention. One purpose of this chapter is to define each of these three dispute outcomes. The other purpose is to identify turn shapes at the closing of disputes. When defining the outcome of disputes (as resolved, abandoned or intervened), the turn shapes of the final utterances will be considered.

Resolution

close attention to the endings of disputes reveals a set of outcomes which can be described as resolved. in resolved episodes, a clear conclusion of the argument is arrived at, one which is mutually acceptable to all participants. as almost half of the disputes recorded in both observation environments were heard as resolved, outright resolution appears more common than has been suggested by existing research (e.g. Goodwin, 1982). Difference in age of participants and categorisation of outcomes, however, may influence the proportion of recognisably resolved disputes in other studies.

Essentially, three types of resolution have been identified in the children’s arguments. The first is characterised by the overt success of one party, imposed upon the other party (compatible with Vuchinich’s (1990) category of submission). the second type of resolution is brought about where an alternative proposal is accepted or a conditional agreement is made (identified by Vuchinich (1990) as compromise). the third type of resolution is marked by an absence of response, realised through silence, and making no further opposition but continuing with co-operative play. the only resolved outcome in the data which does not belong to one of these three types was heard where a technical solution to the problem existed – see Ob2.15 below.

Ob2.155 MIR: butican’thea:r.6 PAU: 0 ((%act: turns the control button for MIR’s headset))(1.6)7 PAU: nowyoucanhear¿

Win/loss outcome

A form of resolution identified as a distinct win/loss outcome arises when one child is successful in imposing his or her wishes on another party.

church Book.indb 112 13/01/2009 12:11:43

Dispute Outcomes 113

Ob1.711 JON: it’snotnastytohit(1.4)↓Tessnowyou(0.2) can’t(0.4)come(0.2)to↑any(0.4)birthdays. (1.1)12 JON: nottillyou(0.2)saysorrySam. (0.4)13 TES: ((silly voice))sorrySamdee↑dee:huh.14 SAM: ↑no:(.)properly. (0.3)15 TES: s[orry] Sam.16 JON: [prop-], %com: playresumes

Ob1.2012 LUK: ((to PET))↑wha-(.)wellnotifyoudonot(.) notifyou’regonnagoon(.)onmine.((ie.draw onLUK’spartofthepaper)) (0.3)13 PET: i wo:n’t. (1.1)14 LUK: thereyoucangothere.((on the paper))

Ob2.1715 GAR: youcan-(0.4)leaveitforme(0.3)leaveityou can’tcometomypar:ty. %act: SIM places object on groundandreturnstobasket tolookforotherplasticconnectorpieces.

Ob1.239 SAM: thendon’t(0.3)thendon’tdieyourself. %act: LUK stops hitting his headwiththeblock.

Where the outcome of a dispute renders one party victorious, their success is arrived at through imposing their wishes on the other, understood either in the nonverbal acquiescence of the other party, or through vocal acceptance. Peculiar to these episodes is the content of the utterances that precede the submission of the opposing party. all four episodes above which close with this type of resolution (Ob1.7, Ob1.20, Ob1.17, Ob2.23), incorporate a conditional, implied or overt threat. in Ob1.7 John denies tess access to any birthday parties until she apologises, “properly”, for hitting sam. she complies. in Ob1.20 luke refuses Peter access to his petrol truck (a toy he has brought from home) unless he desists drawing on luke’s side of the paper. Peter complies. the third example of a threat used to resolve a dispute (Ob2.17) is less conditional, and on this occasion is only successful as a repeat.

church Book.indb 113 13/01/2009 12:11:43


Ob2.1713 GAR: if you- (0.3) if you don’t give those (0.4) thosethingstome(.)youwon’tcometomypar:ty. (0.2)14 SIM: (now)doyouwannacometomyparty? (0.3)15 GAR: youcan-(0.4)leaveitforme(0.3)leaveityou can’tcometomypar:ty. %act: SIMplacesobjectongroundandreturnstobasket tolookforpieces.

In the fourth dispute resolved by implied threat (Ob1.23), Luke stops hitting himself on the head once sam states that his mother will cry if he hurts himself. Although the implied threat would be accomplished indirectly (consequence of Luke’s actions to affect a third, non-present, party) it fits the criteria of undesirable consequence. In this and the previous example (Ob2.17), the boys comply with the other party’s wishes by acquiescing nonverbally (halting the behaviour which was objected to by the opposer).

resolution is also achieved in a more face-saving manner when a child agrees with the proposal made by the prior speaker. this agreement promotes the speaker to the role of collaborator, although it should be noted that it is the preceding turn which creates the opportunity for collaboration. typically, this type of acknowledgment of the opposing position is performed with an agreement token (e.g. ‘yeah’).

Ob1.83 JON: no(0.3)noyougotmy↑blueone. (0.4)4 TES: butwe(0.3)but(0.5)butwearejustsharing. (0.8)5 TES: thatonegoesinthere[John].6 JON: [ººyeah] oh yeahcozºº-,

although an overt acceptance of tess’ position is made by John in line 6, preliminary acquiescence is made to tess’ claim in line 4, through an absence of further opposition. given that tess goes on to make a directive in line 5, however, the dispute is effectively resolved through John’s acceptance (line 6) of Tess’ prior utterances and his decision not to restate opposition to the immediately prior turn.

in the closing utterance of Ob1.21 the agreement token is performed as ‘no’ given the prohibition in the prior turn.

church Book.indb 114 13/01/2009 12:11:43



in the two episodes above, each dispute is clearly resolved through the verbal acceptance made by the opposing party. in both episodes the objection which is subsequently accepted is prefaced with the dispreference marker ‘but’. these prefaced objections are based on an account of the equal or prior claim of the speaker (see discussion of accounts relating to ownership rights, and expectation of behaviour, in chapter 4). notably, the acceptance which brings about resolution in the previous two examples is preceded by a turn that demonstrates dispreferred features.

Modified acceptance/compromise

The second type of resolved dispute closing incorporates a modified acceptance of the opposing position or introduces an alternative proposal. The first of these (modified acceptance) is similar to the outcome of the previous two examples, in that one party’s position supersedes another. in this instance, however, the acquiescing party incorporates some condition of their own. that is, disputes are resolved where the acceptance of the other’s position is implied rather than overtly stated. in these cases the child is essentially accepting the position of the other party but imposing some of her/his own conditions. the distinction here is pertinent to considerations of face in argumentative interaction; one child essentially submits to another’s wishes but maintains status through her or his own contribution to the outcome of the dispute.

An example of this modified acceptance leading to resolution is found in Ob2.1, where caroline accepts Miranda’s prior proposal to cooperate.

Ob2.111 MIR: let’sjustbeniceandunderstandokay? (1.9)12 CAZ: butwehavetojusttypeintothecomputer. %com: MIR takes up this suggestion and both girls return to playing with the keyboards in the spaceship.

the dispute is essentially resolved by Miranda’s non-verbal acceptance of Caroline’s modified acquiescence (line 12); that is, Miranda’s assent is carried

church Book.indb 115 13/01/2009 12:11:43


by typing on the computer keyboard. characteristic of the utterances preceding acquiescence in this type of resolved dispute (see also Ob1.16 and Ob1.34, see below) is a dispreferred turn shape.

Ob1.1611 SAM: andthese(0.3)ºthesegooverlikeºthat=12 ADM: =yeahbut(0.2)butthat’stheriveryouremember that(.).hhhthat’stheriver. (0.3)13 SAM: that’stherivergoing(0.9)goingu:nderit. (0.4)14 ADM: yes. (2.7) %com: cooperativeplaycontinues.

Ob1.3415 PET: i’vegotfourmoreminutes(left). (0.4)16 ADM: ((to FEL))noithinkhe’sgotfourmoreminutes¿

a dispute may also be resolved by the acceptance of a compromise. earlier studies have pointed to the effectiveness of compromise as a verbal strategy in disputes (e.g. Eisenberg and Garvey, 1981), a finding replicated in the present data. In each instance where a compromise or alternative solution was produced, this type of digression from conflict is accepted by the other party.

Ob1.241 LUK: weca-(.)theyhavetojoin(under[there]).2 RON: [notha-](0.3)weneedtha:t¿ (0.6)3 RON: weneedthat. (0.4)4 LUK: howaboutwecanputitinthe↑mi:ddle↓:=5 RON: =yeah:.

Ob2.259 PAU: 0((%act:pullsblocksapart))(2.3)10 JIM: o::y:. (0.2)11 PAU: looksee:? (0.4)12 PAU: noyou’re↑achea:ter:. (0.3)

church Book.indb 116 13/01/2009 12:11:43


13 PAU: heythatcanbebothofou:rs. (0.3)14 JIM: yeah.

Compromise is a successful strategy (i.e. leads to resolution) in disputes because it is not strictly a form of opposition. By providing an alternative solution, the speaker drops his original opposing position. furthermore, as compromises do not directly challenge the opposing party, an acceptance of a compromise can be made with minimal affront to face. a shift is made from maintaining disagreement, to proposing a novel position which may prove acceptable to all parties.

In the following two episodes (Ob1.30 and Ob2.6) the dispute is resolved through an alternative proposal performed by a third party to the dispute. importantly the suggestion made by the third party is designed to address the dispute topic directly (i.e. not a topic shift). in Ob1.30, the suggestion made by Bill in line 30, which functions as a compromise by shifting blame from one of the participants to an imaginative other, prompts a series of suggestions, one of which (line 33) is acceptable to all the participants.

Ob1.3019 JO2: thetable(0.6)thetabledoneit. (0.7)20 FEL: didnot? (0.5)21 JO2: [didtoo:].22 LUK: [didnoti]s-,23 JO2: the table [done it and then] it stepped on itself,=24 LUK: [isa:wit.]25 LUK: =isawwhathappened. (1.1)26 LUK: umhowdid-whodidit? (0.7)27 FEL: um[Billwhodidit].28 JON: [idon’tknow]whodidit. (0.5)29 JO2: we[don’tknow].30 BIL: [ma:ybe:](0.5)maybesomebodydiditºxxxx[x.]º31 LUK: [itmight]havebeena(boythathad[xx).]32 FEL: [iknow]whodiditliondid. (1.2)33 BIL: may:beabearcame. (1.0)34 JON: yeah(0.3)welldone.

church Book.indb 117 13/01/2009 12:11:44


in Ob2.6, elinor provides an alternative suggestion which removes blame from Hilary, thereby side-stepping personal culpability for placing blocks on the floor.

Ob2.66 LOU: $whydidyoudothat$. (2.2)7 HIL: ºi’mnottellingyouwhyº. (0.9)8 ELI: maybecozshewas(0.6)(makingafloor). (1.5)9 LOU: oh>shallwemakea<floor? (0.3)10 ELI: yes(0.2)>ofcoursewe<can.

the suggestion made by a third party in Ob1.28 below, however, does not secure resolution of the dispute (although the episode is brought to a close), as the alternate proposal is not designed as a compromise, but rather functions as a topic shift. that is, Luke’s suggestion (line 29) does not propose a solution to the prior dispute; it provides a novel position which is subsequently picked up by John (abandoning the dispute by not responding to cherie’s continued opposition in line 30).

Ob1.2826 JON: welldon’tbreakmyhouse(0.8)coz(0.2)it’s (0.3)veryspecial[whatimade].27 CHE: [isnot]? (0.5)28 JON: itisso¿=29 LUK: =howbou[tican]joinmytram(0.2)railround toyourhouse.30 CHE: [itisnot].31 JON: yes(0.5)eh(0.4)(yesgood)idea. %act: JONnowbecomesinvolvedinthebuildingwithLUK.

unlike topic shifts, compromises are tied to the prior content of the dispute and are actively designed to bring the dispute to a close by introducing a novel but topic-tied proposition which satisfies both parties.

Whilst each of these compromises which prompted dissolution of the argument was prefaced by a pause and incorporated an explanation of sorts, they do not represent typical dispreferred turn shapes because the novel content does not function as an account. However, as preference in this context relates to organisation of opposition, compromises could be considered as operating beyond oppositional constraints within adversative discourse: these utterances do not function as opposition moves because they do not challenge the prior turns, nor the prior speaker, in the dispute.

church Book.indb 118 13/01/2009 12:11:44


Notably, these utterances serve to redirect the focus of the dispute (not a topic shift as a compromise is topic-tied), by proposing a position which addresses the wishes of both parties. the acceptability of this new position within the dispute brings about its conclusion.

Failure to respond

the third type of resolution is distinguished by an absence of response, achieved through silence and resumption of collaborative interaction with no further opposition. in other words, disputes may be seen to be resolved where no further challenge is made to the prior speaker. the absence of a vocal opposition implies silent acquiescence to whoever produces the final turn. A defining feature of resolution in these episodes is that the children continue to play together after the zero response.

Ob1.25 JON: but(0.3)but(0.3)but(0.2)butthisone(0.3) it’snotrea-thespace-(.)this(0.2)we’re justnotreadyyet. (3.6)

Ob1.68 SAM: butthen(0.4)Johnwillhavethree(0.3)and youdon’tlikepinkdoyouJohn. (0.9)9 JON: hmm(0.3)no. (4.4) %act: TESmakesnofurtherattemptattopic.


Ob1.2715 FEL: ididn’tmeanyouimeantLuke:. %com: threechildrencontinuetoplaytogetherwithno furtherreferencetothisexchange.

church Book.indb 119 13/01/2009 12:11:44


Ob2.49 LOU: iknowbuti’mverygentle. %act:putsarrowonFriday %act:bothchildrenreturntocollaborativeplaywith connectorpieces.

Ob2.55 ELI: no.hhcoziwashelpingwithHilary. %act:LOUandELIstartrebuilding.

Ob2.125 LOU: welli’mtryingtogetthroughandyouputso manythingshere. %com:WINmakesnofurthercomment.

Ob2.135 WIN: thatcarthatyou’vegotalready¿ %com: Loumakesnoresponse

Ob2.1410 TOM: it’snotthat’steno’clock. %act: ALI then draws DON’s attention back to the spaceshipplay.

Ob1.337 PET: no::we’vealreadybeen(near)thestart. %com: Cheriemakesnoresponse.Parallelplaycontinues.

Ob2.237 NIG: wealreadyhadmorningtea:? (0.6)8 ROB: didnotNigel.9 NIG: yeahi↑did(0.2)>youdidn’t<seeus¿ %act:ROBwalksofftohavemorningtea.

As leaving the play area denotes abandonment (exemplified in the next section of this chapter), the local context of Ob2.23 (which determines the dispute as resolved) should be clarified. In this episode, Rob is trying to persuade Nigel to have morning tea with him; as he leaves unaccompanied by nigel, it is assumed that rob was unsuccessful in his attempts to secure a partner for morning tea. importantly, he was not playing with nigel and simon prior to the episode, so resuming cooperative play does not in fact involve rob. the argument was effectively ‘won’ by simon, rather than characterised by the dissipation of abandoned disputes. consequently, the dispute was heard as resolved.

church Book.indb 120 13/01/2009 12:11:44


The most significant observation to be made regarding the sequential organisation of this type of resolved dispute ending concerns the turn shape of the utterance which precedes the zero response. In each of the 11 episodes identified with this type of ending, the final utterance is performed in a dispreferred turn shape. Importantly, this consistent production of dispreferred turn shape in final utterances of resolved disputes occurs in both preschools. although some of these turns are prefaced by a pause (Ob1.2, Ob1.6, Ob2.13, Ob1.33), and some with the marker ‘well’ or ‘but’ (Ob1.2, Ob1.6, Ob2.12), every final utterance incorporates some type of account. as discussed in chapter 4, it is the presence of an account or justification for opposition which consistently performs as a feature of dispreferred turn shape in children’s arguments. dispreferred turn shapes may be prefaced by delay, but are always accompanied by accounts.

Given that the accounts provided in the final turns of the episodes listed above are met with silence (zero response) it can be inferred that either this justification is accepted by the opposing party or they are unable to better the prior account.


Prior to this excerpt from Ob1.19, sam has admonished luke for putting blocks back on the shelf (a responsibility delegated to Adam on this occasion). Luke counters (line 3) with an accusation that Sam himself has committed the same offence. sam’s response accounts for his own actions as entirely defensible, given that he was not interfering with the re-shelving of blocks (he returned a cylinder to the shelf). as luke makes no further challenge, his zero response is heard as acceptance of sam’s entitlement to replace cylindrical objects on the shelf.

similarly, in Ob2.5 below, elinor is successful in defending herself from louise’s censure by providing an account for her actions at the time of the event for which she is being blamed (blocks falling down). As Louise makes no further objection, this account is presumably heard as satisfactory.

Ob2.5 %act: astackofblocksfalldownoftheirownaccord.1 ELI: Loui:se, (0.7)2 LOU: youdidit. (0.4)3 ELI: noididn’t?=4 LOU: =cozyouwere-(0.4)youwereputting(0.3)your (.)h:andsonit. (0.3)

church Book.indb 121 13/01/2009 12:11:44


5 ELI: no .hh coz i was helping with Hilary. %act:LOUandELIstartrebuilding.

resolution may also be achieved indirectly, effectively accommodating the claims of the other party in the next turn without overtly acknowledging them. a child may ignore the prior speaker’s contribution, yet if he/she does not actively reject the content of this contribution, the dispute is resolved. a common feature of these varieties of closings is that one party decides not to continue the dispute.

Ob1.37 KOY: i’marockettoo. (0.5)8 ADM: no:cause(0.3)rocketsarenotallowedtocome in(.)only(0.4)arocketandajet(0.4)cause there’snospaceinthere. (0.2)9 KOY: i’majet. (0.8)10 ADM: nowthisisgonnahaveabig-, %act: KOYjoinsADMandJONatthetable.

Ob1.1314 KOY: =STO::P!15 ADM: NOihavetostayoutofthegarage(0.3)(o)kay↑ (0.3)cozit’sfat. (0.9)16 ADM: see?17 ADM: it’sgotthis-(0.2)it’sgot(0.3)hardjobtodo. (2.6)18 LUK: ((to ADM))i’mmakingoneforyou. %com: PlaycontinuesandADMisnowpartofthegroup.

In both episodes (Ob1.3, Ob1.13), each child is trying to enter an established activity, and provides an account which qualifies him as suitable to join the play. in Ob1.13, for example, Koyo makes no further objection to adam parking his car next to the garage, and appears to be reassured that adam is not actually intending to drive his car inside the garage. Consequently, Adam is tacitly accepted (no continued rejections) as a member of the garage-making group.

in all three types of resolved dispute endings, the single most important defining feature is the resumption of collaborative (or at least parallel) play. In each of the episodes identified as resolved, the children were able to continue playing together once the dispute had closed. Whilst the outcome might not have been gratifying to all involved, it was acceptable to each party, evident in resumed shared activity. this outcome is therefore distinct from abandoned disputes where

church Book.indb 122 13/01/2009 12:11:44


one of the participants typically left the play area or at least refrained from any further interaction with the opposing party.

Abandonment

as discussed earlier, disputes must be resolved if conversation or interaction is to continue. Without active resolution of a dispute, collaborative play cannot be resumed. an outcome described here as abandonment denotes the interruption of cooperative interaction. When an argument is not resolved by the children themselves, or through the teacher as an arbitrator (as discussed below), the abandonment of the argument results in the breakdown of shared activity. essentially, regardless of mutual satisfaction, disputes were seen to be resolved where the outcome is mutually acceptable, that is, when the children involved in the conflict continue to play together. Where disputes were abandoned, however, collaborative or parallel play is not resumed.

Failure to respond

Previously, failure to respond was seen as a final move in resolved disputes, where a zero response (i.e. no further challenge) functioned as tacit acceptance of the other party’s position. Yet, in abandoned disputes, zero responses also mark the end of the episode. unlike resolved episodes, however, an absence of further opposition in abandoned disputes precedes a breakdown in collaborative play. Where zero responses were implicated in resolution, the participants continued to play together. in abandoned disputes, on the other hand, one party made no further challenge and no further attempt to engage the other party in any activity (cf. Vuchinich’s (1990) withdrawal format).

Ob1.109 JON: well (0.9) WELL (0.7) NObody can have (.) my fishingrod. (2.0)10 TES: ((to MIL))Mil-(.)i’mgonnasharemy:fishingrod. (0.8)11 JON: well(0.4)i’mgoingtoshareminewithSam. (1.6)12 JON: ((to girls))notyou. (3.1) %com: NeitherTESnorJONactuallypassontherodsto MILorSAM.Eventuallytheteacherstepsinto allot turns to SAM and MIL who have not yet played.

church Book.indb 123 13/01/2009 12:11:44


Ob2.228 NIG: yeahandiputthosethingsupthere¿9 PAU: wellitdoesn’tneedthem. %act: rebuilding(3.0)10 PAU: don’tneed>allofem<. %com: NIGdoesnotrespond.

in both Ob1.10 and Ob2.22 the dispute is abandoned not only through a zero response from the opposing party (i.e. Tess in Ob1.10 and Nigel in Ob2.22), but ultimately dissipates due to no subsequent challenge from the prior speaker. in both episodes, the final speaker makes a second attempt (lines 12 and 10 respectively) to provoke the opposing party, but gives up when no response is made. noteworthy here is the turn shape of the final utterance; although preceded in each instance by a lengthy pause, both turns are short and direct (preferred). Whilst Paul’s turn in line 10 is based on a necessity account, it does not constitute novel content as it is a partial repeat of his earlier utterance.

in Ob1.12 below, the abandonment of the dispute is essentially self-selected, as Adam cuts short his own challenge in line 20 (preferred turn shape) and does not attempt to restate his opposition. abandonment in this instance is performed as ‘giving up’ the dispute, as adam is not successful in establishing himself as an acknowledged member of the garage-building group (i.e. his contribution at the opening of the episode which prompted that dispute was consistently rejected).

Ob1.1218 ADM: [yestheydo:]. (0.2)19 LUK: ((sing song voice))the:ydo:no:t. (0.2)20 ADM: yesthey(.)ºsayº-, %com: LUK becomes busy constructing the garage with otherboys.ADMabandonsthisentryattempt.

In some cases where one party makes no further opposition (abandoning attempts to engage in cooperative play), the prior speaker may actively state their intention to seek play partners elsewhere.

Ob1.1518 PET: oka:y↑ i will make with (0.2) Sam then ((to ADM))iwon’tbeyourfriendanymore¿ (0.4)19 PET: ((to SAM))nowcanihavethatone? (0.9)20 SAM: hereyougo((gives car to PET)).

church Book.indb 124 13/01/2009 12:11:44


The use of threats, such as used by Peter (“I won’t be your friend”), have been observed in the latter part of argumentative sequences in the previous section. It was demonstrated above that threats are performed in final turn position of some resolved disputes. However, threats also appear as the final turn in some abandoned disputes.

Ob2.1027 PAU: ↑yeah(0.3)andi’llbreakyour↑headoff. %com: JIMandFREignorePAUandcontinueimaginative playinthespaceship.

Ob2.2011 ROB: idon’twanttocometoyourpartyanyway.12 SIM: idon’twannacometoyourpartyanywayeither. %com:nofurtherresponse.

it was also noted earlier that threats are not performed in typical opposition turn shapes. given the apparent absence of uniformity in form and function of threats in dispute episodes, these turns will be discussed further at the end of this chapter.

a failure to respond resulting in abandonment of the dispute may also be accompanied by one party physically removing themselves from the shared play space.

Ob1.1116 FEL: mmm.17 NAN: don’t(0.3)don’tsayTHAT! (0.2)18 FEL: mmm. (0.4)19 NAN: DON’TSAYTHAT!20 CHE: putthe[littlefishies],21 NAN: [youdon’thave]tosa:ytha:t. (0.6)22 NAN: youdon’thavetosa:ythat(0.7)anyway. (2.3)23 NAN: don’tsaythatºtomeº(0.3)[anyway]. (0.4)24 FEL: [MMM]. (0.5)25 NAN: D[O::N’T(.)((whimpers))idon’t]likeit.26 CHE: [fishes(0.2)they’reyourfishes] %act: CHEandFELmovewiththeirfishingrodstothe othersideoftheroom.NANhesitatesthenfollows.

church Book.indb 125 13/01/2009 12:11:44


In Ob1.11 Felicity does not respond to Nancy’s repeated opposition (lines 19, 21, 22, and 23) until line 24. the zero response which prompts the abandonment of the dispute, however, follows nancy’s complaint in line 25. in line 26, cherie is not responding to Nancy but talking (half singing) to herself. A failure to respond leads to the abandonment of the episode on this occasion because it is accompanied by the physical relocation of Felicity and Cherie; Felicity (and her play partner cherie) eventually ignore nancy’s continuing objection.

Abandonment brought about by a failure to respond (ignoring) and moving away from the opposing party may be achieved in a number of ways. Physical removal from the shared play space can be initiated either by the final speaker or the opposing party. In Ob2.11 and Ob2.21, the final speaker abandons his attempts to engage or convince the other party, giving up in the first example and defying the challenge of the other party in the second.

Ob2.116 PAU: thenwhydon’tyou↑needthem. %com: FREdoesnotrespond,PAUmovesaway.

Ob2.216 NIG: noyou’renot,7 SIM: ia::m? %act: SIMopensdoorandgoesoutside.

The turn function of the final utterance preceding the zero response in these abandoned utterances varies from an interrogative (Ob2.11), contradiction (Ob1.29) to direct chastisement (Ob2.9), examples below. Yet, while the force and content of these utterances may differ, none of these turns is performed in dispreferred turn shape (the detailed challenge made by John in line16 in Ob1.29 does not function as an account). Each of these final turn shapes is essentially preferred, in that the opposition is direct and not accounted for, and usually performed in short turns with no delay. Even John’s objection (line 16) in Ob1.29 below, although longer than other final turns presented in this section, is produced immediately with an opposition marker (“no”) occurring in word-initial position.

Ob1.2916 JON: no (0.2) uh (0.6) yes that’s the shoe that knockedmysp-(0.5)mywing. %act:FELmovesawaytojoinCHE.

Ob1.723 ELI: okay(.)i’mgettingoutofhere.24 CAZ: alright? (1.1)25 CAZ: thereyouare?

church Book.indb 126 13/01/2009 12:11:45


%act: throwstheboy/dislikedgirldollouttoELI %com:ELImovesawayfromplayarea.

Ob2.913 LOU: you’rewreckingeverything. %act: PAUmovesawayfromblockarea.

in sum, the difference between zero responses in resolved and abandoned disputes lies in a distinction between unspoken acceptance (resulting in resolution) and ignoring the opposition (abandonment). Differences are also evident in the turn shapes of final utterances in these two outcomes, further discussion of which appears in chapter 6.

Topic shift

dispute abandonment can also be instigated by a topic shift made by the speaker who abandons her/his previous opposition (identified by Vuchinich (1990) as a standoff). in Ob1.9, for example, sam cuts off his objection to tess packing up the fishing boxes, and introduces a new complaint (topic shift) after a considerable pause.

Ob1.91 TES: puttheboatsintherec-causewearepacking up(.)causetheshark’scoming. (0.7)2 TES: takeeverything(out),=3 JON: =notthe-,4 TES: 0((%act:continuespackinguptheboats))5 SAM: NO(0.5)leaveithe↑re! (1.0)6 TES: b[utwe(.)we-,]7 SAM: [leave(.)all]ofthemhere. (0.5)8 TES: theshark’scoming.9 SAM: leave-(1.5)iknow↑that(0.4)butwe’rejust pretending(.)andleave(0.3)theboats(0.4) out (0.4) you can put the fishes in (0.2) but (0.3)uh(0.4)nottheboats. (1.2)10 SAM: cause↑[see(.)ifpeoplewanttoplaywiththem (0.7)theywon’tbeready]forthem(0.2)so-,11 JON: [lookatthisSam:(0.3)lookatthisSam]. (1.2)

church Book.indb 127 13/01/2009 12:11:45


12 JON: $oh:yougotmyone(0.6)ohyougotmyone:$. (1.0)13 JON: i[got]mygreenone.14 SAM: [no-], (0.5)15 SAM: notheyallinthe-, (3.5)16 SAM: andi:’mwaitingtohave(0.2)ago:?andyou’re taking(.)so(0.3)l:o:ng. %com: JONoffersoneoftherodstoSAM.

Abandonment and introduction of a new topic made by the same speaker (self-selection) is also seen in the following example:

Ob2.186 GAR: no(0.2)youwillbe-(0.3)youwill(0.4)be(.) behere(0.2)butiwon’t.7 SIM: well-,(4.7)8 SIM: whattimeareyougoingho:me? %com: dialogue between the two boys shifts to conversationaboutwhenlunchtimefallsrelative toGAR’sdeparture.

In Ob2.18, the new topic (establishing what time Gary is going home) is introduced by the same speaker (Simon) who abandoned his prior objection (line 7). Typically, the new topic is introduced as an interrogative and the argument is abandoned when this topic shift is taken up by another party. in other words, the topic shift is successful when the question (new topic) is responded to by the other party. in Ob2.19 below, for example, gary initiates a move away from the argument with his question in line 11. The shift is secured (and the argument subsequently abandoned), however, through Simon’s tied response (line 14) to Gary’s repeated question (line 13).

Ob2.196 SIM: myparty’sbefo:reyou:rs¿7 GAR: noMYparty’sbeforeyours.=8 SIM: =notbef[oremine].9 GAR: [butmineis](0.3)yours-(0.6)my:mumsaid yoursisinFebruary. (1.3)10 SIM: noitisn’t. (0.4)11 GAR: wheni:sit. (1.4)

church Book.indb 128 13/01/2009 12:11:45


12 SIM: Ga:ryifyou-(0.7)ifyouletmehavethatonexx. (0.3)13 GAR: whatbirthdayisinyour-(0.4)<isin>-(0.3) isyours?14 SIM: mybrother’sinFebru[ary].15 GAR: [my]brotherissi:x¿ %com:conversationtopicnowfocusesonagesofsiblings.

a suggestion produced in the form of an interrogative may also bring about dissolution of the dispute when produced by a third party who is not directly involved in the argument. in the next episode, John picks up luke’s suggestion, ignoring cherie’s continued attempts to sustain the argument.

Ob1.2826 JON: welldon’tbreakmyhouse(0.8)coz(0.2)it’s (0.3)veryspecial[whatimade].27 CHE: [isnot]? (0.5)28 JON: itisso¿=29 LUK: =howbou[tican]joinmytram(0.2)railround toyourhouse.30 CHE: [itisnot].31 JON: yes(0.5)eh(0.4)(yesgood)idea. %act: JONnowbecomesinvolvedinthebuildingwithLUK.

Before considering the turn shapes at the conclusion of this type of dispute, some mention should be made as to why topic shifts are not identified in this study as leading to resolution. Primarily, topic shifts are not semantically tied to the content of the dispute, and constitute a deviation from argument rather than active resolution (cf. compromises). A topic shift does not function as a form of opposition, and, as such, is not produced as an argumentative turn. rather, by introducing novel, non-oppositional content, topic shifting is a distinct non-continuation of conflict. These utterances do not directly address the topic of the dispute; neither do they directly resolve the dispute. the argument is let go, abandoned, rather than decided in one party’s favour.

the distinction is made due to an absence of overt consensus that the dispute will not be sustained. Where disputes are resolved, a finite conclusion is acknowledged either verbally or through no further opposition (the absence of reply in resolved disputes is followed by resumption of play). Where a dispute is dropped due to a topic shift, however, no conclusion of the dispute is reached prior to assuming the new topic. Whilst a topic shift may be successful in closing a dispute, this does not satisfy the criteria of resolution (as presented above). Therefore, the dissipation of the argument through topic shift is classified in this research as abandoned.

church Book.indb 129 13/01/2009 12:11:45


Increasing volume

disputes are also abandoned where an immediate rather than reciprocated escalation in volume prompts the withdrawal of the other party. as with the episodes discussed above, it is the physical relocation of one party that distinguishes the outcome as abandoned rather than resolved.

Ob1.225 KOY: ↑no(.)you’renotpacking¿=6 ADM: =YESIAM. %act: KOYwalksawaytocollectmoreblocks.

Ob2.245 BRI: yesitis. (1.0)6 GAR: NOITISN’T. (0.5)7 SIM: don’tworryaboutitBrian. %act:BRIreturnstomakinghisownconstruction.

in both these episodes, the shouting which prompts the abandonment of the dispute is delivered in a preferred turn shape. although gary’s turn in Ob2.24 is produced after a pause (1.0), the turn itself demonstrates the preferred features of brevity and directness. notably, it is only one party in the dispute who uses increased volume in his challenge to the prior speaker. in disputes where both parties engage in trading opposition in a sequence of turns marked by escalating volume, the dispute typically results in teacher intervention (see below). In these two episodes (Ob1.22 and Ob2.24), however, the opposing party does not respond to the shouted challenge of the other party, and the dispute is abandoned.

Intervention

in the previous sections, the closings described as resolved or abandoned have been brought about by the dispute participants. the third possible dispute closing, however, is reached through external intervention. the intervention may be sought by the children themselves or initiated by the teacher. in the episodes where intervention was sought by one of the participants, children appealed to the teacher as a figure of authority to support their own position (see Maynard, 1985a). notably, teacher interventions are generally seen as an avoidance rather than way a valid strategy to resolve conflict (Newman, Murray and Lussier, 2001: 398). To this end, appeals to the teacher, and even teacher-initiated intervention, were not heard in the beginnings of the disputes, but instead were produced when other attempts to persuade had failed.

church Book.indb 130 13/01/2009 12:11:45


In one dispute (Ob1.1), Cherie sought staff intervention and incorporated a threat into her statement of intent.

Ob1.133 CHE: i’llgoandtelltheteacher.

elsewhere, children reported their own perspective of the infringement to the teacher.

Ob1.3113 SAM: ((to teacher))they’renot[xxx].14 JON: AHH:HA.15 YYY: whoopsie(you)droppedthefood. (1.4)16 SAM: ((to teacher))<he’snotlettingmeput->,

Ob1.3210 KOY: theshow(.)is(.)fin↑ished(.)[(now)].11 SAM: [no]:.((whines)) %yyy: teacherapproaches(1.6)12 KOY: ((to teacher))theshowisfinished. (0.2)13 YYY: wellidon’tthinkSamisfinished.14 KOY: theshowisfinishedYYY.

a notable feature of the turns preceding these appeals for adult arbitration was their preferred shape. the sequences of turns prior to calls for assistance are characterised by brief, repetitive, unjustified opposition. In Ob1.32 above, for example, Koyo continues to repeat his position (“the show is finished”) and Sam’s response is a single “no” (or approximation) throughout the dispute. This pattern of failing to moderate or mitigate opposition (most commonly realised through dispreferred turn shape) was also heard in Ob1.31 and to a lesser degree in Ob1.1.

a different type of approach to the teacher was used by the children in Observation 2, as they made a request for attention before detailing the infringement of their playmate(s).

Ob2.214 CAZ: ((to Teacher))excu:se[me:].

Ob2.814 WIN: excuseme[YYY].

importantly, however, the turns preceding line 14 in Ob2.8 demonstrated similar shapes to those noted in Observation 1. the dispute featured repetition of turns as

church Book.indb 131 13/01/2009 12:11:45


each speaker restated their objection without any significant modification of the turn. in this exchange of repeated objections with little novel content, making an appeal to external authority imposes an endpoint for an otherwise interminable cycle. resorting to staff intervention therefore represents a stalemate among the disputants.

Ob2.81 WIN: i’vegotagreatideawhatwecandowiththis¿ (2.5)2 PAU: giveittome!3 WIN: i[foundit].4 PAU: [noi-](.)noihadi:t.5 WIN: ifoundit¿6 PAU: noihaditawhileag[o]?7 WIN: [no]. (0.5)8 PAU: ihaditawhileago.=9 WIN: =noyoudid[n’t].10 PAU: [well]i’mtellingonyou. (0.7)11 WIN: excuseme[YYY].12 PAU: [no],13 PAU: umCarolinegaveittome. %com: Carolineisnotpresentintheplay (0.5)14 WIN: excuseme[YYY].15 PAU: [Caroline]gaveittome. %yyy: teacherintervenesbutresponseisinaudible.

Ob2.2 (below), however, does not feature this repetition of preferred turn shapes. caroline and Miranda produce a number of dispreferred turn shapes in an attempt to convince Jack and tom that they had prior rights to the space ship as a play space. the opposition made by the girls is accounted for, primarily by establishing the basis of prior rights. An alternate suggestion made by Tom (line 9) is not taken up by the other participants, and Jack does not acknowledge the girls’ claim to the area. the resulting stalemate is consequently different to the outcome in Ob2.8; external intervention is sought not due to circularity and immovability of opposition but a failure to influence despite providing accounts for opposition. Nevertheless, resorting to teacher intervention constitutes a stalemate in both episodes.

Ob2.2 %act: girlsattempttoenterthespaceship1 JAK: no! (0.2)

church Book.indb 132 13/01/2009 12:11:45


2 MIR: Jack<wewereplayingintha:[:t>].((whines))3 CAZ: [(hey]we’replayingwith)that. (0.3)4 JAK: no:(.)youwereoverthere.5 CAZ: no:westillhaven’tfinished.6 JAK: well[wehave-],7 MIR: [butthat]wasourfairy[spaceship].8 JAK: [no::]! %act: pushesCAZasshetriestoenter.9 TOM: it’sarocketship(.)youguys. (1.1)10 CAZ: we’replayingwewereplayingintherefi:rst¿11 CAZ: andthenwe’rejustnexttothere(0.3)andwe gotsomefir:st[andwe]justwenttogetmarried.12 JAK: [POW]! (2.3)13 JAK: ((to TOM))comeon! %act: CAZstartsmovingtowardsteacher.14 CAZ: ((to Teacher))excu:se[me:].15 JAK: [HEYWAIT]! %act:JAKfollowsCAZtoteachertoarguehiscase.

in the two other instances of child-initiated intervention in Observation 2, a child seeks confirmation from the teacher as to the validity of an assertion made by his playmate (Ob2.3) and assistance with faulty audio headphones (Ob2.16). Neither of these closings (appeals to teacher) represented a continuation of the dispute but rather a supplication to an adult for verification and for technical assistance, which are distinct from the complaints made in Ob2.2 and Ob2.8 above. further attention to dispute closings in Observation 2 highlights the complete absence (at least in the episodes recorded) of teacher-initiated intervention in the children’s disputes. this is not to say that intervention did not take place, but rather was not noticeably done nor audible in audio/video data.

A marked contrast in this type of dispute closing (intervention) was observed in Observation 1, as the teacher interrupted eight of the recorded arguments. in one of these arguments (Ob1.31) adult support was initially sought by the child, but at the conclusion of the dispute the intervention was instigated by the teacher. The proportion of teacher intervention (cf. Observation 2) may be considered in light of the observer’s presence. although the paradoxical nature of the observer’s presence has been discussed in relation to the children’s interaction with peers, the teacher’s behaviour may also be affected (e.g. Ob1.17). Specifically, the teacher in Ob1 was less experienced and perhaps paid closer attention to the children playing in proximity to the observer. additionally, on one occasion the children were prevented from pursuing the dispute when the teacher interrupted (Ob1.5). The

church Book.indb 133 13/01/2009 12:11:45


teacher’s directions to the disputants did not constitute intervention in this instance, however, as her instructions were not related to the adversative interaction.

in six of the eight episodes interrupted by the teacher in Ob1, the intervention was made in response to increased amplitude of the children’s voices. Otherwise, on one occasion (Ob1.35) the teacher interceded where two boys were physically struggling for possession of an object. the other dispute which attracted the teacher’s attention despite the absence of shouting (Ob1.25) was characterised by a series of repeated utterances within the teacher’s hearing range. When questioned, the teacher stated her method of mediation was to allow each child to explain his/her position, then impose a solution only where the children themselves were not able to reach a facilitated compromise, yet in practice this did not always prove to be the case. In Ob1.4 the teacher explained why ownership of a song (and lyrics) is not restricted to any individual, but in all other instances the teacher either removed the child from the play space and engaged her/him in another activity or imposed a verdict (Ob1.25, Ob1.35).

in each episode brought to a close through teacher-initiated intervention there is a preceding pattern of exchanging utterances in preferred turn shape. this is exemplified in the organisation of opposition in Ob1.4.

Ob1.41 TES: everybodycansingit(0.5)notjustyou. (4.6)2 HIL: wellisingmysongifiwant. (1.7)3 HIL: it’smyso:ng¿4 TES: it’smysongtoo:andit’snotyoursong. (0.2)5 HIL: itismysong. (0.5)6 TES: NOTYOUR:SONG. (0.6)7 TES: EENGHH ((screeches in frustration)) .hhh (.) IT’SNOTYOURSONGHilary. (1.5)8 YYY: [Tess]areyouokay?

Consistently, where conflict episodes are brought to a close through teacher intervention, there is a pattern of exchanging utterances performed in preferred turn shape throughout the dispute. although one party may provide an account for his/her opposition (signalling a dispreferred turn shape), this account is typically repeated throughout the escalating conflict. That is, where dispreferred turn shapes are produced in teacher-mediated disputes, there is no subsequent development of mutual accountability because the same utterance, although providing justification, is repeated throughout the dispute. in Ob1.14 below, for example, sam accounts

church Book.indb 134 13/01/2009 12:11:45


for his actions, attempting to defer blame by pointing to the unintentionality of his actions (viz. although he knocked the blocks over he didn’t mean to as he was just trying to balance them). the repetitiveness of the exchanges, however, precludes negotiation and prompts incessant recycled rounds of counter-challenges until the teacher intervenes.

Ob1.141 SAM: 0((%act:knocksblocksover))2 SAM: [ah],3 LUK: [o]:hYOUDIDTHA:T!=4 SAM: =iwastryingtobal[anceit].5 LUK: [tstoh]oh[ohohno:].((whining))6 SAM: [iwastryingtobalance]i:t.=7 LUK: =NAUGHTY! (0.5)8 SAM: iwastryingtobalanceit[anditjust]fe:ll.=9 LUK: [it’snaughty].10 LUK: =((to PET))say[“naughty]Sam”!11 ADM: [naughty].12 PET: naughtySam. (1.1)13 SAM: iwastryingtoba[lancei:t].14 ADM: [HEYLOOK](0.2)lookatthis!15 LUK: that’sNAUghty.16 ADM: WA[TER]!17 LUK: [NAUGHTY][THAT’SNAUGHTY],18 SAM: [IWASTRYINGTO]BALA:NCEI:T. (1.4)19 YYY: excusemeboys?20 LUK: Sambrokemy[x:]21 YYY: [well][idon’tthinkhe]reallymeantto¿ SAM: [iwastrying-], (1.0)22 YYY: youcanmakeitagain¿

in sum, teacher-intervened disputes typically feature brief, direct utterances produced with little or no delay (note overlapping speech in Ob1.14); in other words, a cycle of preferred turn shapes. Where an account may be provided in a turn, the subsequent repetition of this turn shape essentially invalidates the mitigation or accommodation inherent in dispreferred turn shapes. additionally, in Ob1 this type of dispute outcome was frequently marked by a preceding pattern of escalating volume (both parties). The events following teacher intervention are not included in the analysis, as our primary focus remains how children manage disputes, rather than how children manage teacher instructions in disputes with peers.

church Book.indb 135 13/01/2009 12:11:46


Whilst teacher intervention accounted for the closings of a quarter of the disputes recorded, our attention returns to episodes which were ended without adult participation. Specifically, in the next section we revisit episodes in which threats were issued in final utterances. As threats appeared in final utterances of both resolved and abandoned disputes, further discussion of these types of turns is warranted.

Threats

At first, threats appeared to operate outside the boundaries of preference. importantly, threats share no features of preferred turn shapes. Yet, neither do threats made in children’s adversative discourse constitute typical dispreferred turns. accounts are not incorporated because the speaker does not attempt to justify his opposition in producing the threat, but rather states consequences of failure to acquiesce. these consequences, however, are not enforced; the force of the threat lies in the undesirability of the outcome. usually, among the preschoolers studied, threats allude to a withdrawal of a particularly attractive commodity.

fundamentally, the dispreferred status of threats lies in the sequential context of the dispute: threats are designed to bring about the end of an argument rather than promote continuing conflict. That is, acquiescence is the expected response, in favour of further challenge from the hearer (Haslett, 1983). A distinguishing feature of threats, then, is that a preferred response (second pair part) is submission. consequently, an inversion of sorts operates in this context. in established disputes, a preferred response is overt opposition to the prior speaker, as illustrated in the next chapter. threats, however, carry an explicit expectation of non-opposition and demand for compliance, and as such, function as an ultimatum. While a summary of the sequential organisation of disputes is deferred to next chapter, a discussion of the turn shapes of threats is included here because threats typically appear in the closings of disputes.

Types of threats

Benoit (1983) identified four types of threats used in children’s arguments: harm-threats, withhold-action/object threats, tell authority threats and unspecified outcome threats (see Chapter 2). In the present data, threats to withhold a desirable action/object were by far the most common. Only one exchange of harm threats was heard in the second observation environment.

Ob2.1020 FRE: yeahnow-(0.5)then-(0.3)you’re(wreckingit) i’llkillyourwholebuildingdown? (0.3)

church Book.indb 136 13/01/2009 12:11:46


21 PAU: huh? (0.3)22 FRE: killyourwholebuildingdownifyoudon’t-, (0.3)23 PAU: ididn’tididn’tevenmakeabuilding. (0.5)24 JIM: yesyoudi:d¿25 PAU: what. (0.7)26 JIM: yourum(0.6)bits:. (0.4)27 PAU: ↑yeah (0.3) and i’ll break your ↑head off. %com: JIMandFREignorePAUandcontinueimaginative playinthespaceship.

there was also one example of a tell-authority threat in the data. in this instance, the dispute was brought to a close through teacher intervention.

Ob2.89 WIN: =noyoudid[n’t].10 PAU: [well] i’m telling on you. (0.7)11 WIN: excuseme[Y]YY.

in Ob1.20 below, the dispute is brought to a close by luke threatening to withhold access to his petrol truck, if Peter does not refrain from drawing on his part of the group picture.

Ob1.2010 ADM: iwannahave(.)iwannahave(the)petroltruck.11 PET: yes.12 LUK: ((to PET))↑wha-(.)wellnotifyoudonot(.) not if you’re gonna go on (.) on mine.((ie.draw onLUK’spartofthepaper)) (0.3)13 PET: iwo:n’t. (1.1)14 LUK: thereyoucangothere.((on the paper))

On all other occasions, withholding threats were based on withdrawing friendship or an invitation to the speaker’s birthday party. evidently, both friendship and parties rank as highly desirable for children of this age, indeed “i won’t be your friend” functions as a form of social control (Corsaro, 1985). In each of the examples below the threat to withhold friendship preceded a breakdown in

church Book.indb 137 13/01/2009 12:11:46


collaborative activity as the disputes were not actively resolved (abandoned in Ob1.15 and Ob 2.7, and prompting teacher intervention in Ob1.26). notably, whilst not as frequently as boys, girls also engage in issuing direct threats (cf. danby, 1998) as seen in Ob2.7 and Ob1.27 below.

Ob1.1518 PET: ↑oka:y i will make with (0.2) Sam then ((to ADM))iwon’tbeyourfriendanymore¿

Ob1.2630 ADM: IWON’TBEYOURFRIEND¿

Ob2.721 ELI: i’mnotgonnatobeyourfriendifyoudon’tever givemethat.

in the following episodes, withholding a party invitation serves as punishment for inappropriate behaviour (Ob1.7) or as a conditional threat (Ob1.27)

Ob1.711 JON: it’snotnastytohit(1.4)↓Tessnowyou(0.2) can’t(0.4)come(0.2)to↑any(0.4)birthdays.

Ob1.2713 FEL: don’tSAYthosesortofthings>otherwiseyou can’tcometomyparty<.

Party invitations were also the withheld consequence in implied or indirect threats. In Ob2.17, Simon hints at a conditional threat (line 12), and Gary’s response is to restate this threat overtly.

Ob2.1712 SIM: >Garydoyouwannacome<tomyparty? (0.8)13 GAR: if you- (0.3) if you don’t give those (0.4) thosethingstome(.)youwon’tcometomypar:ty.

this sequence is repeated in subsequent episodes by the same children.

Ob2.193 SIM: i’llletyoucometomypar:ty:? (0.4)

church Book.indb 138 13/01/2009 12:11:46


4 GAR: andif(.)you(.)don’tgiveme(0.5)oneof those(1.0)oneofthosebigthi:ngs(0.6)you [can’tcometomypar:ty].

Ob2.209 GAR: then(youcan’t)cometomyparty.

Two of these episodes were abandoned (Ob2.19, Ob2.20) but the other three were resolved. in Ob1.7 and Ob2.17 the hearer conformed to the directive made in the prior threat, and Ob1.27 was resolved by clearing up a misunderstanding (as to who uttered the offending statement).

On one of only two occasions where producing a threat did not result in the end of the dispute, threatening the withdrawal of an invitation to a birthday party was met with a counter challenge (not threat), and subsequent mid-episode topic shift to arguing about the birthday calendar.

Ob2.191 SIM: Gary:(0.5)thisafterno:onisawyouputthe(xx). (0.7)2 GAR: n:o:.3 SIM: i’llletyoucometomypar:ty:? (0.4)4 GAR: andif(.)you(.)don’tgiveme(0.5)oneof those(1.0)oneofthosebigthi:ngs(0.6)you [can’tcometomypar:ty].5 SIM: [heyGa::ry]? (0.7)6 SIM: myparty’sbefo:reyou:rs¿7 GAR: noMYparty’sbeforeyours.=8 SIM: =notbef[oremine].9 GAR: [butmineis](0.3)yours-(0.6)my:mumsaid yoursisinFebruary. (1.3)10 SIM: noitisn’t. (0.4)11 GAR: wheni:sit. (1.4)12 SIM: Ga:ryifyou-(0.7)ifyouletmehavethatonexx. (0.3)13 GAR: whatbirthdayisinyour-(0.4)<isin>-(0.3) isyours?14 SIM: mybrother’sinFebru[ary].15 GAR: [my]brotherissi:x¿ %com:continuingconversationfocusesonagesofsiblings.

church Book.indb 139 13/01/2009 12:11:46


A point of interest in this dispute is Simon’s challenge (line 6) to the validity or power of Gary’s threat (line 4). As Simon contests that his party will be held first, it follows that he has the first right of (un)invitation. However, threatening to un-invite a prospective party guest is seldom related to the date of the actual event and at this age, children typically invite most, if not all, of their preschool group to their birthday party. the party need not be imminent for the threat to be persuasive; the birthday may have recently been celebrated or the child might not have a temporal understanding of when their birthday party will be held. as with the more abstract concept of removing friendship, these threats are not actually played out: children play together the next day and attend birthday parties, regardless of the response to these types of threats.

The other threat that did not bring about the closing of the dispute (either through resolution, abandonment or teacher intervention) was heard in Ob1.28 (see below). John’s ineffectual threat (lines 16 and 18) promises that he will ‘dob’ (tell the teacher) if his house gets broken. Benoit’s (1983) finding that unspecified or tell-authority threats are least powerful plays out in this instance.

Ob1.286 FEL: [that]doesn’tlooklikeahouse.7 CHE: itdoesn’tlooklikeone?8 FEL: no:?=9 LUK: =itlookslikeatramtrackdoesn’tit.10 FEL: [yes].11 CHE: [yes]. (0.2)12 JON: noitdoesn’t(.)it’sadifferentsortofhouse. (0.4)13 CHE: i’llbreakit? (0.4)14 JON: nodon’tbreakit! (0.2)15 FEL: iwill[breakit]?16 JON: [otherwise] i’ll tell the teacher. (0.5)17 FEL: iwillbreakitJohn.18 JON: DON’T BREAK it OTHERWISE I WILL TELL [THE TEACHERS on you].19 LUK: [John(0.3)Jo:hn]iwon’tbreakyour[house].20 CHE: [i]can’tbreakmy:things. (0.3)21 FEL: idon’tbreakmy:things. (0.7)22 JON: don’tbreakmyhouse(.)likethat! (1.1)

church Book.indb 140 13/01/2009 12:11:46


23 CHE: [i(break)mythings].24 LUK: [howaboutmaking](0.2)tram[tracksxxxx],25 GGG: [thiscanbeWinne]thePooh’shouse. (0.7)26 JON: welldon’tbreakmyhouse(0.8)coz(0.2)it’s (0.3)veryspecial[whatimade].27 CHE: [isnot]? (0.5)28 JON: itisso¿=29 LUK: =howbou[tican]joinmytram(0.2)railround toyourhouse.30 CHE: [itisnot].31 JON: yes(0.5)eh(0.4)(yesgood)idea. %act: JONnowbecomesinvolvedinthebuildingwithLUK.

Based on the data collected, there is a temptation to claim that only withholding an invitation to a birthday party functions as a successful (i.e. precursor to resolution) threat, but there are too few examples in the data to make such a claim (although earlier research suggests that withholding actions/object threats are powerful). additionally, we should be wary of over-attributing the content of the threat, as other factors (children involved in the dispute, type of dispute, and sequential context – previous and subsequent turns) are related to outcome. it could be claimed, however, that concrete threats where the speaker controls the punishment are most likely to close an argument.

threats operate differently in the disputes when compared with the earlier categories of justified objections (dispreferred turn shapes); they leave little if no room for further negotiations. Only two options are available to the hearer: comply or suffer the penalty stated in the threat. the status of threats as an endpoint is further implied in the immovability of the speaker’s position. Once the speaker has issued an ultimatum, failure to impose the stated consequences of the threat relinquishes any position of power or authority. consequently there is little opportunity for either the speaker or hearer to negotiate once a threat has been issued. The implications of this finding relates specifically to the position of threats in the sequential organisation of arguments. threats do not appear in the early stages of disputes, and result in the submission of one party (an outright ‘win/loss’ resolution) or a breakdown collaborative play (abandonment). Consequently, threats function as a last resort strategy.

Threats in sequences

Overwhelmingly, then, threats appear in the closings of the dispute. regardless of the outcome (resolved or abandoned), other conflict strategies are seldom produced once a threat or counter exchange of threats has been uttered. subsequently, our

church Book.indb 141 13/01/2009 12:11:46


attention shifts to the preceding context of threats, that is, the sequences of turns which lead to these last resort strategies.

In Ob1.7, the threat (party invitation) follows failed attempts to gain the teacher’s attention to intervene.

Ob1.77 SAM: 0((%act:SAMsucceedsinreclaimingtheboxes (0.6)))8 TES: ((whines)).hhhh↑Samtooktheboxes↓fromme. %com: directedtowardsteacherwhodoesnothear (0.4)9 SAM: but(0.5)shediditfi:rst. %com: alsodirectedtoteacherwithnoresponse (1.6)10 JON: shehit(0.4)Sam. (1.7)11 JON: it’snotnastytohit(1.4)↓Tessnowyou(0.2) can’t(0.4)come(0.2)to↑any(0.4)birthdays. (1.1)12 JON: nottillyou(0.2)saysorrySam.

the threat is not made contiguously to tess’ objection. furthermore, the conditional component of the threat (line 12) follows the consequence stated in line 11, after a considerable pause (1.1). Tess complies with this condition and apologises to Sam (she has to repeat the apology to satisfy Sam’s expectation of sincerity). The threat is built upon a reprimand of tess’ behaviour, as John claim’s she hit sam. tess’ compliance with the threat is tied to acceptance of her wrongdoing. this compliance is made without any significant delay.

In Ob1.27, Felicity makes a conditional threat (line 13) in response to Luke’s earlier teasing (he claims that he is doing the puzzle faster then Felicity). Cherie misinterprets the threat as directed towards her, presumably because she is the immediately prior speaker to felicity’s threat.

Ob1.2711 LUK: ((to CHE))lastisyou. (1.0)12 CHE: igot(partofxxxx). (0.7)13 FEL: don’tSAYthosesortofthings>otherwiseyou can’tcometomyparty<. (0.2)14 CHE: ididn’tsayit.

church Book.indb 142 13/01/2009 12:11:46


15 FEL: ididn’tmeanyouimeantLuke:. %com: threechildrencontinuetoplaytogetherwithno furtherreferencetothisexchange.

although luke does not acknowledge cherie’s rebuke in line 13, his acceptance of the conditions of the threat consists of a zero response; he no longer teases felicity. As in the example above (Ob1.7), there is a considerable delay between Luke’s turn (line 11) and the threat made by Felicity (line 13).

gary’s implied threat in Ob2.17, also follows a lengthy pause, and represents a different approach, a change in strategy, to his prior (unacknowledged turn).

Ob2.1710 GAR: [idon’twant]thosejets(going)off. (0.2)11 SIM: iwon’tbreakit. (1.8)12 SIM: >Gary do you wanna come< to my party? (0.8)13 GAR: if you- (0.3) if you don’t give those (0.4) thosethingstome(.)youwon’tcometomypar:ty. (0.2)14 SIM: (now)doyouwannacometomyparty? (0.3)15 GAR: youcan-(0.4)leaveitforme(0.3)leaveityou can’tcometomypar:ty. %act: SIMplacesobjectongroundandreturnstobasket tolookforotherplasticconnectorpieces.

simon’s indirect threat in line 12 is met with a reciprocal, recycled threat from gary (slightly delayed). Gary’s repeat is subsequently upgraded from the conditional ‘won’t’ to the definite ‘can’t’ (line 15). This modal upgrade is effective, as Simon relinquishes the object under dispute. The restarts or hesitations (lines 13 and 15) are compatible with dispreferred turn shape. indeed in each of the threats used in the closings of these resolved disputes, the turn shape could be characterised as dispreferred: delayed, opposition deferred, and containing further evidence (if not account) of the speaker’s position.

gary and simon produce more ‘birthday party’ threats in Ob2.19, although in this instance, simon’s prior turn consists of a conditional promise rather than an implied threat (line 3).

Ob2.192 GAR: n:o:.3 SIM: i’ll let you come to my par:ty:? (0.4)

church Book.indb 143 13/01/2009 12:11:46


4 GAR: andif(.)you(.)don’tgiveme(0.5)oneof those(1.0)oneofthosebigthi:ngs(0.6)you [can’tcometomypar:ty].5 SIM: [heyGa::ry]? (0.7)6 SIM: myparty’sbefo:reyou:rs¿7 GAR: noMYparty’sbeforeyours.=

in line 6, simon challenges the validity of the threat made by gary, and the dispute moves to an exchange of preferred turn shapes (e.g. line 7). Subsequent questions produced by Gary (asking when Simon’s birthday is) diffuse the primary conflict and the dispute is abandoned (no further opposition from Gary or Simon). In this instance, although the dispute is dropped, simon does not concede to gary’s threat, as there is a topic shift (to a disagreement about birth dates).

Another abandoned ‘party’ episode (Ob2.20), features Gary making a threat during an object dispute with rob, the consequences of which rob rejects.

Ob2.208 ROB: thisismine¿ (0.7)9 GAR: then(youcan’t)cometomyparty. (2.7)10 ROB: i>don’twannacometoyour<party. (2.4)11 ROB: idon’twanttocometoyourpartyanyway.12 SIM: idon’twannacometoyourpartyanywayeither. %com:nofurtherresponse.

Rob repeats his rejection of Gary’s threat (again after a lengthy pause) and Simon jumps on the bandwagon by repeating the rejection (although he is not directly involved in the dispute). gary’s threat is rendered powerless: if the withheld event is discounted by the hearer, the consequence is no longer a persuasive entity. the dispute is abandoned as the boys have reached a stalemate.

a stalemate is also reached in the following object dispute between elinor and Caroline (Ob2.7) about who gets to play with the ‘girl’ doll.

Ob2.716 ELI: (you’vegot)boththegirls. (0.3)17 CAZ: no:there’sanothergirl¿ (0.2)18 ELI: butidon’tlikethatgirl. (6.8)

church Book.indb 144 13/01/2009 12:11:47


19 ELI: youcan’thavetwogirls.((petulant tone)) (0.7)20 ELI: wellthat’stheboyandihateboys. (1.1)21 ELI: i’mnotgonnatobeyourfriendifyoudon’tever givemethat. (1.0)22 CAZ: i’mnotgonnaevergivethattoyou.23 ELI: okay(.)i’mgettingoutofhere.24 CAZ: alright? (1.1)25 CAZ: thereyouare? %act: throwstheboy/dislikedgirldollouttoELI %com:ELImovesawayfromplayarea.

the most striking feature of this episode is the number of attempts elinor makes to gain possession of the ‘girl’ prior to issuing the conditional threat in line 21. Each of these turns is performed in dispreferred shape (lines 18-20), which suggests further attention should be paid to quality of the account (i.e. efficacy or persuasiveness of the referent) in the dispute.

The following dispute is abandoned (Ob1.15), because Adam ignores Peter’s continuing attempts to use one of adam’s cars.

Ob1.1514 PET: butwhichonecanihavethen. (1.0)15 ADM: (ihave)nothingforyou. (0.4)16 PET: why:. (2.3)17 SAM: ((to PET))makewithme! (0.2)18 PET: ↑oka:y i will make with (0.2) Sam then ((to ADM))iwon’tbeyourfriendanymore¿ (0.4)19 PET: ((to SAM))nowcanihavethatone? (0.9)20 SAM: hereyougo.((gives car to PET))

In the sequence above, Adam ignores not only Peter’s threat (Peter has already shifted his allegiance to sam at this point), but also his prior request for explanation (line 16). The length of pause (2.3 seconds) and redirection by a third party (Sam in line 17) suggest that the dispute was in fact abandoned by adam after his turn

church Book.indb 145 13/01/2009 12:11:47


in line 15. at the very least the threat in this episode is not made as a contiguous, next-turn opposition.

in Ob1.26, threatening to withdraw friendship resulted in teacher intervention, because adam was shouting at cherie, and both children had begun to push one another.

Ob1.2623 CHE: [plea:se]canyougoawayfromus?24 ADM: coz(0.3)[coz(0.5)coz]-,25 CHE: [we’replayingagame].26 ADM: cozcozcozcoz[(yougot)-,]27 CHE: [GOAWAY]FROMUS! %act: pushesADM (0.3)28 ADM: DON”TPUSHME!29 CHE: ((to TES))goongethim. (0.4)30 ADM: IWON”TBEYOURFRIEND¿ %act: CHEisstillpushingADMsohepushesback.31 YYY: umexcu:semeAdam. %yyy: TeacherengagesADMinanotheractivity

Cherie ignores Adam’s threat (line 30) and continues to push Adam away from where she is playing with tess. in this instance, the dispute has escalated before the threat is produced: cherie has already pushed adam and he has begun shouting in response, prior to issuing the threat. this suggests that there is a point in the discourse where resolution is unlikely (following physical rebukes and escalating volume), regardless of the form of subsequent utterances.

as noted in the previous section, a threat of harm/physical punishment was heard only once in the observation sessions.

Ob2.10 %act:PAUispullingsomeofthepiecesofftheladder. (3.6)16 FRE: DON’T(.)WRECKi:t! (0.2)17 PAU: iwannamakesomething(.)andyouweren’teven usingit. (1.0)18 FRE: buti(.)iwilluseit↑later. (1.2)19 PAU: noyouwere:n’tnoyouweren’tevenusingitno:w¿ (0.7)

church Book.indb 146 13/01/2009 12:11:47


20 FRE: yeahnow-(0.5)then-(0.3)you’re(wreckingit) i’llkillyourwholebuildingdown? (0.3)21 PAU: huh? (0.3)22 FRE: killyourwholebuildingdownifyoudon’t-, (0.3)23 PAU: ididn’tididn’tevenmakeabuilding. (0.5)24 JIM: yesyoudi:d¿25 PAU: what. (0.7)26 JIM: yourum(0.6)bits:. (0.4)27 PAU: ↑yeah(0.3)andi’llbreakyour↑headoff. %com: JIMandFREignorePAUandcontinueimaginative playinthespaceship.

A point of interest in Ob2.10 is the turn shapes which precede the first threat in line 20. The dispreferred turn shapes produced by both parties (lines 18 and 19) fail to influence the other speaker, emphasising the ‘last resort strategy’ nature of threats. Fred has moved from a direct order (line 16) to justifying his objection (line 18) with no effect, finally issuing a threat after false starts/hesitation (line 20). Similar to the earlier example in Ob2.19, Paul challenges the validity of the threat (he didn’t even make a building). Dropping this side sequence (whether or not Paul has a building which may be killed) Paul produces a counter harm-threat (line 27) which is ignored by fred and his offsider Jim. as noted in chapter 2, one way in which disputes escalate is through cycles of threats and counter-threats (O’Keefe and Benoit, 1982; Haslett, 1983).

A withhold-object threat which was successful in resolving the dispute (Ob1.20 below) involves access to a petrol truck that Luke has brought from home (these novel toys are always highly sought-after objects at preschool).

Ob1.201 PET: 0((%act:drawsonLUK’ssideofthepaper))2 LUK: ((to PET))nothisisthemoo:n. (0.8)3 LUK: no:you’redrawingonthemoo::n.=4 PET: =butthisiswherethesunis. (1.9)5 LUK: 0((%act:pushesPET’shandaway))6 PET: ((whines))don’tdrawmi::ne. (0.2)

church Book.indb 147 13/01/2009 12:11:47


7 LUK: noyou(.)youdrawonyou:rpart. (1.3)8 LUK: theni’m-(0.5)wellthen(.)iwon’tletyou haveaturnon(0.2)thepetroltruck. %com: thisisatoyLUKhasbroughtfromhome. (0.5)9 PET: ºyesº.10 ADM: iwannahave(.)iwannahave(the)petroltruck.11 PET: yes.12 LUK: ((to PET))↑wha-(.)wellnotifyoudonot(.) notifyou’regonnagoon(.)onmine.((ie.draw onLUK’spartofthepaper)) (0.3)13 PET: iwo:n’t. (1.1)14 LUK: thereyoucangothere.((on the paper))

In his previous attempts (lines, 2, 3, 5 and 7), Luke has not been able to stop Peter drawing on his side of the collective paper (Peter claims rights to this part of the paper as he believes this is where the sun should be in the picture – line 4). luke resorts to issuing the powerful conditional promise of permission to play with his petrol truck. in this instance the threat is successful and Peter complies. the finality of the threat is recognisable in contrast to the possible alternative outcome: if Peter had not complied, the threat would have been rendered powerless, leading to a break in interaction.

Ob1.233 SAM: don’tdothatLuke¿.4 LUK: iwanttocrackit. (2.2)5 SAM: if you crack heads you’ll ↓die: (0.3) do you wantto↑die::(0.3)andthenyourmummywill cry:? (1.3)6 LUK: ºyesº. (1.5)7 SAM: don’tyoulikeyourmummy.8 LUK: ºyesidoº. (0.3)9 SAM: thendon’t(0.3)thendon’tdieyourself. %act:LUKstopshittinghisheadwiththeblock

in Ob1.23 sam is successful in instructing luke not to hit himself in the head, by equating the action with disrespect for his mother. in line 5 sam claims

church Book.indb 148 13/01/2009 12:11:47


that continuing this action will cause distress to Sam (defined as threat due to undesirable consequences). luke is obliged to stop hitting himself in the head or otherwise risk contradicting his own professed affection for his mother.

the analysis has demonstrated that threats operate, if not outside the boundaries of preference, in a slightly different manner to other opposing turns (e.g. do not share typical dispreference markers). However, it has also been established that threats function as a dispreferred response to opposition, as they are not designed to sustain the dispute, but to end the argument through submission of the other party. a distinctive feature of threats in sequences of discourse is the expectation of response. A preferred second pair part (to a first part threat) is acquiescence through no further challenge, and conformability to the direction inherent in the threat (i.e. cease the objectionable/offensive action). Evidently, a zero response or submission to the speaker’s wishes does not perform elsewhere in disputes as a preferred second, given that overt disagreement serves to sustain this type of discourse. it remains to be seen why certain threats lead to resolution while others prompt a breakdown in shared activity, a consideration for the next chapter.

Dispute closings

In the 60 recorded disputes, three distinct types of dispute closings were identified: resolution, abandonment and teacher intervention. each of these possible outcomes was arrived at through a variety utterances, seemingly unrelated if considered from a speech act perspective. The most significant finding presented in this chapter, however, points to the constancy of turn shape implicated in outcomes. that is, disputes were always resolved through final utterances performed in dispreferred turn shapes or threats. conversely, preferred turn shapes were prevalent in concluding sequences of abandoned or intervened conflict.

Through classification and analysis of the dispute closings, preference organisation (as identified throughout Chapter 4 by the presence or absence of markedness) emerges as an influential principle in the development and outcome of disputes: dispreferred turn shapes lead to resolution; preferred turn shapes are not heard in the final utterances of resolved disputes. As only the final turns of each episode were considered in this chapter, we cannot infer that all dispreferred turn shapes resolve disputes. sequences of discourse need to be examined to consider where dispreferred turns shapes are successful in securing mutual acceptance of the dispute closing. Therefore, the discussion now moves to address the specific features of dispreferred turn shapes which are implicated in resolution.

church Book.indb 149 13/01/2009 12:11:47

chapter 6

Preference and dispute Outcomes

Introduction

In the previous chapter, it was established that the final utterances of resolved disputes are overwhelmingly performed in a dispreferred turn shape. it does not follow, however, that dispreferred turns always secure resolution. it remains to be seen, then, if some finer distinction exists; if there are particular sequential characteristics of these utterances that are implicated in resolution. the analysis of dispreferred turn shapes in chapter 4 pointed to accounts as the most prominent component of these turn shapes in the children’s disputes, so the focus now shifts to an analysis of justifications. As seen in the earlier analysis, a variety of accounts are used throughout dispute episodes. are certain accounts apprehended as more persuasive than others? are persuasive accounts attributed to content? can examples of successful accounts (appearing dispute-final position) be found in early stages of other arguments? What types of accounts are implicated in a restart of preferred turn exchanges? responding to these questions and subsequently uncovering sequential patterns in the children’s arguments forms the substance of this chapter.

Accounts in final utterances of resolved disputes

accounts are the universal feature of dispreferred turn shapes in the data: while most dispreferred turns are prefaced with delay (pause or marker), all incorporate some kind of account. In Chapter 4, various types of accounts were identified in the disputes, namely: (1) references to personal desire (want, need, (dis)likes); (2) claiming ownership of objects or play area; (3) stating properties of objects, play space or play script; (4) invoking behavioural obligations (e.g. rules of sharing); and (5) epistemological claims. Whilst these categories are not proposed as finite, a grouping of accounts based on content allows for exploration of possible distribution according to referents. fundamentally, does the referent of the account (what the justification is based upon) influence the persuasiveness of the turn and subsequently the outcome of the conflict? This question will be answered first by considering the types of accounts appearing in the closings of resolved disputes.

A review of the final sequences of turns in resolved disputes shows a predominance of accounts which refer to properties of entities under dispute. More accounts are based on these concrete qualities than all other four types of

church Book.indb 151 13/01/2009 12:11:47


accounts combined. illustration of the sequential context of these accounts in each resolved dispute follows.

Ob1.32 KOY: whereicangoAdam? (1.1)3 JON: nowhe[re].4 KOY: [i]gotarocket? (1.3)5 KOY: igotarocket(andajet). (1.3)6 ADM: nothat’sa-that’sgotehhmnoonlyjetsand rockets. (1.4)7 KOY: i’marockettoo. (0.5)8 ADM: no:cause(0.3)rocketsarenotallowedtocome in(.)only(0.4)arocketandajet(0.4)cause there’snospaceinthere. (0.2)9 KOY: i’majet. (0.8)10 ADM: nowthisisgonnahaveabig- %act: KOYjoinsADMandJONatthetable.

In Ob1.3, Adam supports his refusal to allow entry of Koyo’s rocket (line 8) by stating that only objects which are a combination of rocket and jet have access to the landing strip (table), suggesting he did not hear the barely audible second part of Koyo’s utterance in line 5 (“and a jet”). As Koyo conforms to the criteria set by Adam (“only a rocket and a jet”) by changing his description of his rocket to ‘jet’, Adam makes no further objection and the dispute is resolved (boys continue in collaborative play).

Ob1.21 ADM: ((to JON))moveouttheway!2 JON: nono(0.3)no↑this[spacesh-]3 ADM: [nonono](.)no[no]↑thisonehasn’tgotany le:gs.4 JON: [but-] (0.9)5 JON: but(0.3)but(0.3)but(0.2)butthisone(0.3) it’snotrea-thespace-(.)this(0.2)we’re justnotreadyyet. (3.6)

church Book.indb 152 13/01/2009 12:11:47

Preference and Dispute Outcomes 153

John’s successful utterance in line 5 (no further challenge made by Adam) was preceded by Adam’s justified objection “this one hasn’t got any legs”. John’s dispreferred turn shape features a number of restarts, noticeably changing the account from a property of the object (the spaceship’s not ready) to an inclusive depiction of the participants (“we’re just not ready yet”). Significant in this account is the plural pronoun ‘we’ (vs. the less persuasive “I’m not ready”), and the mitigating ‘just’. this appeal enlists adam and secures resolution of the episode.

Ob1.13 %act: ADMputshiscarnexttotheblocks14 KOY: =STO::P!15 ADM: NOihavetostayoutofthegarage(0.3)↑(o)kay (0.3)cozit’sfat. (0.9)16 ADM: see?17 ADM: it’sgotthis-(0.2)it’sgot(0.3)hardjobtodo. (2.6)18 LUK: ((toADM))i’mmakingoneforyou. %com: Play continues and ADM is now part of the group.

Prior to this segment of the dispute (Ob1.13), Koyo has refused Adam’s entry into the garage because his car is too ‘big’. adam placates Koyo by incorporating this objection into his own account for placing his car next to the garage (line 13). This account (conforming to the size requirements established by Koyo) is successful as no further objection is made, and adam is accepted as legitimate member of the garage-making, car-driving play group.

Ob1.16 %act: ADM pulls down a block that SAM has placed upright7 SAM: ↑no:(0.4)thatisUP. (0.7)8 ADM: nobutiwannamakeCRECHE. (0.3)9 SAM: butit’smybui:ldi:ng(.)i:didthisbridge. (3.2) %com: ADMiswatchingSAMmovetheblocks.10 SAM: andits-, (1.6)11 SAM: andthese(0.3)ºthesegooverlikeºthat.=12 ADM: =yeahbut(0.2)butthat’stheriveryouremember that(.).hhhthat’stheriver. (0.3)

church Book.indb 153 13/01/2009 12:11:48


13 SAM: that’stherivergoing(0.9)goingu:nderit. (0.4)14 ADM: yes. (2.7) %com: cooperativeplaycontinues.

adam’s account for his objection in line 8 fails to persuade sam, who responds with his own dispreferred turn. Both boys base their early opposition on reflexive motivations: “i want”, “i built”. sam’s account in line 9 is not challenged by Adam, suggesting rights to the play script are strengthened by prior claim (the fact that sam originally built the bridge holds more sway than adam’s plans to turn the building into ‘creche’). adam accepts sam’s authority, but saves face by making his own addition to the play script (line 12) which is taken up by Sam. It is consensus to the properties of the bridge ((i) that it is a bridge and (ii) that there is a river going under it) that secure the mutually contrived closing.

Ob1.191 LUK: (%act)putsablockontheshelf.2 SAM: leave them there (0.3) ↑Adam’s (.) Adam’s in chargeofputtingthemaway(0.3)Luke? (5.7)3 LUK: isawyou:putoneaway¿=4 SAM: =thatdoesn’tmattercauseitwasn’tablockit wasacylinder. %com: LUKmakesnofurthercomment.

in Ob1.19, line 2, sam explains his objection to luke putting blocks back on the shelf by stating that this responsibility has been assigned to adam. luke challenges the quality of this opposition (why should he not be allowed to put blocks away when he saw sam do the same thing). sam immediately counters this objection by qualifying his own actions, clarifying the distinct features of the object he returned to the shelf: “it wasn’t a block it was a cylinder”. This specificity is met with no further opposition from luke and the dispute is quickly resolved.

Ob1.331 PET: ↑now:(0.6)youhavetohaveababy:now[you]-,2 CHE: [↑no](0.3)there’snobabyinthisone.3 PET: ye:sit’s[xx],4 CHE: [no](0.2)coz(0.2)firstweneedtodoitagain (0.3)atthestart. (1.9)5 PET: no::.6 CHE: (goesthere). (0.9)

church Book.indb 154 13/01/2009 12:11:48


7 PET: no::we’vealreadybeen(near)thestart. %com: Cheriemakesnoresponse.Parallelplaycontinues

Cherie’s dispreferred turn shape in line 4 is based on necessity “first we need to do it again”. Peter objects in a preferred turn shape (line 5) then accounts for his opposition by challenging the content of Cherie’s prior account (line 7). In this utterance, Peter corrects cherie’s version of the play script. cherie’s zero response and the continuing play indicates resolution.

Ob1.348 ADM: =iwannahaveaturn.9 PET: buti:’mnotfin(.)ishedye::t.=10 FEL: =yeah:. (0.6)11 PET: well.hh, (1.9)12 ADM: no:,=13 FEL: =no[:].14 ADM: [tha]t’salongtu:rn. (0.2)15 PET: i’vegotfourmoreminutes(left). (0.4)16 ADM: ((to FEL))noithinkhe’sgotfourmoreminutes¿

Peter’s early attempt to justify his refusal to let Adam use a toy car “I’m not finished yet” and his subsequent abandoned dispreferred turn (line 11) fails to satisfy Adam and Felicity. The account in Peter’s next turn addresses Adam’s objection (“that’s a long turn”) by specifying a restricted period of time after which he will relinquish the car, and presumably allow Adam to play with it (“I’ve got four minutes left”). This justification is validated by Adam: “he’s got four more minutes”.

Ob2.52 LOU: youdidit. (0.4)3 ELI: noididn’t?=4 LOU: =cozyouwere-(0.4)youwereputting(0.3)your (.)h:andsonit. (0.3)5 ELI: no.hhcoziwashelpingwithHilary. %act:LOUandELIstartrebuilding.

In Ob2.5, the adjacency pair of preferred turns (lines 2 and 3) is followed by a dispreferred turn shape produced by Louise (line 4). Elinor subsequently rejects the prior account and provides an alibi – she could not be held responsible for the

church Book.indb 155 13/01/2009 12:11:48


blocks falling down because she “was helping with Hilary”. This justification, describing concrete actions, is accepted by Louise (no further challenge) and the dispute is resolved.

Ob2.121 WIN: do:n’tyou’rewreckingeverything.2 LOU: welli’mtryingtogoround.3 LOU: 0((%act:knocksanothersetofblocks))4 WIN: DO:N’T!5 LOU: welli’mtryingtogetthroughandyouputso manythingshere. %com:WINmakesnofurthercomment.

In Ob2.12, Louise defends her first infringement (knocking over the block bridge) as unintentional “well I’m trying to go round”. In response to the next attack (line 4) louise points to Winnie’s role in the accident “you put so many things there” which successfully resolves the dispute.

The examples above illustrate that most accounts in final turns of resolved disputes are based on concrete entities of the play objects, play space, play script or play actions. the common feature of these properties is the transparency of the justification. That is, in each of the successful dispreferred turns above, the content of the account is visible or verifiable to the opposing party. These accounts are based on tangible properties, present in the interaction.

More abstract accounts were also implicated in resolution, although less frequently. epistemological claims, for example were used by children in Ob2 to secure resolution. In Ob2.14 below, Tom’s (actual) knowledge of how to read the time is tacitly accepted by don. in line 8, tom challenges don’s statement “it’s one o’clock” in a preferred turn format. His correction is only successful, however, when he provides a further account of the actual time (“ten o’clock”) in line 10.

Ob2.147 DON: [one]o’clo:ck(0.4)yea::h(.)it’soneo’clock. (0.2)8 TOM: noit’snot. (2.3)9 DON: (on(.)onthe)timeitsays-,10 TOM: it’snotthat’steno’clock. %act: ALI then draws DON’s attention back to the spaceshipplay.

Similarly, in that the justification is based on the speaker’s knowledge, a ‘truth’ account appears in Ob2.23.

church Book.indb 156 13/01/2009 12:11:48


Ob2.233 ROB: you’vegottahaveamuffinwith[me].4 NIG: [i]alreadyhad-, (0.4)5 SIM: i’vealreadyhadmi:ne? (0.4)6 NIG: i’ve>alreadyhadmorningtea<too¿ (1.3)7 NIG: wealreadyhadmorningtea:? (0.6)8 ROB: didnotNigel.9 NIG: yeahi↑did(0.2)>youdidn’t<seeus¿

rob challenges nigel and simon’s claims that they have already had morning tea (line 8). Nigel claims that Rob is not in a position to disbelieve them as he did not witness the event (an event that Simon and Nigel maintain has occurred). Importantly, Robert only accepts their claims once this account (“you didn’t see us”) has been made.

invoking behavioural norms or expectations of appropriate behaviour has been identified in the data as a justification used by children. This type of account was heard, although not frequently, in the closings of resolved disputes. in the two episodes below, references to expectations of appropriate behaviour secured acquiescence.

Ob1.81 JON: ohyougotmyone(.)xingit.2 TES: ↑no:wearesharingJohn?3 JON: no(0.3)noyougotmy↑blueone. (0.4)4 TES: butwe(0.3)but(0.5)butwearejustsharing. (0.8)5 TES: thatonegoesinthere[John].6 JON: [ººyeah]ohyeahcozºº-, (1.0)7 JON: ohyeahcoz.

The persuasiveness of mitigating dispreferred turn shapes is exemplified in Ob1.8. Tess invokes the sharing rule in her first opposition (line 2), but is only successful when she repeats this account in a marked turn shape (repetition of ‘but’ at the beginning of the utterance) and includes the modifier ‘just’. Notably, the plural pronoun ‘we’ (as in Ob1.2 above) is implicated in resolution of this episode. Also, the rule of sharing is produced as a description by tess rather than as a more direct (confronting) instruction (e.g. “you have to share”).

church Book.indb 157 13/01/2009 12:11:48


Ob2.41 JAK: oh(thenthetwoofuscan)doittoday?2 LOU: noicandoit¿ (0.2)3 JAK: NO:IWANNADoit. (0.5)4 JAK: thetheteachersaid↑iwilldoit. (0.3)5 LOU: no:w (.) i know which day (0.2) and i can do it¿=6 JAK: =icandoittoo. (0.6)7 LOU: no(.)iicandoit[I-], %act: pullingarrowfromJAK8 JAK: [it’s]gonnabreak>it’sgonnabreak<¿ (0.3)9 LOU: iknowbuti’mverygentle. %act:putsarrowonFriday %act:bothchildrenreturntocollaborativeplaywith connectorpieces.

each child’s turn in Ob2.4 is designed to establish their authority to put the arrow on the calendar. Jack upgrades his justification from “I wanna do it” to incorporating external validation of his claim “the teacher said i will do it”. louise persists in stating her ability (line 5 and 7) which is repeated by Jack (line 7). In response to Jack’s complaint that the arrow will break (line 8), Louise acknowledges this (“I know”) and promotes her ability to manage the situation (“but I’m very gentle”), underscoring the appropriate (and therefore defensible) quality of her actions. louise has possession of the arrow by this stage and places it on the calendar with no further objection from Jack.

Ownership accounts were similarly infrequent in dispreferred turns in the closings of resolved disputes. in the following two examples, ownership rights to objects (blocks, a car) are stated as accounts, although in Ob2.13 the claim is revoked as a mistake.


church Book.indb 158 13/01/2009 12:11:48


Peter’s dispreferred turn in line 3 (Ob1.21) is based on a necessity claim “we need”. cherie counters with another delayed, marked utterance which invokes ownership rights to particular blocks. given that there are enough blocks for both parties in this instance, cherie’s turn in line 4 is acknowledged and accepted by Peter in the subsequent turn.

Ob2.131 WIN: 0((%act:drivesacarontotheblocks))2 LOU: iwanttou:se(.)iwasusingthatcar. (0.4)3 WIN: noyouwereusingthatcar. (0.6)4 LOU: what? (0.8)5 WIN: thatcarthatyou’vegotalready¿ %com: Loumakesnoresponse

Winnie resolves the dispute Ob2.13 by clarifying which car louise was using i.e. challenging the content of Louise’s initial objection (line 2). An interesting feature of this initial objection is louise’s revision from basing her opposition on volition “i want to use” to claiming prior ownership “i was using that car”; an intra-utterance upgrade of accounts, discussed further below. Winnie points to the falsity of this second account and consequently settles the dispute.

On only one occasion in the data was an account based on personal desire heard in the final utterance of a resolved dispute. Noteworthy in this instance, however, is that the dislike is attributed to another party rather than claimed by the speaker himself. In Ob1.6 (below), Sam claims that John does not like pink (and consequently should be able to fish for red fish – exclusively). Importantly this claim is supported by a reference to equal distribution of fishing rights.

Ob1.61 SAM: Johnyougotared-(.)youhavetogetaredone (0.3)[youhavetopickupred.]2 TES: [no:ineedr]e:d(0.3)cozilikethatcolour aswell.3 JON: NO:¿4 SAM: no:. (1.0)5 TES: noilikethatcolouraswe:ll¿ (0.8)6 SAM: drop (0.2) (John’s got those) (0.7) you got thoseonesJohn’sgottheseones. (0.9)

church Book.indb 159 13/01/2009 12:11:48


7 TES: but(0.3)igotthreecozineed(1.3)thatmany. (1.6)8 SAM: but then (0.4) John will have three (0.3) and you don’t like pinkdoyouJohn. (0.9)9 JON: hmm(0.3)no. (4.4) %com: TESmakesnofurtherattemptattopic.

Whilst the summary of analysis above has a quantitative appearance, it is the distribution of accounts rather than the frequency of occurrence which is of primary interest. the features of each turn have been considered in relationship to the outcome of the dispute. in other words, the examples above have been used to demonstrate specific qualities of dispreferred turn shapes in the closings of resolved disputes, for the purpose of identifying an organising principle of influence.

Dispreferred turn shapes, however, are not limited to final utterances of resolved disputes. Having discussed the types of accounts which appear in resolved sequences, our attention turns to justifications used by the children which fail to persuade their playmates. Specifically, where dispreferred turns are followed by preferred turn shapes. are particular types of accounts more likely to precede a restart of overt conflict? If certain types of accounts are prevalent in resolved disputes, are different types of accounts found in earlier stages of disputes, or in adversative interaction which is abandoned or closed through teacher intervention?

Accounts preceding preferred turn shapes

the effectiveness of concrete accounts has been demonstrated, as most disputes are resolved through dispreferred turns incorporating tangible, verifiable or quantifiable justifications. Conversely, more abstract types of accounts, particularly those which are based on personal volition, are less frequent in the final sequences of resolved disputes. this suggests that properties of objects, play space or play script are more likely to function as successful accounts. if this assumption holds, we would expect to see fewer of these types of accounts in the early stages of all arguments and in the closings of unresolved episodes. Moreover, the fact that accounts based on personal volition are scarce in the closings of resolved disputes, suggests that they may appear elsewhere in unpersuasive turns.

the examples in this section appear throughout the data in all types of disputes (resolved and unresolved). As the sequences of utterances remain the analytical focus, our attention is directed to types of accounts produced in dispreferred turns which precede preferred turn shapes. that is, are particular types of accounts unsuccessful, not only in failing to persuade the other party, but by prompting a reversion to overt opposition displayed in preferred turn shape? are certain

church Book.indb 160 13/01/2009 12:11:48


accounts more likely to reignite the conflict rather than move towards some sort of mutually acceptable outcome?

firstly, it is noted that the types of accounts heard in the closing stages of resolved disputes are not always successful. in the following abandoned episode (Ob1.15), for example, a justification based on properties of the object under dispute is rejected by the subsequent speaker.

Ob1.155 PET: but[butcanihave]thisone?6 ADM: [thatthat-], (0.2)7 ADM: nocozthatone’slittletinyand(.)it’sgot .hhh little pieces (0.3) .hhh and you might chokeonthem(0.4).hhh[and]it’s(0.2)and there’sasharpthinguptheback.8 RON: [what-], (1.1)9 SAM: that’s a tow bar that’s what that’s called a [towbar].10 ADM: [yeahbut]butah(0.2)cozidon’thavea-but idon’thaveatrai:ler. (0.6)11 SAM: itdoesn’tmatterifyoudon’thaveatrailer .hhhh[cozit’stooxxx.]12 PET: [nobuti:]buti:want(.)oneofthose. (1.2)13 ADM: yeahbuti(.)butidon’thaveanymore. (1.3)14 PET: butwhichonecanihavethen. (1.0)15 ADM: (ihave)nothingforyou. (0.4)16 PET: why:. (2.3)17 SAM: ((to PET))makewithme! (0.2)18 PET: ↑oka:y i will make with (0.2) Sam then ((to ADM))iwon’tbeyourfriendanymore¿ (0.4)19 PET: ((to SAM))nowcanihavethatone? (0.9)20 SAM: hereyougo.((gives car to PET))@End

church Book.indb 161 13/01/2009 12:11:48


in Ob1.15 adam defends his refusal to let Peter use a car by referring to properties of the object itself which make it unsuitable (line 7). Following a side sequence between adam and sam about tow bars and trailers, Peter counters with an account based on personal volition in line 12 (“but I want one of those”). Adam’s delayed response claims that he has no more cars to give to other children. When Adam does not respond to Peter’s request for further information (line 16), Peter accepts Sam’s offer (line 17) and issues a parting threat to Adam (who makes no response).

in Ob1.15, although adam’s account in line 7 is rejected by Peter, this rejection is not performed in preferred turn shape. However, property accounts do sometimes appear as first pair parts to preferred turn shape second pair parts.

Ob2.202 ROB: heythat’smineGary:. (1.2)3 GAR: it’sjustalittleone¿ (0.2)4 ROB: heydon’t! (1.5)5 GAR: youdidn’tseeit(.)that[xxifyoucan]the (fishy)onethis(.)((singsong voice))eenymeeny mineymoo(0.2)catchatigerbythetoe(.)if youholler[[lethimgoeenymeenyminey]]moo,6 ROB: [no::(giveit)back]! %act:takespiecefromGAR’sconstruction7 ROB: [[youcan’ttakeitFROMSOMEONEELSE]]! (0.9)8 ROB: thisismine¿ (0.7)9 GAR: then(youcan’t)cometomyparty.

In Ob2.20, Rob’s objection that Gary has taken a piece that belongs to him (“that’s mine”) is met with the justified opposition “it’s just a little one” (line 3). This is immediately responded to with a preferred turn shape from rob. subsequently the episode reaches a stalemate of exchanged threats.

Properties of the play script were also rejected as persuasive accounts in the following two disputes. In Ob1.20, Luke rejects Peter’s prior account (“but this is where the sun is”) by pushing his hand away (line 5), which Peter subsequently responds to with a preferred turn shape. in Ob1.32, sam opposes Koyo’s version of the play script (“the show is finished”). Koyo repeats this justification as a form of opposition throughout the episode.

church Book.indb 162 13/01/2009 12:11:49


Ob1.203 LUK: no:you’redrawingonthemoo::n.=4 PET: =butthisiswherethesunis. (1.9)5 LUK: 0((%act:pushesPET’shandaway))

Ob1.324 KOY: theshowisfinished(0.4)Samthe(.).hhhshow isfinished↑Samyoucan’t-(0.2)[nowyou],5 SAM: [noea]ngh::.((whines))

In the following two examples (appearing in disputes resolved by the teacher – Ob1.14 – and by the participants – Ob1.7), an account based on the speaker’s defence of his own actions is rejected outright by the opposing party. throughout Ob1.14, Sam’s repeated account (“I was trying to balance it”), identifying his actions as unintentional, is consistently met with preferred turn shapes from luke. in Ob1.7, tess claims rights to the boxes used in the magnet game because she is “doing fishing”, an account met with nonverbal rejection by Sam (as he takes back the boxes).

Ob1.143 LUK: [o]:hYOUDIDTHA:T!=4 SAM: =iwastryingtobal[anceit].5 LUK: [tstoh]oh[ohohno:].((whining))6 SAM: [iwastryingtobalance]i:t.=7 LUK: =NAUGHTY!

Ob1.76 TES: but(0.3)iamdoingfishing.7 SAM: 0((%act:SAMsucceedsinreclaimingtheboxes)) (0.6)

accounts based on concrete properties of objects, play script and actions, therefore, are not always successful in securing resolution. the frequency of distribution of this type of account, however, is of fundamental importance. this type of account appeared in the majority of final dispreferred turns in resolved disputes. Conversely, this type of account was least common in eliciting a preferred response (i.e. re-initiation of overt conflict) throughout all disputes. Other types of accounts are more likely to be met with unmarked opposition.

Justifications based on factual or epistemological claims, for example, were more often than not promptly rejected. in Ob2.7, although caroline’s response occurs after a delay (1.2 seconds), the content of Elinor’s prior claim is overtly challenged.

church Book.indb 163 13/01/2009 12:11:49


Ob2.78 ELI: iknowsheis(.)butthat’saboy(.)iknowthat. %com: referringtodoll (1.2)9 CAZ: girlscanhaveshorthair.

In another abandoned dispute (Ob2.19), Gary’s preferred opposition (“no”) in line 2 follows a claim made by simon that he witnessed some objectionable action (epistemological account). The interaction then moves to a series of exchanged threats.

Ob2.191 SIM: Gary:(0.5)thisafterno:onisawyouputthe(xx). (0.7)2 GAR: n:o:.

in Ob2.3, gary’s claim that he is going home before lunch, is directly contradicted by Tom (“no you aren’t”). It should be noted that leaving before lunch is an unusual occurrence in this child care centre.

Ob2.36 GAR: I’mgoingbefo:relunch. (1.0)7 TOM: noyouare::n’t.

in Ob1.25, Koyo’s objection to sam taking the car is based on a claim to prior ownership (“it’s mine” and “I was using it”). Sam accounts for his actions by explaining that he was under the impression the Koyo was no longer using the car, an impression corrected by Koyo in subsequent turns. this epistemological account (line 4 etc.) is inherently subjective, relying on Sam’s perception of the availability of the toy. notably, the interaction breaks down as both boys persist in repeating their prior objection.

Ob1.251 SAM: 0 ((%act: picks up a car that KOY had been using))2 KOY: it’smi::ne. (0.9)3 KOY: iwasus[ingit-],4 SAM: [BUTi]thoughtyouweren’tusingi:t,=5 KOY: =i’m using it (0.3) i wanna- (.) tha[t’s (mine)].6 SAM: [ithoughtyou]weren’tusingi::t.=7 KOY: =iwanna(.)but(.)iwas-thatwasmi:ne.

church Book.indb 164 13/01/2009 12:11:49


8 SAM: but↑ithoughtyouweren’tusingi:t.9 YYY: ((to SAM))wellithinkhestillis¿

epistemological accounts were also rejected in two instances in the early stages of resolved disputes. in Ob1.13, Koyo immediately challenges the claim of third-party permission made by Adam (line 3).

Ob1.131 ADM: 0((%act:drivesduplocartowardsgarage))2 KOY: nobig↑cars! (2.4)3 ADM: yeahbutLukesaidicanºcomeinº.4 KOY: Luke(doesn’thave)bigcars.

in Ob2.23, robert negates nigel and simon’s prior claims that they have already had morning tea (truthful claim). As Nigel subsequently points to the fact that Robert is not in a position to contradict him (because he did not see them eat morning tea), the dispute is brought to an end.

Ob2.231 ROB: Nige::l(.)(comeandhavea)muffinwithme. (0.4)2 NIG: what? (0.2)3 ROB: you’vegottahaveamuffinwith[me].4 NIG: [i]alreadyhad-, (0.4)5 SIM: i’vealreadyhadmi:ne? (0.4)6 NIG: i’ve>alreadyhadmorningtea<too¿ (1.3)7 NIG: wealreadyhadmorningtea:? (0.6)8 ROB: didnotNigel.9 NIG: yeahi↑did(0.2)>youdidn’t<seeus¿ %act:ROBwalksofftohavemorningtea.

accounts based on appeals to acceptable/permissible behaviour were also responded to with overt (preferred) opposition in the data. In Ob1.11 Nancy’s turn invoking an obligation to share is met with a preferred (although delayed)1 response from cherie, prompting a cycle of preferred turns throughout the remaining dispute.

1 delay may be accounted for in this instance by prior opposition made by felicity, i.e. next-speaker selection is not automatic or straightforward in multiparty disputes.

church Book.indb 165 13/01/2009 12:11:49


Ob1.1111 NAN: youhavetosha:re(.)don’tgetaway. (1.2)12 CHE: we(.)↑a:re↓.

in Ob1.12, adam’s protest in line 6 is based on the rule of sharing. this turn, and his following upgrade in line 8 (stating the rule is imposed by the teacher), is met with overt (shouted) opposition by Luke (lines 7 and 9). The episode then breaks down to a series of repeated short utterances, until adam abandons his attempts to join the group.

Ob1.121 LUK: againstthewall? (0.7)2 ADM: noyouneedtomakea↑hu:gehouse. (0.3)3 LUK: we’reno:t. (0.9)4 LUK: noneforA-(.)noneforAdams. (0.2)5 SAM: no.6 ADM: youHAFtaSHARE. (0.6)7 LUK: NO:? (0.6)8 ADM: yeahbuttheteachersays(0.4)“share”. (0.5)9 LUK: NO:? (0.2)10 ADM: <YESshedoes>. (0.6)11 LUK: [no:]?12 KOY: [i’mmak]ingagarage. (0.6)13 ADM: Y[ES:].

in Ob2.21, nigel’s opposition is based on the centre’s rule that outside play cannot begin until a teacher has moved outside (which has already occurred in this instance, witnessed by simon but not by nigel). following a request for clarification (presumably Simon did not hear Nigel’s utterance in line 2), Simon opposes nigel’s admonition outright.

church Book.indb 166 13/01/2009 12:11:49


Ob2.211 SIM: i’mgoingoutsi:de. (0.3)2 NIG: noyou’renotallowedto¿ (1.0)3 SIM: wha:t? (0.3)4 NIG: you’renotallowedtogooutside,5 SIM: yea:h¿ (0.3)6 NIG: noyou’renot,7 SIM: ia::m? %act: SIMopensdoorandgoesoutside.

in Ob2.20 rob’s utterance in line 7 is also unsuccessful, although it is not met with immediate opposition, because the behaviour rule is ignored by gary.

Ob2.206 ROB: [no::(giveit)back]! %act:takespiecefromGAR’sconstruction7 ROB: [[youcan’ttakeitFROMSOMEONEELSE]]!

in Ob1.17, adam objects to Peter taking all the blocks by invoking the rule of sharing (line 7), which is explicitly rejected by Peter in the next turn. Adam repeats this account throughout the dispute and Peter invariably responds with the most direct form of opposition, using the single word ‘no’. Adam’s final shouted objection (prior to bursting into tears) claims that the blocks do not belong to Peter.

Ob1.176 PET: i’mgonnagetallofthese(0.4)littleblocks,= %act: PETstartsremovingblocksfromshelf.7 ADM: =yeahbutYOUHAVETOSHARE. (1.5)8 PET: but we’re not gonna share with our toys [are we¿]((this directedtoSAMandKOY))9 ADM: [yeahbut]you[HAVEto].10 KOY: [>wedon’twanttoshare]with[you<.]11 PET: [NO.] (0.2)12 KOY: no. (0.5)

church Book.indb 167 13/01/2009 12:11:49


13 ADM: yeahBUTYOUHAVETO. (0.8)14 PET: no. (0.3)15 ADM: .hhNOBUTYOUHAVETOSHARE. (1.1)16 KOY: NO. %act: PETandKOYstarttakingblocksfromthefloor thatADMhastakenfromtheshelf. (0.6)17 PET: yeahwe’vegotallofour-, %act: takesmoreblocks. (1.3)18 ADM: THEYARENOTYOU:RBLOCKS. %act: PETandKOYcontinuetotakeADM’sblocks. (0.4)19 ADM: ifyou(0.6)(that)(.)NO:.((starts to cry)) %yyy: teacherintervenes,sayingtoobserver“Somebody needsasleeptoday”.

In two resolved episodes, behavioural accounts (invoking rules/norms of comportment) failed to persuade the other party in the earlier stages of the dispute. in Ob2.1, in response to Miranda’s claim that the plastic lids are not distributed equally (“because you’ve got lots there”) which indirectly invokes the rule of sharing, caroline restates her refusal to give any of her lids to Miranda.

Ob2.13 CAZ: no:(0.3)(I’vegotthese).4 MIR: thengiveonetomeCarolinebecauseyou’vegot lotsthere. (1.0)5 CAZ: i’mnotgivinganyofthesetoyou¿

In Ob2.25, Paul’s complaint (line 8) rests on the charge of Jim cheating and the claim that Paul needs a block. This utterance and the (delayed) accompanying action (pulling the blocks apart) are overtly opposed by Jim. The dispute is subsequently resolved by Paul stating a compromise.

Ob2.256 JIM: 0((%act:pushestherampstogether))7 PAU: ↑heyyou’remakingitdiffere::nt. (0.3)8 PAU: you’rech↑eati:ngineedo:ne.((whining))

church Book.indb 168 13/01/2009 12:11:49


9 PAU: 0((%act:pullsblocksapart))(2.3)10 JIM: o::y:.

More frequent in the data were examples of ownership accounts (claiming (prior) rights to objects or play space) followed by preferred turn shapes. Whilst this type of account was only heard twice in the closings of resolved disputes, dispreferred turns incorporating these accounts were typically rejected overtly by the next speaker. On two occasions in the data, the account referred to rights to play space.

Ob2.95 PAU: 0((%act:continuestotouchblocks))6 LOU: do:n’t! (1.1)7 PAU: youcanstill(.)fixit¿ (1.1)8 LOU: ((to WIN))Paul’sspoiling-(0.3)((to PAU))we wereherefi:rst. (0.5)9 PAU: wewereherefirst. (0.4)10 PAU: xx[xxx]11 LOU: [we(need)]the-,12 LOU: wewere-offyougobecausewewereherefirst! (3.4)13 LOU: you’rewreckingeverything. %act: PAUmovesawayfromblockarea.

at the beginning of Ob2.9 louise makes continued objections to Paul’s nonverbal behaviour (he is touching what Louise and Winnie have made with wooden blocks). Louise’s first account is produced in line 8, claiming prior rights to the play space, countered with a repeat from Paul “we were here first”. Louise abandons her next attempt, “we need” and reverts to telling Paul to leave because “we were here first”. Paul gives up and moves away. in Ob2.2 below, Miranda’s claim of ownership is immediately rejected by Jake (line 8).

Ob2.27 MIR: [butthat]wasourfairy[spaceship].8 JAK: [no::]!

elsewhere, ownership claims rejected by the opposing party referred to objects under dispute. in Ob2.7, for example, caroline’s ownership claim is responded to with a short, direct counter-claim by elinor.

church Book.indb 169 13/01/2009 12:11:49


Ob2.711 CAZ: nothat’smine(igotmi:ne)mine! (0.4)12 ELI: it’s mine.

in Ob1.4, in response to tess’ claim that “everybody” is entitled to sing the ‘Barbie song’, Hilary’s objects that the song is hers to sing if she wants to, repeating in the subsequent turn that “it’s my song” (line 3). This prompts a counter claim from tess that the song belongs to her, not Hilary. throughout the remaining dispute this claim is repeated by the girls in short turns with increasing volume (on Tess’ part).

Ob1.41 TES: everybodycansingit(0.5)notjustyou:? (4.6)2 HIL: wellisingmysongifiwant. (1.7)3 HIL: it’smy:so:ng¿4 TES: it’smysongtoo:andit’snotyoursong. (0.2)5 HIL: itismysong. (0.5)6 TES: NOTYOUR:SONG. (0.6)7 TES: EENGHH ((screeches in frustration)) .hhh (.) IT’SNOTYOURSONGHilary. (1.5)8 YYY: Tessareyouokay?

in Ob2.8, Winnie rejects Paul’s continued ownership claims. Paul upgrades his account of prior ownership by specifying the period in which the object was in his possession. Winnie immediately contradicts this claim (line 9). Paul’s response is to resort to a tell-authority threat.

Ob2.81 WIN: i’vegotagreatideawhatwecandowiththis¿ (2.5)2 PAU: giveittome!3 WIN: i[foundit].4 PAU: [noi-](.)noihadi:t.5 WIN: ifoundit¿6 PAU: noihaditawhileag[o]?7 WIN: [no]. (0.5)

church Book.indb 170 13/01/2009 12:11:50


8 PAU: ihaditawhileago.=9 WIN: =noyoudid[n’t].10 PAU: [well]i’mtellingonyou. (0.7)11 WIN: excuseme[Y]YY.12 PAU: [no]13 PAU: umCarolinegaveittome. %com: Carolineisnotpresentintheplay (0.5)14 WIN: excuseme[YYY].15 PAU: [Caroline]gaveittome. %yyy: teacherintervenesbutresponseisinaudible.

Overwhelmingly, however, accounts based on the speaker’s volition prove to be the least effectual. Personal accounts (based on the speaker’s wants, needs or (dis)likes) are predominantly met with a preferred turn shape from the opposing party, and subsequently are much more likely to promote rather than resolve conflict. Most of these personal accounts invoke ‘need’ as the reason for opposition. the exigency may be attributed reflexively to the speaker (“I need”), to the other party (“you need”) or as an inclusive attempt to engage the opposee (“we need”). Most examples represent a collective ‘need’, comprising both parties. for example, in Ob1.33, Peter objects outrightly to cherie’s claim that they “need” to return to the beginning of the pretend play script. He later accounts for this opposition (successfully) by explaining that they have “already been near the start”.

Ob1.332 CHE: [↑no](0.3)there’snobabyinthisone.3 PET: ye:sit’s[xx],4 CHE: [no](0.2)coz(0.2)firstweneedtodoitagain (0.3)atthe start. (1.9)5 PET: no::.6 CHE: (goesthere). (0.9)7 PET: no::we’vealreadybeen(near)thestart. %com: Cheriemakesnoresponse.Parallelplaycontinues

in Ob1.31, sam complains that he wants to add more ‘carrots’ to the mixture. this is opposed by Adam’s account that adding more corks (not ‘carrots’ in Adam’s version of the play script) is unnecessary. sam objects almost immediately (overlapping with Koyo’s turn). This exchange is followed by a series of preferred turn shapes, ultimately interrupted by the teacher.

church Book.indb 171 13/01/2009 12:11:50


Ob1.314 SAM: º(iwanttoput)somemoreofthoseinº. (0.6)5 ADM: nowedon’tneedtoputcorksin.=6 KOY: =excusem[e:].7 SAM: [no]they’refood(0.7)they[‘re]carro[ts.]8 ADM: [no],9 KOY: [>put](them)in<.10 ADM: nothey’renot. (0.2)11 SAM: they’recarrots! (0.4)12 KOY: look(0.2)they’recarrots. (0.4)13 SAM: ((to teacher))they’renot[xxx].14 JON: AHH:HA.15 YYY: whoopsie(you)droppedthefood. (1.4)16 SAM: ((to teacher))<he’snotlettingmeput->,17 KOY: excuseme[xxx].18 YYY: [talkto]yourfriendstalktoyourfriends.

In Ob1.12, Adam’s first turn (line 2) is based on a claim of necessity, in an attempt to direct the play. luke’s response is made in preferred turn shape, a prompt rejection of adam’s suggestion.

Ob1.121 LUK: againstthewall? (0.7)2 ADM: noyouneedtomakea↑hu:gehouse. (0.3)3 LUK: we’reno:t.

in Ob2.25, Paul’s complaint, challenging the ‘cheat’ of Jim’s actions, is accompanied by the plea “i need one”. this claim and the accompanying action are overtly challenged by Jim (line 10).

Ob2.258 PAU: you’rech↑eati:ngineedo:ne.((whining))9 PAU: 0((%act:pullsblocksapart))(2.3)10 JIM: o::y:.

tess’ stance in Ob1.6 is unusual in that she incorporates two volition accounts in a single utterance (line 2). The immediate, bald rejection made by both John

church Book.indb 172 13/01/2009 12:11:50


and sam, applies to the turn as a whole and could address either account as objectionable. interestingly, however, in this turn, the ‘liking’ serves as the account for the opposition.

Ob1.62 TES: [no:ineedr]e:d(0.3)cozilikethatcolour aswell.3 JON: NO:¿4 SAM: no:.

like or dislike typically appears in sequences as an account which is met with direct opposition (preferred turn shape). Only in Ob 1.6 (above) does the speaker refer to personal appreciation as a form of justification. Each other instance invokes dislike as an account for opposition and is expressed in the first person. On one occasion (Ob1.6) this type of account is attributed to another speaker, but is heard in the closing of a resolved dispute rather than preceding continuing conflict.

in Ob2.11, fred’s antipathy is expressed through the more forceful “hate”. This account for getting rid of the helmet (having thrown it out of the play area) is rejected by Paul as a justification for his (objectionable) actions.

Ob2.113 FRE: ihatethishelmet.=4 PAU: =youcan’teventhrowemout.

An expression of hatred is also used by Elinor in Ob2.7, (upgraded from a prior account of “i don’t like”). these utterances are not met with preferred verbal responses, but instead are ignored by her play partner caroline.

Ob2.717 CAZ: no:there’sanothergirl¿ (0.2)18 ELI: butidon’tlikethatgirl. (6.8)19 ELI: youcan’thavetwogirls.((petulant tone)) (0.7)20 ELI: wellthat’stheboyandihateboys. (1.1)

In Ob1.31, Sam uses the expression “I don’t like that” (line 23). It should be noted that this utterance is not a response to sam or Koyo’s immediately prior turns, but rather follows the teacher’s advice in line 18. this utterance and the accompanying action, however, (he is trying to add more ‘carrots’ to the mixing bowl) is opposed immediately by adam.

church Book.indb 173 13/01/2009 12:11:50


Ob1.3116 SAM: ((to teacher))<he’snotlettingmeput->,17 KOY: excuseme[xxx].18 YYY: [talkto]yourfriendstalktoyourfriends.19 SAM: 0((%act:againtriestoputcarrotsinbowl))20 ADM: that’s[got]them.21 SAM: ehh.22 KOY: thisone’s[mine].23 SAM: [i(.)don’t](.)likethat¿=24 ADM: =NOTHAT’SYYY’s.

‘Wanting’ is similarly rejected in the data as a weak account, failing to persuade the opposing party. In Ob1.4, Tess effectively ignores the justification made by Tess (line 2) and pursues instead the ownership claim.

Ob1.42 HIL: wellisingmysongifiwant. (1.7)3 HIL: it’smy:so:ng¿4 TES: it’smysongtoo:andit’snotyoursong.

This account (“I want”) is similarly ignored by Caroline in Ob2.7, as she addresses Elinor’s subsequent claim that she (Caroline) has both the ‘girl’ dolls.

Ob2.714 ELI: iwannahave(.)agir:l(0.4)iwannahaveaone ↑girl. (0.7)15 ELI: you’vegottwo:gi:rls. (0.4)16 ELI: (you’vegot)boththegirls. (0.3)17 CAZ: no:there’sanothergirl¿

although seemingly performed in dispreferred turn shape, sam’s challenge in line 8 (Ob1.10) is an inverted repeat of Tess’ prior account for opposition. Both claims are disregarded and the play breaks down.

Ob1.107 TES: well Milly (0.5) Milly wants to have a turn (0.2)((then to MIL))do[n’tyou].8 SAM: [welli:]wanttohaveaturn? (1.3)

church Book.indb 174 13/01/2009 12:11:50


9 JON: well (0.9) WELL (0.7) NObody can have (.) my fishingrod. (2.0)10 TES: ((to MIL))Mil-(.)i’mgonnasharemy:fishingrod. (0.8)11 JON: well(0.4)i’mgoingtoshareminewithSam. (1.6)12 JON: ((to girls))notyou.

it has already been mentioned that the categories of accounts proposed above were not designed for prescriptive or quantitative analysis, but rather have provided a framework for discussion. sequences of utterances have been reviewed in this chapter to determine possible influences on the development of disputes. Specifically, the components of turns preceding resolution or re-initiation of conflict have been analysed, and the quality of accounts has proven to be responded to in particular ways by the children. Earlier in the analysis, accounts were identified as fundamental properties of dispreferred turn shape, and the type of account is implicated in the form and force of the response.

Whilst it has been shown that certain types of accounts are more persuasive (e.g. referring to properties of objects) or more likely to be followed by overt opposition (e.g. accounts based on personal volition), something should be said of a general principle operating throughout the disputes. analysis of the proposed categories of accounts has generated findings that illustrate broader or generic influences of justifications for opposition. Essentially, by studying different types of accounts, a continuum of objectivity has been discovered.

Continuum of objectivity

throughout this chapter, an inverse distribution of types of accounts and outcomes has been identified. That is, where opposition is based on a justification which refers to properties of objects, play space or play script, resolution is the most likely outcome. conversely these types of accounts are least likely to be followed with overt opposition (preferred turn shape). At the other extreme, accounts based on personal volition (e.g. “I want”) are overwhelmingly responded to with a direct challenge from the opposing party, and almost never implicated in resolution of disputes. a hierarchy of accounts appears to be operating in the children’s disputes, from most frequently implicated in resolution at the top to least at the bottom.

Figure 6.1 illustrates the finding that concrete entities are more likely to secure resolution than factual claims, that factual claims are more effective than challenges invoking behavioural obligations, and so forth, where each account type has proven to be more persuasive than the next. this ranking can be seen as representing degrees of persuasiveness. importantly, this hierarchy does not only operate in relationship to resolution. in inverse order, each category of account

church Book.indb 175 13/01/2009 12:11:50


is more likely to be met with a preferred turn shape from the opposing party. Justifications such as “I want” (personal volition) are typically responded to with brief and direct objections. invoking ownership rights is the next most likely to be met with overt opposition, and so forth. the order, therefore, represents both a gradation of likelihood of resolution, and inversely, the continuation of conflict.

from this hierarchy of accounts, a governing rule emerges. throughout the analysis, the five categories of accounts have been imposed as a framework for investigation; if these categories are removed (to avoid imposed constructs), an overriding pattern emerges. the gradation of persuasiveness or effectiveness presented in figure 6.1 reveals a paradigm of relative objectivity as an organising principle. in other words, the hierarchy of accounts can be considered in terms of the objectivity of the justification, where objectivity relates to the properties of the referent. the more real, actual or tangible the account, the more likely the utterance will lead to resolution. Conversely, the more subjective or reflexive the account, the more likely the dispute will re-ignite.

Qualities of objects or play space are concrete, real entities, and, as such, are openly verifiable to all parties. Factual claims are also palpable (e.g. “it’s ten o’clock”), but because such a claim is not always open to immediate authentication by the opposing party, the account proves less effective (less objective) than when the referent is a physically present wooden block or toy car. in turn, accounts based

properties of objects, play space or play script

epistemological/factual claims

behavioural obligations

ownership rights

personal volition

Figure 6.1 Continuum of account objectivity

church Book.indb 176 13/01/2009 12:11:50


on behavioural expectations refer to a collective norm, but are acceded to in a subjective manner. that is, ‘sharing’ is a universal rule, but the application of the rule allows for individual interpretation.

continuing down the scale of objectivity, ownership rights are also subjective and fluid in the preschool classroom, as most objects do not actually belong to any of the children. Use of an object establishes ownership (possession is perhaps greater than nine tenths of the law!) yet claiming prior possession or shared object rights is open to debate. finally, the least objective or most subjective of the accounts identified in the data refer to personal desire (want, need, like or dislike) as the justification is wholly based on the speaker’s internal motivation.

a criticism could be levelled at the type of analysis presented in this chapter, as a preoccupation with content does not appear to follow conversation analytic principles, and the categories of accounts proposed purely for the purpose of description of data (Chapter 4) appear here as analytic categories. That said, the analysis of dispreferred turns presented here rests on their sequential positioning in the discourse, and their relevance both to the subsequent turn, the immediately prior turn and the turns at talk that precede in this sequence.

importantly, i am not making claims about these accounts proving effective; they are shown to be so by the children’s responses to the dispreferred turn. claims are made on the basis of how these particular turns with particular accounts are attended to by the children themselves. certainly, how these accounts are collectively grouped is open to challenge, as these categories are not proscribed by the participants, but the responses remain transparent for the analyst as realised by the participants themselves.

considering accounts in terms of objectivity of the referent, frees the analysis from assigning fixed categories, categories which are not organically derived. Objectivity or subjectivity, however, are wholly recognisable to the children themselves. indeed it is possible cognizance of the claim which serves as the property of persuasiveness. Where the account refers to something visible or verifiable it is more likely to be effective in persuading the opposing party. It should be emphasised that this hierarchical principle operates as a continuum between objectivity and subjectivity (rather than an either/or nomination). The more objective the account, the more likely it is to promote or result in resolution in subsequent turns.

relative objectivity is found not only across different types of accounts but within the variant performances (i.e. form) of the account. For example, the property of an object is a more tangible referent than an account based on features of the play script (as these features are negotiable). This is exemplified in the following two extracts; Koyo’s version of events proves ineffectual (Ob1.32), whereas Sam’s detailed defence based a highly specific description of suitability (he is allowed to return a cylinder to the shelf because it is not technically a block) stumps luke into submission (Ob1.19). These examples illustrate the lesser influence of less objective accounts. in Ob1.32 Koyo fails to stop sam from opening the ‘stage’ doors by claiming that “the show is finished”, according to his version of the play

church Book.indb 177 13/01/2009 12:11:51


script. Conversely, Sam’s justification in Ob1.19 is essentially irrefutable, given that he states the palpable property of the object.

Ob1.324 KOY: theshowisfinished(0.4)Samthe(.).hhhshow isfinished↑Samyoucan’t-(0.2)[nowyou],5 SAM: [noea]ngh::.((whines))

Ob1.193 LUK: isawyou:putoneaway¿=4 SAM: =thatdoesn’tmattercozitwasn’tablockit wasacylinder.

similarly the subject or agent of the account operates on a continuum of objectivity, ranging from the collective pronoun ‘we’ as relatively objective when compared to ‘I’ as most subjective. The influence of objectivity is reflected in the comparative effectiveness of subject pronouns in the data. Whilst referring to ownership is essentially a subjective justification and subsequently does not usually secure acquiescence, evidence in the data suggests that a plural subject is more persuasive than insisting in the first person singular.

Ob1.214 CHE: butbutdon’ttakeo:urs. (0.5)5 PET: nowewon’t.

Ob1.45 HIL: itismysong. (0.5)6 TES: NOTYOUR:SONG.

the ranking of effectiveness in terms of objectivity of account is therefore evident across and within the provisional categories of accounts, and as such serves as a comprehensive and unifying feature of justifications used in the children’s arguments. the gradation of objectivity is perhaps most clearly observed in different types of threats, as discussed below. elsewhere, the relative strength or weakness of accounts is manifested in extended sequences, where upgrading or downgrading is apparent.

Objectivity in threats

a continuum of objectivity also holds across varieties of threats. threats produced in the final utterances of disputes led either to outright resolution (submission of one party) or abandonment (dissolution of collaborative play); so outcomes

church Book.indb 178 13/01/2009 12:11:51


may at first appear random. The dispute could go either way: be resolved abruptly or collapse. interpreted through a paradigm of objectivity, however, persuasive threats are identifiable.

Elsewhere, categories of threats are defined by the outcome proposed by the speaker, e.g. withhold action/object (Benoit, 1983). If, however, the content of the threat is considered in terms of relative objectivity an interesting finding presents itself. in earlier parts of the analysis, the majority of threats in dispute closings were identified as promising to withhold desirable objects or rights (a threat of physical harm appeared in the final turns of only one dispute – Ob2.10). Threats to withhold incorporated a restricted set of entities: a petrol truck (“I won’t let you have a turn on the petrol truck”), invitations to the speaker’s birthday party (“you can’t come to my party”), and friendship (“I won’t be your friend anymore”).

Of these three referents, access to the petrol truck and access to birthday parties are concrete entities, whilst friendship is subject to individual interpretation. as such, it could be proposed that the more subjective the punishment inherent in promising to remove or withhold friendship, the less persuasive the threat. Where these friendship threats are produced, the episode is either abandoned or closed through teacher intervention. conversely, birthday party threats appearing at the end of episodes secure resolution. it could be inferred that attending a peer’s birthday party is prized above being their friend, but the prior analysis of accounts in typical dispreferred turn shapes implicates objectivity as relevant to outcome.

the concept of relative objectivity is further supported by the examples of compromise heard in the data. in chapter 5, the effectiveness of compromises in securing resolution of conflict was discussed. These turns which acknowledge and incorporate the wishes of both parties were identified as non-opposition, as the turn was designed to appease rather than oppose the prior speaker. However, in terms of acknowledging the other speaker’s point of view, compromises can be identified at the positive extreme of a continuum of objectivity. A compromise acknowledges the position or perspective of the other speaker, and consequently is antithetical to subjective justification for opposition.

Essentially, the more objective a justification for opposition, the more likely it is to successfully persuade or placate the other party. This claim at first appears intuitively simple. However, it is through the microanalysis of turns at talk facilitated by a conversation analytic approach to the data that this conclusion is supported.

Upgrading/downgrading in dispute sequences

Perhaps the idea of a continuum of objectivity in justifications for opposition is best viewed through extended sequences of interaction. In adjacency pairs (across different episodes) a hierarchy of persuasiveness is not directly discernable. the building of turns in disputes, however, provides an opportunity to see an upgrading or downgrading of accounts. although there is not a constant trend in either

church Book.indb 179 13/01/2009 12:11:51


direction in all disputes (speakers may provide accounts of varying objectivity in varying order) the tendency for upgrading to occur in resolved disputes and downgrading to occur prior to a breakdown in play merits further consideration.

Upgrading

On the assumption that a hierarchy of accounts is based on objectivity, upgrading consists of subsequent accounts whose referent is increasingly objective. in other words, each speaker’s new turn is justified by an entity which is more concrete (less dependent on the speaker’s own perspective) than his or her previous turn. For example, in Ob1.16 below, the accounts move from want (line 2) to need (line 3), to obligation (line 5). Although Adam reverts to his earlier justification of wanting to make crèche (line 8), Sam’s response upgrades to the more tangible, authoritative claim of ownership, as he originally built the bridge (line 9). The upgrading continues to the final utterances which refer to concrete properties of the object (the bridge and the river flowing beneath the bridge).

Ob1.161 ADM: howboutwemakecreche:.2 SAM: iwannamakearoad(.)andyou:r(0.2)rocket (0.2)isunderit. (0.7)3 ADM: yeahbut(0.6)weneedthose(.).hhhcoz(0.2) .hhthisis-(0.2)howboutwemakecrecheSam¿ (0.7)4 SAM: no. (1.3)5 ADM: yeahbutwehaveto. (2.1)6 ADM: that(.)thatcanbe(0.5)umm, (2.5) %act: pullsdownablockthatSAMhasplacedupright7 SAM: ↑no:(0.4)thatisUP. (0.7)8 ADM: nobutiwannamakeCRECHE. (0.3)9 SAM: butit’smybui:ldi:ng(.)i:didthisbridge. (3.2) %com: ADMiswatchingSAMmovetheblocks.10 SAM: andits-, (1.6)11 SAM: andthese(0.3)ºthesegooverlikeºthat.=

church Book.indb 180 13/01/2009 12:11:51


12 ADM: =yeah but (0.2) but that’s the river you remember that (.) .hhhthat’s the river. (0.3)13 SAM: that’stherivergoing(0.9)goingu:nderit. (0.4)14 ADM: yes. (2.7) %com: cooperativeplaycontinues.

upgrading may also occur within the same type of account, where the shift is made through the subject rather than the content of the utterance. for example, in Ob1.6, the liking is attributed to a third party as an upgrade on tess’ original claim of liking the red fish.

Ob1.65 TES: noilikethatcolouraswe:ll¿ (0.8)6 SAM: drop (0.2) (John’s got those) (0.7) you got thoseonesJohn’sgottheseones. (0.9)7 TES: but (0.3) i got three coz i need (1.3) that many. (1.6)8 SAM: butthen(0.4)Johnwillhavethree(0.3)and you don’t like pink do you John. (0.9)9 JON: hmm(0.3)no. (4.4) %act: TESmakesnofurtherattemptattopic.

an account may also be considered as upgraded where the speaker rephrases his or her original utterance to include third party authorisation (specifically teacher permission or instruction).

Ob1.122 ADM: noyouneedtomakea↑hu:gehouse. (0.3)3 LUK: we’reno:t. (0.9)4 LUK: noneforA-(.)noneforAdams. (0.2)5 SAM: no.6 ADM: youHAFtaSHARE. (0.6)

church Book.indb 181 13/01/2009 12:11:51


7 LUK: NO:? (0.6)8 ADM: yeahbutthe teacher says(0.4)“share”. (0.5)9 LUK: NO:?

Ob2.42 LOU: noicandoit¿ (0.2)3 JAK: NO:IWANNADoit. (0.5)4 JAK: thethe teacher said↑iwilldoit. (0.3)5 LOU: no:w(.)iknowwhichday(0.2)andicandoit¿=6 JAK: =icandoittoo. (0.6)7 LOU: no(.)iicandoit[I-], %act: pullingarrowfromJAK8 JAK: [it’s]gonnabreak>it’sgonnabreak<¿ (0.3)9 LOU: iknowbuti’mverygentle. %act:putsarrowonFriday %act:bothchildrenreturntocollaborativeplaywith connectorpieces.

in both examples above, invoking the teacher’s authority is not the only instance of upgrading. In Ob1.12, Adam’s first opposition (line 2) is based on a necessity account. In his next turn (line 6) he states a behavioural expectation (rule of sharing), before insisting (line 8) that the teacher supports this norm. In Ob2.4, louise claims that not only is she able to put the arrow on the calendar, she’s aware of the arrow’s fragility and possesses the necessary competency or ability to carry out the action properly.

in the data, there are also instances of upgrading made by the same speaker in the same turn (restart). In Ob2.13, Louise moves from stating personal desire as a reason for her objection, to a claim of prior ownership. in Ob1.2, John revises his statement that the spaceship is not ready and attributes the state of unreadiness to both parties (i.e. inclusive, plural subject). In Ob1.16, Adam shifts from invoking a necessity claim to providing an alternate suggestion for the play script. in Ob2.25, Paul revises his initial ownership claim to the play space and proposes that the entire ‘zoo’ belongs to the group.

Ob2.132 LOU: iwanttou:se(.)iwasusingthatcar.

church Book.indb 182 13/01/2009 12:11:51


Ob1.25 JON: but(0.3)but(0.3)but(0.2)butthisone(0.3) it’snotrea-thespace-(.)this(0.2)we’re justnotreadyyet. (3.6)

Ob1.163 ADM: yeahbut(0.6)weneedthose(.).hhhcoz(0.2) .hhthisis-(0.2)howboutwemakecrecheSam¿

Ob2.252 PAU: that’smysi-(0.2)thisisallourfunzoo.

essentially, in an upgraded utterance, the speaker provides further information or further evidence to support his or her position.

Ob2.121 WIN: do:n’tyou’rewreckingeverything.2 LOU: well i’m trying to go round.3 LOU: 0((%act:knocksanothersetofblocks))4 WIN: DO:N’T!5 LOU: well i’m trying to get through and you put so many things here. %com:WINmakesnofurthercomment.

Downgrading

Downgrading is found in disputes which are not actively resolved (i.e. abandoned or brought to end through teacher intervention). in contrast to the examples above, the following episode demonstrates subsequent dispreferred turn shapes which incorporate progressively weaker (more subjective) accounts.

Ob2.74 ELI: well(0.5)that’s-iknowthat’saboy. (0.2)5 CAZ: cozshe’swearing↑pants(0.3)she’sagirl? %act: pointingtotheobserver (1.8)6 ELI: who’swearingpants. (0.3)7 CAZ: sheis. %act: pointstoobserver (1.9)

church Book.indb 183 13/01/2009 12:11:51


8 ELI: iknowsheis(.)butthat’saboy(.)iknowthat. %com: referringtodoll (1.2)9 CAZ: girlscanhaveshorthair.10 ELI: ºxxxxxº. (2.5)11 CAZ: nothat’smine(igotmi:ne)mine! (0.4)12 ELI: it’smine. (1.1)13 CAZ: theni’llhavethese. (3.3)14 ELI: iwannahave(.)agir:l(0.4)iwannahaveaone ↑girl. (0.7)15 ELI: you’vegottwo:gi:rls. (0.4)16 ELI: (you’vegot)boththegirls. (0.3)17 CAZ: no:there’sanothergirl¿ (0.2)18 ELI: butidon’tlikethatgirl. (6.8)19 ELI: youcan’thavetwogirls.((petulant tone)) (0.7)20 ELI: wellthat’stheboyandihateboys. (1.1)21 ELI: i’mnotgonnatobeyourfriendifyoudon’tever givemethat. (1.0)22 CAZ: i’mnotgonnaevergivethattoyou.

although upgrading is not essential to secure resolution, nor does downgrading inevitably lead to a collapse of collaborative play – more extensive data is needed to establish a conclusive pattern of escalating (or de-escalating) accounts across disputes – these sequences provide further evidence to support a relationship between objectivity of accounts and outcome. inevitably, allowances should be made for other influential features of the interaction (particularly the relationship between the participants involved, issues of motivation associated with topic of dispute, and so on). However, the findings presented here demonstrate a pattern of turn shapes where specific accounts function as more powerful referents for opposition than others.

arguably, the notion of objectivity in accounts provided by the children is one imposed here by the analyst rather than categorically referred to by the children

church Book.indb 184 13/01/2009 12:11:51


themselves – even though particular responses are made to particular types of accounts. it is the function of accounts more generally, however, that proves the significant finding in this research. Throughout this chapter, the types of turn shapes appearing in the closing of disputes have been considered. We have seen that preference organisation is an organising principle in disputes, in that preferred turn shapes invariably sustain the disputes and resolution can only be achieved where children provide justification for their opposition.

church Book.indb 185 13/01/2009 12:11:51

chapter 7

How to resolve disputes

the analysis throughout chapters 4, 5 and 6 has underscored the saliency of preference organisation in young children’s peer disputes. Preference features (i.e. markedness or its absence) were produced consistently throughout the children’s arguments, and sequences of specific turn shapes have been tied to specific outcomes. It remains, in this concluding chapter, to defend the isolation of accounts as a dominant feature of dispreferred turn shapes. the role of preference in adversative discourse is also revisited, followed by examples from the data which serve as a summary of findings, findings which illustrate how young children resolve arguments with peers.

Saliency of accounts

the focus in the previous chapter was directed to accounts provided for opposition. Justifications have been considered in terms of persuasiveness, particularly where notions of upgrading are tied to resolving disputes. it is important, given the conversation analytic approach employed in this study, to demonstrate why these accounts have received so much attention in the analysis. although much of the analysis seemingly isolates utterances in discussion of preference features, it should be noted that these features are interpreted as responsive to the prior turn. it is argued that the saliency of accounts is oriented to by the children themselves: accounts are of primary importance because the children treat them as such. frequently in the data, opposition to the prior utterance/speaker consists of challenging the content of the prior account, as exemplified in the segments below.

Ob1.16 LIA: no:animalsallowedunderthebridge(0.9)oron topofthebridge. (0.5)7 CHE: y[es]!8 NOR: [(well)] that lion’s on top of the bridge?

Ob1.133 ADM: yeahbutLukesaidicanºcomeinº.4 KOY: Luke (doesn’t have) big cars.

church Book.indb 187 13/01/2009 12:11:52


Ob1.192 SAM: leave them there (0.3) ↑Adam’s (.) Adam’s in chargeofputtingthemaway(0.3)Luke? (5.7)3 LUK: i saw you: put one away¿=

Ob2.22 MIR: Jack<wewereplayingintha:[:t>].((whines))3 CAZ: [(hey]we’replayingwith)that. (0.3)4 JAK: no: (.) you were over there.

Ob2.71 CAZ: here’sanotherbiggirl¿ (0.4)2 ELI: that’snotagirlthat’sabo::y. (0.2)3 CAZ: girls wear pants.

Ob2.1020 FRE: yeahnow-(0.5)then-(0.3)you’re(wreckingit) i’llkillyourwholebuildingdown? (0.3)21 PAU: huh? (0.3)22 FRE: killyourwholebuildingdownifyoudon’t-, (0.3)23 PAU: i didn’t i didn’t even make a building.

Ob2.115 FRE: wedon’tneedthemºdoweº? (0.2)6 PAU: then why don’t you ↑need them.

Ob2.132 LOU: iwanttou:se(.)iwasusingthatcar. (0.4)3 WIN: no you were using that car.

in challenging the content of a prior account, the speaker is also challenging the authority of the opposing party. When the quality of the account is called into question, so too is the competency/knowledge/position of the author of the account. these challenges are made to all types of accounts, but the majority – not surprisingly – occur contiguously to more subjective justifications (open to

church Book.indb 188 13/01/2009 12:11:52

How to Resolve Disputes 189

verification challenges). Interestingly, these corrections function as instances of other-initiated repair, performed as unmitigated opposition.

these types of challenges are not extraordinary because the very existence of conflict is based on next-position opposition. The point underscored here is the frequency with which opposition is content-tied to the account in the prior utterance. the powerful status of accounts, then, is not only evidenced by their role in resolving conflict, but also where they fail to justify the speaker’s position, a failure which may be noted explicitly by the hearer. it has been suggested elsewhere that ‘a supported turn may secure agreement or acceptance when an unsupported turn would ordinarily get argument’ (Jackson and Jacobs, 1980: 258). fundamentally, it is the quality of the account which instigates the opportunity for resolution.

Why ‘preference’?

Oppositional turns in young children’s verbal disputes with peers are predominantly performed in one of two ways: confrontation is direct, or the child attempts to persuade by providing a reason for his/her challenge. this pattern, found throughout the disputes recorded in the two child care centres, mirrors the organisation of preference identified in (adult) conversation (e.g. Atkinson and Heritage, 1984; levinson, 1983; Pomerantz, 1984). Whilst turn initial pauses were not always consistent markers of preference in the data, turns were recognisably performed in preferred or dispreferred turn shape.

as demonstrated earlier, for arguments to exist or continue, disagreement is a preferred action. evidently opposition may not be personally preferred by the speakers, but the discourse is structured such that counter-objection orients to objection, and counter-opposition to opposition. For conflict to perpetuate, the next speaker must oppose (preferably overtly and without delay) the prior utterance. Where this opposition is not overt, it is marked as dispreferred, characterised by delay and the provision of an accompanying account or justification for opposition. in other contexts, accounts in dispreferred turn shapes provide for the absence of a preferred second pair part. this holds in children’s disputes; essentially the child accounts for a less direct form of opposition.

labelling overt opposition as preferred may appear counter-intuitive, given that overt opposition is essentially face-threatening. Yet preference operates as a conversational structuring device; preference in this context relates to the existence or continuation of adversative discourse. as discussed in chapter 3, the problems of applying preference relate to confusion with lay interpretation of the term preference and misapplication to fixed categories of action. That is, preference does not necessarily reflect the individual’s motivation, nor are certain actions (e.g. agreement) invariably preferred. Through analysis of preference features, this study has uncovered characteristics of turns in sequence which promote or preclude resolution of disputes. Having identified the function of preference

church Book.indb 189 13/01/2009 12:11:52


organisation in the outcomes of young children’s disputes, we can move to identify these turn shapes as something other than preferred or dispreferred, to clarify the significance of unequal turn status.

Preferred turns in the children’s dispute episodes are just that: immediate, brief and overt objection is preferred if the argument is to continue. Whilst the discussion in Chapter 3 identified conflict as an inversion of conversational expectation (see Kotthoff, 1993), it is an inversion only where a universal preference for agreement exists. in children’s arguments, there is no deference to agreement. the resolution of conflict points to this: seeking mutual ground and avoiding overt opposition (performed in dispreferred turns) leads to a closing rather than continuation of disputes. the function of preference as an indicator of outcome, indicates that in the context of children’s disputes, the term ‘preferred’ could be replaced with ‘sustaining’. that is, turns produced in preferred turn shapes serve to provoke and sustain conflict, whilst dispreferred turn shapes are non-sustaining (designed to bring the dispute to a close).

This concept of sustaining vs. non-sustaining moves is reflected in the influence of turn shape on the outcome of disputes. As demonstrated in Chapter 4, simple contradiction of the prior speaker’s utterance is universally unsuccessful in persuading the opposing party. Moreover, this type of immediate, short direct opposition (e.g. line 9 in Ob2.8 below) invariably prompts further opposition and therefore the continuation of the dispute. It is the expected form of the (rejoining) second pair part which denotes this turn shape as sustaining. the overall conclusion is both simple and striking: short, direct forms of opposition do not resolve disputes.

Ob2.88 PAU: ihaditawhileago.=9 WIN: =no you did[n’t].

conversely, dispreferred turn shapes function as non-sustaining, mitigating moves. They are dispreferred in that they are not designed to perpetuate conflict but rather are produced to appease the opposing party. Furthermore, final utterances in resolved disputes are preceded by dispreferred turn shapes. that is, there is an established pattern of speakers justifying their own positions, rather than simply contradicting the prior speaker. Sequences of non-sustaining (i.e. dispreferred) turn shapes in resolved disputes typically allow for negotiation, rather than bald conflict.

a fundamental characteristic of non-sustaining turns is the provision of novel content in attempting to persuade the opposing party. sustaining turn shapes, on the other hand, typically contain minimal or negligible novel content. it has been shown in earlier research (e.g. Eisenberg and Garvey, 1981), and replicated here, that repetition is a weak form of opposition, one which promotes a cycle of counter challenges. as seen in the analysis, repetition of prior utterances is implicated in disputes which prompt teacher intervention (e.g. Ob1.14, Ob1.25),

church Book.indb 190 13/01/2009 12:11:52


underscoring the ineffectualness of simply repeating prior objections. introducing novel content in the dispute, by providing additional or alternative reasons for opposition therefore constitutes a move towards reconciliation.

this analysis not only informs dispute practices between young children, but reinforces the theory of preference organisation. turn shapes in opposition moves were consistently performed in one of two ways: directly or overtly in short utterances (sustaining), or delayed with accompanying accounts (non-sustaining). this supports the argument made at the end of chapter 3 for the reliability of linguistic markedness in distinguishing preference organisation.

Turn shapes in sequence

The significance of preference organisation in young children’s disputes is best represented in examples of extended sequences of discourse. in Ob1.4, the counter-cycles of typically preferred turn shapes continues until the teacher intervenes. the short and direct forms of opposition throughout this episode serve to sustain the dispute.

Ob1.41 TES: everybodycansingit(0.5)notjustyou:? (4.6)2 HIL: wellisingmysongifiwant. (1.7)3 HIL: it’smy:so:ng¿4 TES: it’smysongtoo:andit’snotyoursong. (0.2)5 HIL: itismysong. (0.5)6 TES: NOTYOUR:SONG. (0.6)7 TES: EENGHH ((screeches in frustration)) .hhh (.) IT’SNOTYOURSONGHilary. (1.5)8 YYY: Tessareyouokay? (1.3)9 TES: Hilaryjustsaidthesongishersandit’snot it’smi:ne. (0.9)10 HIL: wellitisminetoo:. (3.8)11 YYY: ↑girls(0.4)what’stheproblem. (1.5)

church Book.indb 191 13/01/2009 12:11:52


12 HIL: itismysongtoo:.13 TES: it’snotyou:rsongtoo::¿ (0.2)14 HIL: itis. (0.4)15 TES: no:. (2.5)16 HIL: ihearditontheradio. (0.4)17 YYY: okaywhat’sthematteroverhere. %yyy: teachergoesontoexplainthatsongsbelongto everybody.

In contrast, the brief episode below (Ob1.2) is characterised by an exchange of justified opposition. In line 3, Adam produces an objective account based on the properties of the object he is building. in response, John counters in dispreferred turn shape (i.e. non-sustaining move), attributing a state of unreadiness not only to himself but to adam as well. this inclusive account proves successful in resolving the dispute.

Ob1.21 ADM: ((to JON))moveouttheway!2 JON: nono(0.3)no↑this[spacesh-],3 ADM: [nonono](.)no[no]thisonehasn’tgotany le:gs.4 JON: [but-], (0.9)5 JON: but(0.3)but(0.3)but(0.2)butthisone(0.3) it’snotrea-thespace-(.)this(0.2)we’re justnotreadyyet. (3.6)

through studying preference features in children’s disputes, characteristics of sustaining and non-sustaining turns have been identified. Turn shapes have been labelled as preferred or dispreferred throughout this book because the function of these unequal second pair parts has been discovered during the course of sequential analysis. Having completed the analysis, however, these turn shapes can now be identified by their role in the outcome of disputes. While a more generic substitutive term might be markedness (Mey, 2001), preference organisation in young children’s adversative discourse delineates sustaining and non-sustaining utterances. to sum up, the more overt the opposition, the more likely the dispute will continue. Conversely where children account for their opposition (i.e. providing novel content), a mutually acceptable outcome becomes possible.

church Book.indb 192 13/01/2009 12:11:52


Overwhelmingly, the more objective the child’s position or justification, the more likely resolution will be secured.

existing research has illustrated the social context, function, and frequency of disputes, and the role of argument in developing social cognition. related to developing communicative competence, earlier studies concentrate on types of strategies in children’s adversative discourse (Chapter 2), the range of which is not contradicted in the research reported here. the present study, however, has moved beyond classification of single utterances and has provided a theoretical framework through which these arguments may be better understood. the distinctive value of using a conversation analytic approach (Chapter 3) was to further explore children’s arguments as connected discourse.

Features of preference organisation (Chapter 3), in particular, have been identified in this study as influential in the outcome of disputes. The analysis revealed the constancy of preference features throughout the data. Specifically, markedness is indicative of dispreferred turn shape, given that preferred turn shapes are essentially unmarked (Chapter 4). In order to consider the role of preference organisation in the development of disputes, closings were classified as resolved, abandoned or achieved through teacher intervention (Chapter 5). Final utterances of resolved disputes were almost universally performed in dispreferred turn shape; threats were shown to operate as atypical dispreferred turn shapes. conversely, it became increasingly clear throughout the analysis that preferred turn shapes sustain disputes, given that overt opposition is likely to be responded to with further opposition. The type of justification provided for opposition proved of particular significance (Chapter 6), specifically the quality of the account. In attempting to bring about resolution, accounts which are most objective prove most influential.

Applicability of findings

the data presented here is representative of adversative discourse between australian english-speaking four-year-old children from middle- and upper middle-class families living in Melbourne. The findings do not pretend to be applicable to all young children’s verbal disputes. However, the analysis uncovered patterns or sequences of turns which may occur elsewhere. it is proposed that preference organisation may operate as a universal organisational principle of sequences of adversative discourse. importantly, patterns of preference organisation were performed constantly in both observation environments. although the two groups of children differed as to frequency and distribution of types of disputes, there was uniformity in the manner in which objections were performed and disputes resolved.

The findings are not necessarily peculiar to children’s disputes. Indeed, one would expect objective justifications to be more persuasive than overt opposition in the disputes of older children and adults. However, it is important to re-emphasise

church Book.indb 193 13/01/2009 12:11:52


a point made in the introductory chapter; children’s competencies should not be viewed as imperfect adult productions. rather, the pragmatic abilities demonstrated by young children continue to develop (building on earlier competencies) into adulthood.

in managing interaction with peers, children are frequently encouraged to express their intrinsic reaction to another child’s behaviour, e.g. “i don’t like that”. Whilst this advice may be appropriate in other contexts, the analysis has shown that this is not an effective response or justification in disputes. This finding underscores the importance of studying patterns of peer interaction as they unfold, rather than imposing adult interpretation or impressions of children’s experiences. child-directed strategies should be informed by actual child-child interaction.

the analysis has demonstrated that, not only should children account for their objections in order to resolve disputes with peers, the more objective the account, the more persuasive the speaker will be. This finding obviously holds significant implications for teacher strategies in supporting children’s negotiations with peers. The ubiquitous instruction to “use your words” can be refined in this context to “you need to give a reason for disagreeing with your friend”.

Beyond this book

Whilst the theory of linguistic preference has proven instrumental in uncovering the sequential influence of turn shapes, it is not claimed here that preference organisation is the only significant feature of children’s disputes. The richness of the data precludes an exhaustive analysis of all features of this discourse. subsequent analysis, for example, should be directed to paralinguistic features and nonverbal behaviour in the disputes (accessible through improved video recording). Although increased volume, for example, was not related to resolution (shouting appeared in disputes which were abandoned or brought to a close through teacher intervention), future research could properly examine suprasegmental cues.

Further criticism may be made of a model of conflict resolution which does not account for shifting sociometric status in the preschool classroom. the present study, however, whilst not directly incorporating peer social status in the analysis, points to the manner in which this status may be realised; namely, through turn-taking in conversation. the theory of social identity as created through local action (specifically conversation) is a legacy of Harvey Sacks and is of fundamental import in conversation analysis and membership catergorzation analysis as fields of study. in the domain of children’s arguments, we may look for the management of power relationships in the sequential organisation of the adversative discourse. The assumption is that high status (popular) children employ effective opposition moves, performed in non-sustaining (dispreferred) turn shape, and non-sustaining turns are produced by children who are able to influence peers. The conversational behaviour of young children and relative sociometric status can be seen as interdependent entities.

church Book.indb 194 13/01/2009 12:11:52


similarly, notions of facework and politeness theory were acknowledged in chapter 3 but have not been directly accounted for in the analysis presented here. It remains to be seen if the performance of accounts (ie continuum of objectivity) is managed by the children in respect to face concerns, and how the performance of politeness or impoliteness is developed in early childhood. indeed, it remains to provide a more comprehensive account of how analysis of children’s arguments contributes to a theoretical account for children’s developing social skills

Evidently other features of the local social context influence children’s adversative discourse. Gender remains an issue in influencing how children argue, as boys and girls have been found to argue differently (see Chapter 2). Elsewhere, manifestation of gender has been identified not only in contextual variation (i.e. different types of play and dispute topics) but in the semantic content of oppositional turns. although gender was not included as a component of analysis in this study, it is not dismissed as pertinent in the performance of adversative discourse. importantly, however, a uniformity in the organisation of turn shapes was found throughout the data. That is, in both boys’ and girls’ disputes (and episodes involving both girls and boys) there was a stable relationship between turn shape and outcome. further study is necessary to determine if gender influences proportion of turn shapes or types of accounts provided (cf. Kyratzis, 1992). features of adversative discourse which have not been considered here belong, therefore, to prospective research.

this research has uncovered an organising principle of verbal disputes between children. Only through closer attention to the sequences of turns, particularly the form of second pair parts, has a relationship between utterances and outcomes been established. Preference organisation has proven a viable framework for distinguishing types of turns which are most likely to bring about resolution of conflict. An obvious practical application of these findings relates to the content of adult intervention strategies. the introductory chapter emphasised the importance of encouraging pedagogical practice in preschool classrooms which is informed by child-centric research rather than adult intuition. the analysis presented here has identified processes in children’s peer disputes, specifically those related to resolution, contributing to a strong platform for greater understanding of children’s communicative abilities.

Although these findings provide a basis to inform teaching strategies, it does not follow that children are floundering in conflict situations. The data collected in this study illustrate that competent and often complex sequences of talk are co-constructed by children at the age of four, providing further evidence of the developed and developing communicative competence of young children. furthermore, an understanding of children’s adversative discourse not only illuminates children’s pragmatic abilities but provides a window to the organisation of children’s social worlds.

church Book.indb 195 13/01/2009 12:11:52

appendix a

Table A.1 Transcription conventions

. falling terminal contour, Continuing contour (incomplete)? strongly rising terminal contour¿ rising terminal contour! emphatic/animated utterance terminator- abrupt halt

[] Overlapping speech= Latching (contiguous stretches of talk)

(0.7) Pause measured in tenths of a second(.) Pause timed less than 0.2 seconds___ stress on the word/syllable/sound

: lengthening of previous soundCAPS increase in volume

°° decrease in volume↑↓ Significant rise or fall in intonation>< faster than surrounding talk<> slower than surrounding talk

.hhh audible inhalation$ Laughing while talking (smile talk)

() Uncertain words (best guess)(()) comments e.g. quality of speech or intended hearer

x unintelligible speech%act Identifies (accompanying) nonverbal action%com Observer commenttext feature of interest

Source: see sacks, schegloff and Jefferson, 1974.

church Book.indb 197 13/01/2009 12:11:53


Observation 1 transcripts

@Begin@Participants: NORNormCHECherieMINMinnieLIALiam FELFelicity@Filename: Ob1.1.ca@Audio: Disc2(1)(Begin)9:50@Episode: 1@Situation: MINandLIAhavespentconsiderabletime constructingajettytogetherfortheir lions.NOR,CHEandFELapproachandtry topushtheir‘boats’(blocks,eachwith adifferentanimalasapassenger)under thebridge.

1 NOR: ((to Ch and F))let’sgototheli:onjetty:! (0.7)2 NOR: let’sgotothejetty:. (1.5)3 NOR: ºlet’s[gotothejettyº].4 MIN: [no(.)no(0.3)]nono(0.4)no(we)don’twant those(0.4)biganim[alsx-],5 LIA: [no]. (0.3)6 LIA: no:animalsallowedunderthebridge(0.9)oron topofthebridge. (0.5)7 CHE: y[es]!8 NOR: [(well)]thatlion’sontopofthebridge? (0.2)9 LIA: ((to the girls, teasing voice))youcan’tgoon (0.4)we:ma:dei:t. (1.1)10 MIN: but‘ceptbut‘cept[they↑cango]on(.)they ca:n.11 CHE: [butwe’renew]. (1.4)12 CHE: going. %com: producedasstatementofintent (1.7)13 FEL: measwell. (1.5)14 CHE: we’re[goingthroughit].

church Book.indb 198 13/01/2009 12:11:53

Appendix A 199

15 LIA: [uhuh].((negatingpriorutterance)) (1.3)16 LIA: uhuh=17 MIN: =uhuh(0.2)uhu[h].18 FEL: [m]mmmm. %com: sound of frustration as she tries to push her boatthroughbutLIAstopsher (0.3)19 LIA: nono[NAH]NO::(0.2)No:::do:n’t.20 NOR: i’m [up here]. ((places his animal on the jetty)) (0.6)21 CHE: ºxxxxxxº (3.4)22 NOR: i’muphere(0.2)i’muphere(0.3)up(0.3)x ºthatone’supº.=23 MIN: =yous[eelo]ok-(0.5)youseelookwhathappened (0.8)yourdogbrokethejetty.24 LIA: [nah],((whines)) (0.8)25 MIN: or maybe [he might broke] the jetty when he walksalong.26 CHE: [(i’mbreakingit)]. (0.5)27 NOR: nohecanjuststandtherewhenhedoesn’tbreak it? (3.1)28 FEL: hecanjuststandthere.=29 MIN: =breakitFelicity. (0.5)30 NOR: getthatuphere. (1.3)31 NOR: up↑he↓re[I’m]uphere.32 LIA: [no].33 CHE: i’llgoandtelltheteacher. %com: i.e.toreportsheisnotbeingallowedtopush herboatthrough %yyy: TeachersuggeststoLIAthatheshouldletthe girlsplayandthattheywillhelpfixthejetty iftheycauseapiecetofall.@End

church Book.indb 199 13/01/2009 12:11:53


@Begin@Participants: ADMAdamJONJohn@Filename: Ob1.2.ca@Tape: Disc3(1):(Begin)0:48@Episode: 2@Situation: ADMandJONareusingLegotomakeAstro spaceships.

1 ADM: ((to JON))moveouttheway!2 JON: nono(0.3)no↑this[spacesh-],3 ADM: [nonono](.)no[no]↑thisonehasn’tgotany le:gs.4 JON: [but-], (0.9)5 JON: but(0.3)but(0.3)but(0.2)butthisone(0.3) it’snotrea-thespace-(.)this(0.2)we’re justnotreadyyet. (3.6)@End

@Begin@Participants: ADMAdamKOYKoyoJONJohn@Filename: Ob1.3@Audio: Disc3(1):(Begin)11:34@Episode: 3@Situation: JON,ADMandKOYarelandingtheirLego rockets/jetsonthetable.

1 KOY: Adam(0.6)whereicango. (0.7)2 KOY: whereicangoAdam? (1.1)3 JON: nowhe[re].4 KOY: [i]gotarocket? (1.3)5 KOY: igotarocket(andajet). (1.3)6 ADM: nothat’sa-that’sgotehhmnoonlyjetsand rockets. (1.4)7 KOY: i’marockettoo. (0.5)

church Book.indb 200 13/01/2009 12:11:53

Appendix A 201

8 ADM: no:coz(0.3)rocketsarenotallowedtocomein (.) only (0.4) a rocket and a jet (0.4) coz there’snospaceinthere. (0.2)9 KOY: i’majet. (0.8)10 ADM: nowthisisgonnahaveabig-, %act: KOYjoinsADMandJONatthetable.@End

@Begin@Participants: HILHilaryTESTessYYYTeacher@Filename: Ob1.4.ca@Audio: Disc4(1):(Begin)11:19@Episode: 4@Situation: HILandTESaresittingatatable,each placingcolouredpiecesintomeshframes. HIL has quietly been singing a popular tuneabout‘Barbie’.Beforethedialogue is picked up by the audio tape (prior interactionisobscuredbytheconversation ofotherchildrenclosertothemicrophone) TES has started to sing the same song. HILhastoldTESthatshe’snotallowed tosingthisparticularsong.

1 TES: everybodycansingit(0.5)notjustyou:? (4.6)2 HIL: wellisingmysongifiwant. (1.7)3 HIL: it’smy:so:ng¿4 TES: it’smysongtoo:andit’snotyoursong. (0.2)5 HIL: itismysong. (0.5)6 TES: NOTYOUR:SONG. (0.6)7 TES: EENGHH ((screeches in frustration)) .hhh (.) IT’SNOTYOURSONGHilary. (1.5)8 YYY: Tessareyouokay? (1.3)

church Book.indb 201 13/01/2009 12:11:53


9 TES: Hilaryjustsaidthesongishersandit’snot it’smi:ne. (0.9)10 HIL: wellitisminetoo:. (3.8)11 YYY: ↑girls(0.4)what’stheproblem. (1.5)12 HIL: itismysongtoo:.13 TES: it’snotyou:rsongtoo::¿ (0.2)14 HIL: itis. (0.4)15 TES: no:. (2.5)16 HIL: ihearditontheradio. (0.4)17 YYY: okaywhat’sthematteroverhere. %yyy: teachergoesontoexplainthatsongsbelongto everybody@End

@Begin@Participants: TESTess,ADMAdam,SAM,Sam,HILHilary@Filename: Ob1.5.ca@Audio: Disc4(1)(Begin)21:06@Episode: 5@Situation: Childrenareplayingnearblocks.TESis somedistancefromboys,yettheyoverhear.

1 TES: bumbumhehhehehehhehhuh.((laughing)) (1.2)2 ADM: whosaidbumbum? (0.2)3 TES: ehhehheh$me:$hehe. (0.8)4 SAM: ((serious tone))Tess:(0.3)[it’srude].5 ADM: [cept]you’renotallowedtosaybum[bum].6 SAM: [rude]ruderude. (2.0)7 SAM: babiessaythatsortofthing?8 TES: huhhuh[huh].9 HIL: [yes]theydo::(.)don’tthey? (1.2)

church Book.indb 202 13/01/2009 12:11:53

Appendix A 203

10 ADM: yesthey-, (1.6)11 SAM: >they[do]<.12 ADM: [a:]ha that’s what they say they say (.) bum bum.13 TES: ha[hugnhhungh].14 SAM: [theysay]boobooaswell. (0.2)15 ADM: .hhhyeahandtheysay(.).hhhh“hellomister booboobeebee”buti(.)buti[can’tsaythat xxx].16 TES: [hahahha$hey]whosaidthat$ehhehheh. (0.2)17 SAM: Adam(.)he’stellingyou(0.2)NOT(0.2)tosay silly(.)words. (0.3)18 HIL: yes. (0.8)19 TES: noisayxxxxx. %com: utteranceobscuredbyteachergivingdirections todifferentgroupofchildren(3.2).20 HIL: she’s(.)a(.)babyisn’tshe. (1.1)21 TES: i’mnotababy. (1.4)22 ADM: yes(.)thatmeansyousayBUMBUM. (0.4)23 TES: i’mnotababyso-(0.4)babiesareverysmall (0.2)andi-wheniwasababynext↑year(0.7) isaidbumbum(0.3)booboobumbum. %yyy: Teacherinterruptstoinstructchildrentostart packingup.@End

church Book.indb 203 13/01/2009 12:11:53


@Begin@Participants: JONJohn,TESTess,SAMSam@Filename: Ob1.6.ca@Audio: Disc5(1):(Begin)0:23@Episode: 6@Situation: JONandTESare‘fishing’withmagnetrods. Thefisharecolouredandthegameinvolves putting the fish into the appropriately coloured boat (the boats are made from boxes). There are seven boats in all, fourofwhichareplacedinfrontofTES. OneoftheboatsinfrontofJONisred. SAMissupervisingtheirplay.

1 SAM: Johnyougotared-(.)youhavetogetaredone (0.3)[youhavetopickupred.]2 TES: [no:ineedr]e:d(0.3)cozilikethatcolour aswell.3 JON: NO:¿4 SAM: no:. (1.0)5 TES: noilikethatcolouraswe:ll¿ (0.8)6 SAM: drop (0.2) (John’s got those) (0.7) you got thoseonesJohn’sgottheseones. (0.9)7 TES: but (0.3) i got three coz i need (1.3) that many. (1.6)8 SAM: butthen(0.4)Johnwillhavethree(0.3)and youdon’tlikepinkdoyouJohn. (0.9)9 JON: hmm(0.3)no. (4.4) %act: TESmakesnofurtherattemptattopic@End

church Book.indb 204 13/01/2009 12:11:53

Appendix A 205

@Begin@Participants: SAMSam,TESTess,JONJohn@Filename: Ob1.7.ca@Audio: Disc5:(Begin)4:39@Episode: 7@Situation: SAM, TES and JON are playing with the magnetfishandfishingrods.Theboxesto whichtheyreferaredesignedtocollect thecorrespondingcolouredfish.TESgrabs some of the boxes. The children were laughingtogetherpriortothisepisode.

1 TES: ((silly voice)) these are mine (.) that’s mine (.)that’smine(.)tha-myyeeiyeei[yeiyei], %act: grabbingboxes2 JON: [hey(.)hey,]=3 SAM: =↑heysto:p(0.5)TE::S[S]::!4 TES: ((whines))[na]agnhh. %act: bothchildrenarepullingboxes (0.5)5 SAM: ↑Tess(0.4)don’tSNA:tch!6 TES: but(0.3)iamdoingfishing.7 SAM: 0((%act:SAMsucceedsinreclaimingtheboxes)) (0.6)8 TES: ((whines)).hhhh↑Samtooktheboxes↓fromme. %com: directedtowardsteacherwhodoesnothear (0.4)9 SAM: but(0.5)shediditfi:rst. %com: alsodirectedtoteacherwithnoresponse (1.6)10 JON: shehit(0.4)Sam. (1.7)11 JON: it’snotnastytohit(1.4)↓Tessnowyou(0.2) can’t(0.4)come(0.2)to↑any(0.4)birthdays. (1.1)12 JON: nottillyou(0.2)saysorrySam. (0.4)13 TES: ((silly voice))sorrySamdee↑dee:huh.14 SAM: ↑no:(.)properly. (0.3)15 TES: s[orry]Sam.16 JON: [prop-], %com: playresumes@End

church Book.indb 205 13/01/2009 12:11:54


@Begin@Participants: JONJohn,TESTess@Filename: Ob1.8.ca@Audio: Disc5(1):(Begin)11:05@Episode: 8@Situation: JONandTESareplayingwiththemagnet fishinggame.Thefisharesevendifferent colours. TES ‘catches’ a blue fish even though the blue ‘boat’ is in front of JON.

1 JON: ohyougotmyone(.)xingit.2 TES: ↑no:wearesharingJohn?3 JON: no(0.3)noyougotmy↑blueone. (0.4)4 TES: butwe(0.3)but(0.5)butwearejustsharing. (0.8)5 TES: thatonegoesinthere[John].6 JON: [ººyeah]ohyeahcozºº-, (1.0)7 JON: ohyeahcoz.@End

@Begin@Participants: JONJohn,TESTess,SAMSam@Filename: Ob1.9.ca@Audio: Disc5(1):(Begin)12:45@Episode: 9@Situation: JON,TESandSAMarestillplayingwith thefishingmagnets.Theyhavebeenputting hefishbackintothelargebox,because theyhavebeenpretendingthatasharkis swimmingnearthesmaller‘boats’(boxes).

1 TES: puttheboatsintherec-cozwearepackingup (.)coztheshark’scoming. (0.7)2 TES: takeeverything(out),=3 JON: =notthe-,4 TES: 0((%act:continuespackinguptheboats))5 SAM: NO(0.5)leaveithe↑re! (1.0)6 TES: b[utwe(.)we-,]

church Book.indb 206 13/01/2009 12:11:54

Appendix A 207

7 SAM: [leave(.)all]ofthemhere. (0.5)8 TES: theshark’scoming.9 SAM: leave-(1.5)iknow↑that(0.4)butwe’rejust pretending(.)andleave(0.3)theboats(0.4) out (0.4) you can put the fishes in (0.2) but (0.3)uh(0.4)nottheboats. (1.2)10 SAM: coz[↑see(.)ifpeoplewanttoplaywiththem (0.7)theywon’tbeready]forthem(0.2)so-,11 JON: [lookatthisSam:(0.3)lookatthisSam]. (1.2)12 JON: $oh:yougotmyone(0.6)ohyougotmyone:$. (1.0)13 JON: i[got]mygreenone.14 SAM: [no-], (0.5)15 SAM: notheyallinthe-, (3.5)16 SAM: and i:’m waiting to have (0.2) a ↑go: and you’retaking(.)so(0.3)l:o:ng. %com: JONoffersoneoftherodstoSAM.@End

@Begin@Participants: JONJohn,TESTess,SAM,Sam,MILMilly@Filename: Ob1.10.ca@Audio: Disc5(1):(Begin)15:56@Episode: 10@Situation: JON and TES are using the only two available fishing rods to catch magnet fish.MILhasjustarrivedandiswatching them.Priortothisexchange,SAMasked TES if he could have a turn and she refused.

1 JON: ((to MIL teasing voice))ohYOUhaven’tgotafi: shingro:d.2 TES: 0(3.6)((%act:attemptstotakeJONS’sfishing rodwhichhehasputonthegroundinorderto pickupafishwithhishands))3 JON: ((rise throughout))nonononono. %act: JONreclaimshisfishingrod4 TES: no(0.4)Millyandmearehavingaturn.

church Book.indb 207 13/01/2009 12:11:54


5 JON: NO:(0.2)i’vegotafishingrod(0.2)see:? (1.5)6 JON: sodon’t(.)take(0.2)this(0.2)fishingrod offme. (0.6)7 TES: well Milly (0.5) Milly wants to have a turn (0.2)((turns to MIL))do[n’tyou].8 SAM: [welli:]wanttohaveaturn? (1.3)9 JON: well (0.9) WELL (0.7) NObody can have (.) my fishingrod. (2.0)10 TES: ((to MIL))Mil-(.)i’mgonnasharemy:fishingrod. (0.8)11 JON: well(0.4)i’mgoingtoshareminewithSam. (1.6)12 JON: ((to girls))notyou. (3.1) %com: NeitherTESnorJONactuallypassontherodsto MILorSAM.Eventuallytheteacherstepsinto allot turns to SAM and MIL who have not yet played.@End

@Begin@Participants: FELFelicity,CHECherie,NANNancy@Filename: Ob1.11.ca@Audio: Disc6(1):(Begin)8:45@Episode: 11@Situation: FEL and CHE are using the only two available fishing rods to catch the magneticfish.NANhasbeenwatchingthem forsometime.

1 NAN: iwantaturnofthatfish. (2.1)2 NAN: Cherie. (0.8)3 FEL: wha:[t]?4 NAN: [iwan]iwannatu:rn(0.7)iwannaturnofthat. (0.4)5 FEL: well↑we(0.3)gotherefi:rst? (0.3)6 NAN: wehavetoshare(0.6)haveto[share].

church Book.indb 208 13/01/2009 12:11:54

Appendix A 209

7 CHE: ((sings quietly to herself))[get the] little fishiesout(0.2)inthelittlebox.8 CHE: ((to FEL))(these[areyours]).9 FEL: ([fishes]), (0.5)10 CHE: youputthemin. (2.6)11 NAN: youhavetosha:re(.)don’tgetaway. (1.2)12 CHE: we(.)↑a:re↓. (0.6)13 NAN: noyou’renotºsharingº(.)you’re(0.4)taking alongtime. (3.4)14 FEL: mmm.15 NAN: don’tsaymmm. (1.1)16 FEL: mmm.17 NAN: don’t(0.3)don’tsayTHAT! (0.2)18 FEL: mmm. (0.4)19 NAN: DON’TSAYTHAT!20 CHE: putthe[littlefishies],21 NAN: [youdon’thave]tosa:ytha:t. (0.6)22 NAN: youdon’thavetosa:ythat(0.7)anyway. (2.3)23 NAN: don’tsaythatºtomeº(0.3)[anyway]. (0.4)24 FEL: [MMM]. (0.5)25 NAN: D[O::N’T(.)((whimpers))idon’t]likeit.26 CHE: [fishes(0.2)they’reyourfishes], %act: CHEandFELmovewiththeirfishingrodstothe other side of the room. NAN hesitates then follows.@End

church Book.indb 209 13/01/2009 12:11:54


@Begin@Participants: ADMAdam,LUKLuke,PETPeter,KOYKoyo@Filename: Ob1.12.ca@Audio: Disc6(1):(Begin)25:9@Episode: 12@Situation: LUKandSAMaremakingahousewithwooden blocks.ADMissitting2maway.

1 LUK: againstthewall? (0.7)2 ADM: noyouneedtomakea↑hu:gehouse. (0.3)3 LUK: we’reno:t. (0.9)4 LUK: noneforA-(.)noneforAdams. (0.2)5 SAM: no.6 ADM: youHAFtaSHARE. (0.6)7 LUK: NO:? (0.6)8 ADM: yeahbuttheteachersays(0.4)“share”. (0.5)9 LUK: NO:? (0.2)10 ADM: <YESshedoes>. (0.6)11 LUK: [no:]?12 KOY: [i’mmak]ingagarage. (0.6)13 ADM: Y[ES:].14 KOY: i’m[putting]inabitof[garage].15 LUK: [no:]?16 KOY: [let’smakea]garage-,17 LUK: [herelook](0.2)let’smakeavery↑big[one].18 ADM: [yestheydo:]. (0.2)19 LUK: ((sing song voice))the:ydo:no:t. (0.2)20 ADM: yesthey(.)ºsayº-, %com: LUK becomes busy constructing the garage with otherboys.ADMabandonsthisentryattempt.@End

church Book.indb 210 13/01/2009 12:11:54

Appendix A 211

@Begin@Participants: KOYKoyo,ADMAdam,LUKLuke,PETPeter@Filename: Ob1.13.ca@Audio: Disc6(1):(Begin)27:32@Episode: 13@Situation: KOY,LUK,andPETaremakinggarageswith blocks.ADMdriveshistall‘duplo’car inthedirectionofoneofthegarages.

1 ADM: 0((%act:drives‘duplo’cartowardsgarage))2 KOY: nobig↑cars! (2.4)3 ADM: yeahbutLukesaidicanºcomeinº.4 KOY: Luke(doesn’thave)bigcars. (1.3)5 ADM: excuseme(.)um(.)Lukecan↑icome-(.).hhhh canºmycarcomeinº¿ (0.3)6 LUK: um (.) um (.) mine’s only one of the li:ttle (0.5)flats.7 LUK: [ifyou-],8 PET: [because](.)becausewewon’tmakeahousewith thatone.9 ADM: but[thebutxxx]NO:. %act: drivestowardsgarage (0.5)10 LUK: haha11 PET: ha[haha]12 LUK: [hahahaha}13 ADM: [ihavetostayout]ofthegargage(0.2)(get ou:t),= %act: putshiscarnexttotheblocks14 KOY: =STO::P!15 ADM: NOihavetostayoutofthegarage(0.3)↑(o)kay (0.3)cozit’sfat. (0.9)16 ADM: see?17 ADM: it’sgotthis-(0.2)it’sgot(0.3)hardjobtodo. (2.6)18 LUK: ((to ADM))i’mmakingoneforyou. %com: Play continues and ADM is now part of the group.@End

church Book.indb 211 13/01/2009 12:11:54


@Begin@Partcipants: LUKLuke,SAMSam,PET,Peter,ADMAdam@Filename: Ob1.14.ca@Audio: Disc6(2):(Begin)7:48@Episode: 14@Situation: SAM and PET are assisting LUK in the constructionofhisbridge.SAMaccidentally knockstheblocksover.

1 SAM: 0((%act:knocksblocksover))2 SAM: [ah],3 LUK: [o]:hYOUDIDTHA:T!=4 SAM: =iwastryingtobal[anceit].5 LUK: [tstoh]oh[ohohno:.]((whining))6 SAM: [iwastryingtobalance]i:t.=7 LUK: =NAUGHTY! (0.5)8 SAM: iwastryingtobalanceit[anditjust]fe:ll.=9 LUK: [it’snaughty].10 LUK: =((toPET))say[“naughty]Sam”!11 ADM: [naughty].12 PET: naughtySam. (1.1)13 SAM: iwastryingtoba[lancei:t].14 ADM: [HEYLOOK](0.2)lookatthis!15 LUK: that’sNAUghty.16 ADM: WA[TER]!17 LUK: [NAUGHTY][THAT’SNAUGHTY],18 SAM: [IWASTRYINGTO]BALA:NCEI:T. (1.4)19 YYY: excusemeboys?20 LUK: Sambrokemy[x:].21 YYY: [well][idon’tthinkhe]reallymeantto¿22 SAM: [iwastrying-], (1.0)23 YYY: youcanmakeitagain¿ %com: Thisisfollowedbyanonverbaltusslebetween LUKandSAM,eachtryingtograbblocks,each burstingintotears.@End

church Book.indb 212 13/01/2009 12:11:54

Appendix A 213

@Begin@Participants: PETPeter,ADMAdam,SAMSam,RONRon@Filename: Ob1.15.ca@Audio: Disc7(2):(Begin)0:51@Episode: 15@Situation: ADMhasbroughttoycarsfromhome.

1 PET: butwhichonecan↑i:↓have. (1.5)2 ADM: ihavetohavetwo. (1.2)3 PET: andwhichonethenthenwhich[one],4 ADM: [igot]anotheroneofthespecialcar? (0.3)5 PET: but[butcanihave]thisone?6 ADM: [thatthat-], (0.2)7 ADM: nocozthatone’slittletinyand(.)it’sgot .hhh little pieces (0.3) .hhh and you might chokeonthem(0.4).hhh[and]it’s(0.2)and there’sasharpthinguptheback.8 RON: [what-], (1.1)9 SAM: that’s a tow bar that’s what that’s called a [towbar].10 ADM: [yeahbut]butah(0.2)cozidon’thavea-but idon’thaveatrai:ler. (0.6)11 SAM: itdoesn’tmatterifyoudon’thaveatrailer .hhhh[cozit’stooxxx.]12 PET: [nobuti:]buti:want(.)oneofthose. (1.2)13 ADM: yeahbuti(.)butidon’thaveanymore. (1.3)14 PET: butwhichonecanihavethen. (1.0)15 ADM: (ihave)nothingforyou. (0.4)16 PET: why:. (2.3)17 SAM: ((to PET))makewithme! (0.2)

church Book.indb 213 13/01/2009 12:11:55


18 PET: ↑oka:y i will make with (0.2) Sam then ((to ADM))iwon’tbeyourfriendanymore¿ (0.4)19 PET: ((to SAM)) nowcanihavethatone? (0.9)20 SAM: hereyougo.((gives car to PET))@End

@Begin@Participants: ADMAdam,SAMSam@Filename: Ob1.16.ca@Audio: Disc8(1):(Begin)10:33@Episode: 16@Situation: SAMisplayingwiththeblocks.ADMjoins him.

1 ADM: howboutwemakecreche:.2 SAM: iwannamakearoad(.)andyou:r(0.2)rocket (0.2)isunderit. (0.7)3 ADM: yeahbut(0.6)weneedthose(.).hhhcoz(0.2) .hhthisis-(0.2)howboutwemakecrecheSam¿ (0.7)4 SAM: no. (1.3)5 ADM: yeahbutwehaveto. (2.1)6 ADM: that(.)thatcanbe(0.5)umm, (2.5) %act: pullsdownablockthatSAMhasplacedupright7 SAM: ↑no:(0.4)thatisUP. (0.7)8 ADM: nobutiwannamakeCRECHE. (0.3)9 SAM: butit’smybui:ldi:ng(.)i:didthisbridge. (3.2) %com: ADMiswatchingSAMmovetheblocks.10 SAM: andits-, (1.6)11 SAM: andthese(0.3)ºthesegooverlikeºthat.=12 ADM: =yeahbut(0.2)butthat’stheriveryouremember that(.).hhhthat’stheriver. (0.3)

church Book.indb 214 13/01/2009 12:11:55

Appendix A 215

13 SAM: that’stherivergoing(0.9)goingu:nderit. (0.4)14 ADM: yes. (2.7) %com: cooperativeplaycontinues.@End

@Begin@Participants: ADMAdam,PETPeter,KOYKoyo@Filename: Ob1.17.ca@Audio: Disc8(1):(Begin)30:37@Episoe: 17@Situation: ADM,PET,KOYandSAMhavebeenplaying withtheblocksforsometime.Classroom rulesstatethatblocksontheshelfmay beusedbyanychild,butoncetheyhave beenremovedandusedinconstructionthey belong to that child (i.e. permission mustbeaskedbeforeusingablockthat isalreadyonthefloor).ADMapproaches theshelf.

1 ADM: i’mgonnabuildxxxx. (0.2)2 PET: ohnoyou’renot. (0.2)3 ADM: yesiam. (0.2)4 PET: no. (0.8)5 ADM: ºiamº. (1.4)6 PET: i’mgonnagetallofthese(0.4)littleblocks,= %act: PETstartsremovingblocksfromshelf.7 ADM: =yeahbutYOUHAVETOSHARE. (1.5)8 PET: butwe’renotgonnasharewithourtoys[arewe]¿ %com: PETisaddressingSAMandKOY.9 ADM: [yeahbut]you[HAVEto].10 KOY: [>wedon’twanttoshare]with[you<.]11 PET: [NO.] (0.2)12 KOY: no. (0.5)

church Book.indb 215 13/01/2009 12:11:55


13 ADM: yeahBUTYOUHAVETO. (0.8)14 PET: no. (0.3)15 ADM: .hhNOBUTYOUHAVETOSHARE. (1.1)16 KOY: NO. %act: PETandKOYstarttakingblocksfromthefloor, blocksthatADMhastakenfromtheshelf. (0.6)17 PET: yeahwe’vegotallofour-, %act: takesmoreblocks. (1.3)18 ADM: THEYARENOTYOU:RBLOCKS. %act: PETandKOYcontinuetotakeADM’sblocks. (0.4)19 ADM: ifyou(0.6)(that)(.)NO:.((starts to cry)) %yyy: teacherintervenes,sayingtoobserver“Somebody needsasleeptoday”.@End

@Begin@Participants: TESTess,SAMSam,KOYKoyo,PETPeter, ADMAdam,LUKLuke@Filename: Ob1.18.ca@Audio: Disc8(2)(Begin)10:24@Episode: 18@Situation: All the children are packing away the blocks.KOYaccidentallyknockssomeof the blocks off the shelf. KOY and SAM laugh.TEShasjustmovedintothisroom fromKinder1(youngergroup)andisone of only two children in this playroom undertheageof4.

%act: blocksknocked(accidentally)offshelfbyKOY1 SAM: o:hh[hhuhhuhhuh][[huhhuh,]]2 KOY: [hahhahhah,]3 TES: [[THAT’S]](.)VERYNAUGHty. (1.1)4 SAM: no↑Koyodidn’tdoit? (0.9)5 KOY: [no.]6 TES: [yes]hedid[he]did.

church Book.indb 216 13/01/2009 12:11:55

Appendix A 217

7 KOY: [no].8 SAM: a[(ctually)],9 KOY: ((to TES))[see(.)$yo:u]didit$. (0.2)10 TES: NO::IDIDN’:T. (0.9)11 SAM: Te:ss(.)too:lou:d.12 KOY: ithurtsmyears. (0.3)13 SAM: it hurts (.) my ears as well (.) that’s a ou:tsi:de(.)voice(0.3)isn’titA[dam].14 ADM: [yes].15 TES: doyouknowwhat↑Sam(.)itriedanew-,16 PET: [Tesswedon’tscream(0.3)not]atall.=17 TES: =a- (0.5)18 LUK: not(even)[onelittlebit].19 PET: [notatall]. (1.9)20 PET: NOTATALL:,=21 KOY: =not[atall].22 TES: [ii]ididn’tdoitdidiNancy? (1.1)23 KOY: yeahyoudiditidid[n’t].24 PET: ((to TES))[yes]youdid.25 KOY: (Adamdidn’tdoit)?26 KOY: not[xx].27 PET: [xx-],28 TES: 0((%act:TESgesturestowardsPETwithablock))29 PET: ah! (1.2)30 PET: that’snotverynice.((chanting))31 PET: [that’snotverynice].32 KOY: [notverynice]that’snotverynice].33 SAM: [that’s not very nice] that’s not very nice] that’snotverynice.34 TES: NOIDIDN’TDOITdidi↑Nancy(0.5)Koyodidit¿=35 KOY: =no. (0.3)36 SAM: noKoyodidn’t. (0.6)37 PET: yea:h.38 SAM: itjustfelldown.

church Book.indb 217 13/01/2009 12:11:55


39 PET: ((to TES))youMissMup-, (0.5)40 ADM: youMissMu:shroom?41 TES: I’MNOTAMISS[MUSHROOM]i’m[TE::SS].42 PET: [hahaha] (0.5) [yes you are (0.2)] [[yes you are]],43 YYY: [[Tess]]¿ %yyy: TeacherintervenesbycallingTESovertothe othersideoftheroom.TESiscryingandher wordsareunintelligiblebythisstage.@End

@Begin@Participants: LUKLuke,SAMSam@Filename: Ob1.19 @Audio: Disc9(1):(Begin)40:59@Episode: 9@Situation: Packuptime.Thechildrenarepretending tobecranesandareplacingblocksnext toADMwhohasbeengiventheresponsibility ofstackingtheblocksontheshelf.

1 LUK: 0((%act:putsablockontheshelf))2 SAM: leave them there (0.3) ↑Adam’s (.) Adam’s in chargeofputtingthemaway(0.3)Luke? (5.7)3 LUK: isawyou:putoneaway¿=4 SAM: =thatdoesn’tmattercozitwasn’tablockit wasacylinder. %com: LUKmakesnofurthercomment.@End

@Begin@Participants: LUKLuke,PETPeter,ADMAdam@Filename: Ob1.20.ca@Audio: Disc10(2):(Begin)10:48@Episode: 20@Situation: PET, CHE, ADM, LUK and KOY are seated aroundatabledrawingononelargepiece ofpaper.

1 PET: 0((%act:drawsonLUK’ssideofthepaper))2 LUK: ((to PET))nothisisthemoo:n. (0.8)

church Book.indb 218 13/01/2009 12:11:55

Appendix A 219

3 LUK: no:you’redrawingonthemoo::n.=4 PET: =butthisiswherethesunis. (1.9)5 LUK: 0((%act:pushesPET’shandaway))6 PET: ((whines))don’tdrawmi::ne. (0.2)7 LUK: noyou(.)youdrawonyou:rpart. (1.3)8 LUK: theni’m-(0.5)wellthen(.)iwon’tletyou haveaturnon(0.2)thepetroltruck. %com: thisisatoyLUKhasbroughtfromhome. (0.5)9 PET: ºyesº.10 ADM: iwannahave(.)iwannahave(the)petroltruck.11 PET: yes.12 LUK: ((to PET))↑wha-(.)wellnotifyoudonot(.) notifyou’regonnagoon(.)onmine.((ie.draw onLUK’spartofthepaper)) (0.3)13 PET: iwo:n’t. (1.1)14 LUK: thereyoucangothere.((on the paper))@End

@Begin@Participants: CHECherie,LUKLuke,PETPeter@Filename: Ob1.21.ca@Audio: Disc11(1):(Begin)36:52@Episode: 21@Situation: CHEandKOYarebuildingwithblocksnear PETandLUKwhoareusingblockstomake agarage.

1 PET: 0((%act:picksupafewblockswhichareonthe groundnearCHE))2 CHE: don’tbreakoursPeter? (1.2)3 PET: butweneedlotsof(these). (1.6)4 CHE: butbutdon’ttakeo:urs. (0.5)5 PET: nowewon’t. (1.9)

church Book.indb 219 13/01/2009 12:11:55


6 LUK: weneedlittleblocks. (0.3)7 PET: weneedthelittleblocksandyoucanhavethe longblocks. %act: CHEreturnstoherownbuilding.@End

@Begin@Participants: ADMAdam,KOYKoyo@Filename: Ob1.22.ca@Audio: Disc12(1):(Begin)18:54@Episode: 22@Situation: Packuptime.Thechildrenaretryingto put blocks on the shelf. ADM has made somethingwiththeblocksontheshelf, KOY accidentally knocks it as he puts anotherblockontheshelf.

1 KOY: 0((%act:knocksblockoffshelf))2 ADM: ((whines))NO::(.)YOU’REBREAKINGIT. (0.2)3 KOY: BECAUSEYOU’RENOTPACKINGUP. (0.6)4 ADM: yesiam.5 KOY: ↑no(.)you’renotpacking¿=6 ADM: =YESIAM. %act: KOYwalksawaytocollectmoreblocks.@End

@Begin@Participants: LUKLuke,SAMSam@Filename: Ob1.23.ca@Audio: Disc12(1):(Begin)34:17@Episode: 23@Situation: LUKisbangingablockonhisownhead.

1 LUK: lookSam(0.3)owow.=2 SAM: =don’tdothat(.)that’s-, (0.8)3 SAM: don’tdothatLuke¿.4 LUK: iwanttocrackit. (2.2)

church Book.indb 220 13/01/2009 12:11:55

Appendix A 221

5 SAM: if you crack heads you’ll ↓die: (0.3) do you wantto↑die::(0.3)andthenyourmummywill cry:? (1.3)6 LUK: ºyesº. (1.5)7 SAM: don’tyoulikeyourmummy.8 LUK: ºyesidoº. (0.3)9 SAM: thendon’t(0.3)thendon’tdieyourself. %act:LUKstopshittinghisheadwiththeblock.@End

@Begin@Participants: LUKLuke,KOYKoyo,RONRon@Filename: Ob1.24.ca@Audio: Disc13(1):(Begin)13:38@Episode: 24@Situation: LUK and KOY have built separate roads withwoodenblocks.LUKpicksupanempty cardboard box to use as a tunnel under which his car can pass. (LUK built his roadwithKOY;RONbuilthiswithSAM).

1 LUK: weca-(.)theyhavetojoin(under[there]).2 RON: [notha-](0.3)weneedtha:t¿ (0.6)3 RON: weneedthat. (0.4)4 LUK: howaboutwecanputitinthe↑mi:dd↓le:.=5 RON: =yeah:. (0.5)6 LUK: sotheycango↑through↓it. (4.1)7 RON: liketha:t. (0.5)8 LUK: yeah:liketha:t.@End

church Book.indb 221 13/01/2009 12:11:56


@Begin@Participants: SAMSam,KOYKoyo,YYYTeacher@Filename: Ob1.25.ca@Audio: Disc13(1)(Begin)17:36@Episode: 25@Situation: Koyoisdrivingcarsneartheblockcorner.

1 SAM: 0 ((%act: picks up a car that KOY had been using))2 KOY: it’smi::ne. (0.9)3 KOY: iwasus[ingit-],4 SAM: [BUTI]thoughtyouweren’tusingi:t,=5 KOY: =i’m using it (0.3) i wanna- (.) tha[t’s (mine)].6 SAM: [ithoughtyou]weren’tusingi::t.=7 KOY: =iwanna(.)but(.)iwas-thatwasmi:ne.8 SAM: but↑ithoughtyouweren’tusingi:t.9 YYY: ((to SAM))wellithinkhestillis¿@End

@Begin@Participants: ADM Adam, CHE Cherie, TES TESS, YYY Teacher@Filename: Ob1.26.ca@Audio: Disc13(1):(Begin)29:43@Episode: 26@Situation: CHEandTESaresittingatatableplaying with dominoes. ADM wanders around the room for a few minutes then approaches thetwogirls.

1 ADM: ((sings))meenymeenymineymoo:. (0.2)2 CHE: nowearenotsingingthatsong,=3 TES: =we’resingingadifferentsong. (0.3)4 CHE: wearesingingadoggie(0.2)dogsong.5 TES: it’snotwhatwesingingwe’re[singing]-,6 ADM: [itit]it’sit’sit’scalled(0.5)um(0.5)hhh .hhhaa:hit’scalled(0.3)ahit-thatºthatº that(.)doggiesongiscalled(0.5)um-(0.3) .hhh,

church Book.indb 222 13/01/2009 12:11:56

Appendix A 223

7 CHE: youaren’tgonnasingit!8 ADM: ijust-(.)noi’llshowyouwhatit’scalled ↑okay(0.4)um(0.4)um(1.6)i’llsingittoyou ↑okay(0.2)um(0.6)um(0.3)the::,=9 CHE: =don’tsingit[xxx]10 ADM: [yeahbuti]butijusthavetoshowyoubecause-, (0.6)11 ADM: now(0.7)nowu:m(0.3)um-, (2.0)12 TES: wedon’twanttohearthedoggiedoggie. (1.7)13 ADM: no no no (0.2) no no doggie dog (0.4) .hhh ((starts singing))doggiedoggie(0.2)who’sgot thebone(0.3)someonestoleitfromyourhome. (0.7)14 ADM: that’sthe[song].15 CHE: [i’m](singingit). (0.3)16 ADM: you[havetosay]“doggiedoggiewho’sgotthe bone”.17 CHE: [goaway].18 CHE: GOawayfromus!19 ADM: don’tyouknow“doggie[doggiewho’sgot]-,20 TES: [wedon’t]ca:redon’twe?=21 CHE: =goawayfromus!22 ADM: >yeahbut<you:youdon’thavetosayyoudon’t care.hhcoz.hhcoz[cozcoz]-,23 CHE: [plea:se]canyougoawayfromus?24 ADM: coz(0.3)[coz(0.5)coz]-,25 CHE: [we’replayingagame].26 ADM: cozcozcozcoz[(yougot)]-,27 CHE: [GOAWAY]FROMUS! %act: pushesADM (0.3)28 ADM: DON”TPUSHME!29 CHE: ((to TES))goongethim. (0.4)30 ADM: IWON”TBEYOURFRIEND¿ %act: CHEisstillpushingADMsohepushesback.31 YYY: umexcu:semeAdam. %yyy: TeacherengagesADMinanotheractivity.@End

church Book.indb 223 13/01/2009 12:11:56


@Begin@Participants: CHECherie,FELFelicity,LUKLuke@Filename: Ob1.27.ca@Audio: Disc14(1):(Begin)21:03@Episode: 27@Situation: CHE,FELandLUKaresittingatatable doingjigsawpuzzles.LUKisrushingto finishhisfirst.

1 LUK: look(0.7)look(0.5)((singsong voice))i:beat you(.)didn’ti:. (0.4)2 CHE: welli’mstilldoingmineso(youcan’txxxx). (0.8)3 FEL:don’tSAYdon’tbeatme(0.2)[otherwise],4 CHE: [noi’m]notspeakingtoyou(.)i’m(0.2)i’m sayingittoLuke.5 FEL: you(0.3)yousaidmyname? (0.5)6 CHE:noididn’t.7 FEL:yesididihearyou. (0.3)8 CHE:no:ididn’tsayyourname.9 FEL: iknow:[becauseyou-(.)iheared].10 LUK:[you’regoingtobeatChe]riearen’tyou. (2.2)11 LUK: ((to CHE))lastisyou. (1.0)12 CHE:igot(partofxxxx). (0.7)13 FEL:don’tSAYthosesortofthings>otherwiseyou can’tcometomyparty<. (0.2)14 CHE: ididn’tsayit.15 FEL: ididn’tmeanyouimeantLuke:. %com: threechildrencontinuetoplaytogetherwithno furtherreferencetothisexchange. %com: unintelligibleutterancesinthisepisodewere obscuredbyvoicesofotherchildrennotinvolved intheexchange(playingnearby).@End

church Book.indb 224 13/01/2009 12:11:56

Appendix A 225

@Begin@Participants: CHECherie,FELFelicity,LUKLuke,GER Geri,JONJohn@Filename: Ob1.28.ca@Audio: Disc14(1):(Begin)22:26@Episode: 28@Situation: JON has made a house by placing blocks together in an outline, GGG has been helping him. CHE, LUK and FEL approach holdingcars.

1 LUK: 0 ((%act: starts driving his car along the blocks))2 JON: noit’snota-(0.5)it’snota-(0.9)it’snot aroad. (0.2)3 CHE: ºiknowthatº. (1.7)4 LUK: i’mgo[ingtomakeatramtrack.]5 GER:[that(.)thatdoesn’tlooklike].hhhahouse (0.6)butitisahouse((to JON))isn’t[it].6 FEL:[that]doesn’tlooklikeahouse.7 CHE: itdoesn’tlooklikeone?8 FEL:no:?=9 LUK:=itlookslikeatramtrackdoesn’tit.10 FEL:[yes].11 CHE: [yes]. (0.2)12 JON: noitdoesn’t(.)it’sadifferentsortofhouse. (0.4)13 CHE: i’llbreakit? (0.4)14 JON: nodon’tbreakit! (0.2)15 FEL: iwill[breakit]?16 JON: [otherwise]i’lltelltheteacher. (0.5)17 FEL: iwillbreakitJohn.18 JON:DON’TBREAKitOTHERWISEIWILLTELL[THETEACHERS onyou].19 LUK:[John(0.3)Jo:hn]iwon’tbreakyour[house].20 CHE:[i]can’tbreakmy:things. (0.3)

church Book.indb 225 13/01/2009 12:11:56


21 FEL:idon’tbreakmy:things. (0.7)22 JON:don’tbreakmyhouse(.)likethat! (1.1)23 CHE: [i(break)mythings].24 LUK:[howaboutmaking](0.2)tram[tracksxxxx],25 GER:[thiscanbeWinne]thePooh’shouse. (0.7)26 JON:welldon’tbreakmyhouse(0.8)coz(0.2)it’s (0.3)veryspecial[whatimade].27 CHE:[isnot]? (0.5)28 JON: itisso¿=29 LUK:=howbou[tican]joinmytram(0.2)railround toyourhouse.30 CHE: [itisnot].31 JON:((to LUK))yes(0.5)eh(0.4)(yesgood)idea. %act: JONnowbecomesinvolvedinthebuildingwithLUK.@End

@Begin@Participants: CHECherie,FELFelicity,JONJohn@Filename: Ob1.29.ca@Audio: Disc14(1):(Begin)28:16@Episode: 29@Situation: John, Cherie and Felicity are playing withLego.

1 JON:whobrokemyspaceshipmywingedspaceship. (0.8)2 CHE:noone. (0.4)3 JON:yes(.)she(.)did. (1.2)4 JON:Felicitydid. (1.4)5 CHE:Felicitydidn’t. (0.4)6 JON:Felicity’s(0.2)shoedidit. (2.6)7 JON:iknowthat(1.6)really. (9.5)8 FEL: 0((%act:FELnowapproachesCHEandJONflying herLegospaceship))

church Book.indb 226 13/01/2009 12:11:56

Appendix A 227

9 FEL: brmbrrmbrrrm.10 JON: somebodybreaked(0.5)thewing(0.6)((to FEL)) didyourshoebrokethewing? %act: CHEmovesaway. (0.8)11 FEL:no? (0.8)12 JON:yes(.)itdid(1.2)sosaynaughtyshoe(that breakedit). (1.7)13 FEL:i’mNOTASHOE:.14 JON:itwas. (0.7)15 FEL:noi’:mno:ttheshoe.16 JON:no (0.2) uh (0.6) yes that’s the shoe that knockedmysp-(0.5)mywing. %act:FELmovesawaytojoinCHE.@End

@Begin@Participants: LUK Luke, FEL Felicity, JON John, JO2 John(2),CHECherie,BILBill@Filename: Ob1.30.ca@Audio: Disc15(1):(Begin)27:07@Episode: 30@Situation: LUK, CHE and FEL had built houses with blocks but were no longer playing with them.JO2accidentallysteppedononeof thehousesashewascrossingtheroomto playwithJONandBIL.

1 LUK: Cherie:.hhhh(.)Cherielookwhattheydidto yourhouse!2 FEL: that’s↑myhouse. (0.2)3 LUK: lookwhattheydidtoyourhouseFelicity. (0.6)4 FEL: Cherielookwhattheydidtoyourhouse.5 CHE: iwastryingtogetmy[xxxx],6 JON: [ma-(.)itwasn’t]mewhodid(.)your(0.2) house(0.3)Felicity(0.3)itwasn’tmeandBill?7 FEL: itwasJohn. (0.5)8 JON: it↑wasn’t(0.2)itwasthatJohn.

church Book.indb 227 13/01/2009 12:11:56


9 JO2:iwa-ididn’tdothat.10 FEL: yesyoudid.11 JO2: no[ididn’t].12 LUK:[youdid]so:!13 JO2: didno:t. (0.7)14 JON: wellwhodidthat. (0.6)15 LUK:Johndidit.16 JO2: nothe[tabledoneit].17 JON: [ididn’t]. (0.3)18 JO2: thetabledoneit. (0.4)19 JO2:thetable(0.6)thetabledoneit. (0.7)20 FEL: didnot? (0.5)21 JO2: [didtoo:].22 LUK: [didnoti]s-,23 JO2: the table [done it and then] it stepped on itself,=24 LUK: [isa:wit.]25 LUK: =isawwhathappened. (1.1)26 LUK: umhowdid-whodidit? (0.7)27 FEL: um[Billwhodidit].28 JON:[idon’tknow]whodidit. (0.5)29 JO2: we[don’tknow].30 BIL:[ma:ybe:] (0.5) maybe somebody did it ºxxxx[x.]º31 LUK: [itmight]havebeena(boythathad[xx).]32 FEL:[iknow]whodiditliondid. (1.2)33 BIL: may:beabearcame. (1.0)34 JON: yeah(0.3)welldone.@End

church Book.indb 228 13/01/2009 12:11:56

Appendix A 229

@Begin@Participants: ADMAdam,SAMSam,KOYKoyo,YYYTeacher@Filename: Ob1.31.ca@Audio: Disc16(1):(Begin)0:45@Episode: 31@Situation: ADM, SAM and KOY are in the “kitchen”. ADM has already prepared a bowl of playdoughfortheteacher.

1 SAM: 0((%act:placescorksontopoftheplaydough inthebowlpreparedbyADM))2 KOY: andthat-,3 ADM: that’sY’s. (4.2)4 SAM:º(iwanttoput)somemoreofthoseinº. (0.6)5 ADM:nowedon’tneedtoputcorksin.=6 KOY: =excusem[e:].7 SAM: [no]they’refood(0.7)they[‘re]carro[ts.]8 ADM: [no],9 KOY: [>put](them)in<.10 ADM: nothey’renot. (0.2)11 SAM:they’recarrots! (0.4)12 KOY: look(0.2)they’recarrots. (0.4)13 SAM:((to teacher))they’renot[xxx].14 JON: AHH:HA.15 YYY: whoopsie(you)droppedthefood. (1.4)16 SAM: ((to teacher))<he’snotlettingmeput->,17 KOY: excuseme[xxx].18 YYY:[talkto]yourfriendstalktoyourfriends.19 SAM:0((%act:againtriestoputcarrotsinbowl))20 ADM: that’s[got]them.21 SAM: ehh.22 KOY: thisone’s[mine].23 SAM: [i(.)don’t](.)likethat¿=24 ADM:=NOTHAT’SY’s. (0.8)25 ADM:that’sY’s.26 SAM: eneaghh((whines)). (0.6)

church Book.indb 229 13/01/2009 12:11:56


27 KOY: idon’thavemy[xxx].28 ADM:[that’swhere]thespoongoes. %act: takescorksoutofbowl.29 SAM: 0((%act:attemptstoreturncork))30 ADM: n[o:].31 SAM: [eang]hh. (0.2)32 SAM:ADAMIWANTTO:::.33 YYY:okaywhat’stheproblem.34 ADM:it’sal-it’salreadygot[carrotsin].35 YYY:[yeahwhatdoes]whatdoesSamwanttodoAdam?36 ADM:umbutthishasalreadygotcarrots. %yyy: teacher continues dialogue with ADM regarding additionofcarrots.ShesuggeststhatSAMcook withhisownbowl.@End

@Begin@Participants: KOYKoyo,SAMSam,YYYTeacher@Filename: Ob1.32.ca@Audio: Disc17(1)(Begin)6:43@Episode: 32@Situation: KOYandSAMhavebeenplayingwithhand puppets. SAM still has puppets on the “stage” (cardboard box with flaps). KOY triestoshutthebox.

1 SAM: 0((%act:pushesflapsopen))2 KOY:no:noitwasclo:sedthat. (0.4)3 KOY:itwasclosednowit’sclosed. (0.5)4 KOY:theshowisfinished(0.4)Samthe(.).hhhshow isfinished↑Samyoucan’t-(0.2)[nowyou],5 SAM:[noea]ngh::((whines)).6 KOY: theSHOWisFINISHED.7 SAM:0((%act:continuestoholdpuppetsinbox))8 KOY:0((%act:triestoshutflaps))9 SAM: no:.10 KOY:theshow(.)is(.)fin↑ished(.)[(now)].11 SAM: [no]:.((whines)) %yyy: teacherapproaches(1.6)12 KOY:((to teacher))theshowisfinished. (0.2)

church Book.indb 230 13/01/2009 12:11:57

Appendix A 231

13 YYY:wellidon’tthinkSamisfinished.14 KOY:theshowisfinishedY. %act: KOYdoesnotpursuetopicandmovesawayfrom thepuppetarea.@End

@Begin@Participants: PETPeter,CHECherie,FELFelicity@Filename: Ob1.33.ca@Audio: Disc18(1):(Begin)4:07@Episode: 33@Situation: PET,CHE,KOYandFELareplayingfamilies inthehomecorner.

1 PET: ↑now:(0.6)youhavetohaveababy:now[you]-,2 CHE:[↑no](0.3)there’snobabyinthisone.3 PET:ye:sit’s[xx],4 CHE:[no](0.2)coz(0.2)firstweneedtodoitagain (0.3)atthestart. (1.9)5 PET:no::.6 CHE:(goesthere). (0.9)7 PET:no::we’vealreadybeen(near)thestart. %com: Cheriemakesnoresponse.Parallelplaycontinues@End

@Begin@Participants: PET Peter, FEL Felicity, ADM Adam, KOY Koyo@Filename: Ob1.34.ca@Audio: Disc18(1):(Begin)25:38@Episode: 34@Situation: PETisdrivingoneofthetwocarsKOYhas broughtfromhome.

1 FEL:he’shavingalongturnKoyo. (0.4)2 ADM: you’rehavingalongturn. (0.3)3 PET:no↑i’mnot¿ (0.2)4 ADM: yesyouare¿ (1.4)

church Book.indb 231 13/01/2009 12:11:57


5 FEL:Peter’shavingalongturn. (1.1)6 ADM: i[wannaºhaveaturnº].7 KOY: [hemightgiveyou](theturn)Felicity.=8 ADM: =iwannahaveaturn.9 PET:buti:’mnotfin(.)ishedye::t.=10 FEL: =yeah:. (0.6)11 PET: well.hh, (1.9)12 ADM: no:,=13 FEL: =no[:].14 ADM:[tha]t’salongtu:rn. (0.2)15 PET: i’vegotfourmoreminutes(left). (0.4)16 ADM:((to FEL)) no i think he’s got four more minutes¿ %com: argument ceases for two minutes but then ADM pursuesPETtotheothersideoftheroomand resumesattemptstohaveaturnwiththecar.@End

@Begin@Participants: ADMAdam,PETPeter@Filename: Ob1.35.ca@Audio: Disc19(1):(Begin)39:21@Episode: 35@Situation: ADMpicksupalegoconstructionthatPET hadleftonthetable.

1 ADM: now(0.2)(i’mgonnaputthatthere).2 PET:HE::Y.3 ADM:>yeahbut<youleftithere? (1.3)4 PET:buti:-(0.6)leaveittherewhereiputit.5 ADM: yeahnowi:gotit.6 PET:nnghehhngh:((grabbing object)). %act: bothboysstruggle,holdingontoLego.7 YYY:AdamandPeter. %yyy: teacherintervenesandexplainstoADMthatPET wasstillusingtheLegoandthathemustputit backonthetable.@End

church Book.indb 232 13/01/2009 12:11:57

Appendix A 233

Observation 2 transcripts

@Begin@Participants: MIRMiranda,CAZCaroline@Filename: Ob2.1.ca@Audio: Disc2:(Begin)6:06@Episode: 1@Situation: MIRandCAZareplayinginthespaceship. MIRisholdingtwoplasticlids.

1 MIR: we↑bothhavetwo. (1.2)2 MIR: see? (0.8)3 CAZ: no:(0.3)(i’vegotthese).4 MIR: thengiveonetomeCarolinebecauseyou’vegot lotsthere. (1.0)5 CAZ: i’mnotgivinganyofthesetoyou¿ (1.8)6 MIR: (ifyoudon’t)theni’lljusttakeitthen. %act: reachestograbplasticlid7 CAZ: STO::P! (0.3)8 MIR: gimmeoneofthem. (0.2)9 CAZ: iamnotgoingto. ....(5.6)10 %com: utterancesinaudible11 MIR: let’sjustbeniceandunderstandokay? (1.9)12 CAZ: butwehavetojusttypeintothecomputer. %com: MIR takes up this suggestion and both girls return to playing with the keyboards in the spaceship@End

church Book.indb 233 13/01/2009 12:11:57


@Begin@Participants: CAZCaroline,MIRMiranda,JAKJack,TOM Tom@Filename: Ob2.2.ca@Audio: Disc2:(Begin)22:45@Episode: 2@Situation: CAZandMIRwereplayinginthespaceship priortodressingupforawedding.JAK and TOM have come in from outside, and JAKhasenteredthespaceship.

%act: girlsattempttoenterthespaceship1 JAK: no! (0.2)2 MIR: Jack<wewereplayingintha:[:t>].((whines))3 CAZ: [(hey]we’replayingwith)that. (0.3)4 JAK: no:(.)youwereoverthere.5 CAZ: no:westillhaven’tfinished.6 JAK: well[wehave-],7 MIR: [butthat]wasourfairy[spaceship].8 JAK: [no::]! %act: pushesCAZasshetriestoenter9 TOM: it’sarocketship(.)youguys. (1.1)10 CAZ: we’replayingwewereplayingintherefi:rst¿11 CAZ: andthenwe’rejustnexttothere(0.3)andwe got some fir:st [and we] just went to get married.12 JAK: [POW]! (2.3)13 JAK: ((to TOM))comeon! %act: CAZstartsmovingtowardsteacher.14 CAZ: ((to Teacher))excu:se[me:].15 JAK: [HEYWAIT]! %act:JAKfollowsCAZtoteachertoarguehiscase.@End

church Book.indb 234 13/01/2009 12:11:57

Appendix A 235

@Begin@Participants: SIMSimon,GARGary,TOMTom@Filename: Ob2.3.ca@Audio: Disc5:(Begin)12:46@Episode: 3@Situation: SIM,GARandTOMareplayingintheblock corner.

1 SIM: ((to TOM))whattimedoyouleavecrechetoday? (1.4)2 SIM: areyougoinghomebeforelunchorafterlunch. (0.3)3 TOM: a:fter(0.3)i:’mgoingafterlunchareyou? (0.2)4 SIM: i’mgoing(0.5)a:fterlunch. (0.2)5 TOM: metoo. (0.9)6 GAR: i’mgoingbefo:relunch. (1.0)7 TOM: noyouare::n’t. (2.2)8 GAR: i’mnotstayingforlunch. (0.2)9 TOM: pardon? (0.3)10 GAR: i’mnotstayingforlunch. (1.2)11 TOM: you’re(.)you’re(0.3)you’retrickingme:. (0.2)12 GAR: iamnot!13 TOM: youyouyouaresoyou’vegotasmileonyour face. (0.9)14 GAR: go and look in the book (0.4) go and have a look! %act: TOMgoestoaskteacherifGARisstayingfor lunch.@End

church Book.indb 235 13/01/2009 12:11:57


@Begin@Participants: JAKJack,LOULouise@Filename: Ob2.4.ca@Audio: Disc6:(Begin)32:56@Episode: 4@Situation: LOUandJAKhavebeenaskingtheteacher whatdayitis(Friday).Theymovetowards thecalendartomovethearrowtoFriday.

1 JAK: oh(thenthetwoofuscan)doittoday?2 LOU: noicandoit¿ (0.2)3 JAK: NO:IWANNADoit. (0.5)4 JAK: thetheteachersaid↑iwilldoit. (0.3)5 LOU: no:w (.) i know which day (0.2) and i can doit¿=6 JAK: =icandoittoo. (0.6)7 LOU: no(.)iicandoit[i-], %act: pullingarrowfromJAK8 JAK: [it’s]gonnabreak>it’sgonnabreak<¿ (0.3)9 LOU: iknowbuti’mverygentle. %act:putsarrowonFriday %com:bothchildrenreturntocollaborativeplaywith connectorpieces.@End

@Begin@Participants: LOULouise,ELIElinor,HILHilary@Filename: Ob2.5.ca@Audio: Disc4:(Begin)18:23@Episode: 5@Situation: LOU, ELI and HIL are building a house withwoodenblocksintheblockcorner.

%act: astackofblocksfalldownoftheirownaccord1 ELI: Loui:se, (0.7)2 LOU: youdidit. (0.4)3 ELI: noididn’t?=

church Book.indb 236 13/01/2009 12:11:57

Appendix A 237

4 LOU: =cozyouwere-(0.4)youwereputting(0.3)your (.)h:andsonit. (0.3)5 ELI: no.hhcoziwashelpingwithHilary. %act:LOUandELIstartrebuilding@End

@Begin@Participants: LOULouise,ELIElinor,HILHilary@Filename: Ob2.6.ca@Audio: Disc4:(Begin)23:03@Episode: 6@Situation: LOU and ELI are walking around the two wallsthattheyhavemadeoutofblocks. Whiletheyaredoingthis,HILhasplaced twoblocksacrossthefloor.

1 LOU: ((to ELI))>whydidyoudo<that. (0.4)2 ELI: i↑didn’t. (1.2)3 LOU: who:didthe:se. (0.7)4 LOU: ((to HIL))didyou?5 HIL: 0((%act:nods))(0.8)6 LOU: $whydidyoudothat$. (2.2)7 HIL: ºi’mnottellingyouwhyº. (0.9)8 ELI: maybecozshewas(0.6)(makingafloor). (1.5)9 LOU: oh>shallwemakea<floor? (0.3)10 ELI: yes(0.2)>ofcoursewe<can.@End

church Book.indb 237 13/01/2009 12:11:57


@Begin@Participants: ELIElinor,CAZ,Caroline@Filename: Ob2.7.ca@Audio: Disc8:(Begin)10:22@Episode: 7@Situation: ELI and CAZ have been playing in the spaceship.CAZisholdingadollthatshe hascollectedfromthenearbydollshouse.

1 CAZ: here’sanotherbiggirl¿ (0.4)2 ELI: that’snotagirlthat’sabo::y. (0.2)3 CAZ: girlswearpants. (0.9)4 ELI: well(0.5)that’s-iknowthat’saboy. (0.2)5 CAZ: cozshe’swearing↑pants(0.3)she’sagirl? %act: pointingtotheobserver (1.8)6 ELI: who’swearingpants. (0.3)7 CAZ: sheis. %act: pointstoobserver (1.9)8 ELI: iknowsheis(.)butthat’saboy(.)iknow that. %com: referringtodoll (1.2)9 CAZ: girlscanhaveshorthair.10 ELI: ºxxxxxº. (2.5)11 CAZ: nothat’smine(igotmi:ne)mine! (0.4)12 ELI: it’smine. (1.1)13 CAZ: theni’llhavethese. (3.3)14 ELI: iwannahave(.)agir:l(0.4)iwannahaveaone ↑girl. (0.7)15 ELI: you’vegottwo:gi:rls. (0.4)

church Book.indb 238 13/01/2009 12:11:58

Appendix A 239

16 ELI: (you’vegot)boththegirls. (0.3)17 CAZ: no:there’sanothergirl¿ (0.2)18 ELI: butidon’tlikethatgirl. (6.8)19 ELI: youcan’thavetwogirls.((petulant tone)) (0.7)20 ELI: wellthat’stheboyandihateboys. (1.1)21 ELI: i’mnotgonnatobeyourfriendifyoudon’tever givemethat. (1.0)22 CAZ: i’mnotgonnaevergivethattoyou.23 ELI: okay(.)i’mgettingoutofhere.24 CAZ: alright? (1.1)25 CAZ: thereyouare? %act: throwstheboy/dislikedgirldollouttoELI %com:ELImovesawayfromplayarea@End

@Begin@Participants: WINWinnie,PAUPaul@Note: raining this morning, therefore more childreninsidethanusual.@Filename: Ob2.8.ca@Audio: Disc9(1):(Begin)24:08@Episode: 8@Situation: WINandLOUarebuildinggarageswiththe woodenblocks.PAUhasjoinedthem.WIN picks up a plastic ladder made from connectorpieces.

1 WIN: i’vegotagreatideawhatwecandowiththis¿ (2.5)2 PAU:giveittome!3 WIN:i[foundit].4 PAU:[noi-](.)noihadi:t.5 WIN: ifoundit¿6 PAU: noihaditawhileag[o]?7 WIN:[no]. (0.5)8 PAU: ihaditawhileago.=

church Book.indb 239 13/01/2009 12:11:58


9 WIN:=noyoudid[n’t].10 PAU:[well]i’mtellingonyou. (0.7)11 WIN:excuseme[Y]YY.12 PAU: [no],13 PAU: umCarolinegaveittome. %com: Carolineisnotpresentintheplay (0.5)14 WIN: excuseme[YYY].15 PAU:[Caroline]gaveittome. %yyy: teacherintervenesbutresponseisinaudible.@End

@Begin@Participants: LOULouise,PAUPaul@Note: rainingthismorning(morechildreninside thanusual)@Filename: Ob2.9.ca@Audio: Disc9(1):(Begin)27:40@Episode: 9@Situation: LOU and WIN have been building garages with wooden blocks. PAU approaches and touchesoneoftheblockswithaplastic ladder.

1 PAU: 0((%act:touchesblockwithplasticladder))2 LOU: whatareyoudo:ing. (1.5)3 PAU:0((%act:continuestonudgetheblocks))4 LOU:whatareyoudoingyou’rebreakingeverything. (2.2)5 PAU: 0((%act:continuestotouchblocks))6 LOU:do:n’t! (1.1)7 PAU:youcanstill(.)fixit¿ (1.1)8 LOU:((to WIN))Paul’sspoiling-(0.3)((to PAU))we wereherefi:rst. (0.5)9 PAU:wewereherefirst. (0.4)10 PAU: xx[xxx]11 LOU: [we(need)]the-,

church Book.indb 240 13/01/2009 12:11:58

Appendix A 241

12 LOU:wewere-offyougobecausewewereherefirst! (3.4)13 LOU:you’rewreckingeverything. %act: PAUmovesawayfromblockarea.@End

@Begin@Participants: FREFred,JIMJim,PAUPaul@Note: rainingthismorning(morechildreninside thanusual)@Filename: Ob2.10.ca@Audio: Disc9(1):(Begin)31:26@Episode: 10@Situation: FREandJIMareplayinginthespaceship. PAU approaches them holding a plastic laddermadefromconnectorpiecesthathe foundintheblockcorner.

1 PAU: Fredareyoustillusingthis? (0.5)2 FRE:ME. (1.4)3 JIM:yeshei:s. (0.2)4 PAU:wellthen(1.2)thenhowcomeyou’renotusing it¿ (0.5)5 JIM:C[O::Z].6 FRE:[putit]overthe::re!7 JIM:YEAH::!8 FRE: don’tx(0.2)lookafteritxxxxx. (0.2)9 FRE:PaulDON’TBREAKit!10 PAU:iwon’t. (0.2)11 JIM:(co:z). (0.3)12 PAU:IWON’T. (0.4)13 FRE: alright. (0.2)14 JIM:youbetterwatchit. (4.4)

church Book.indb 241 13/01/2009 12:11:58


15 FRE:((to JIM))youcankillthetrollsalright(.) ((to PAU))you’rewreckingit. %act:PAU is pulling some of the pieces off the ladder. (3.6)16 FRE:DON’T(.)WRECKi:t! (0.2)17 PAU:iwannamakesomething(.)andyouweren’teven usingit. (1.0)18 FRE:buti(.)iwilluseit↑later. (1.2)19 PAU:noyouwere:n’tnoyouweren’tevenusingitno:w¿ (0.7)20 FRE:yeahnow-(0.5)then-(0.3)you’re(wreckingit) i’llkillyourwholebuildingdown? (0.3)21 PAU:huh? (0.3)22 FRE:killyourwholebuildingdownifyoudon’t-, (0.3)23 PAU: ididn’tididn’tevenmakeabuilding. (0.5)24 JIM:yesyoudi:d¿25 PAU:what. (0.7)26 JIM:yourum(0.6)bits:. (0.4)27 PAU:↑yeah(0.3)andi’llbreakyour↑headoff. %com: JIMandFREignorePAUandcontinueimaginative playinthespaceship.@End

church Book.indb 242 13/01/2009 12:11:58

Appendix A 243

@Begin@Participants: FREFred,JIMJim,PAUPaul@Note: rainingthismorning(morechildreninside thanusual)@Filename: Ob2.11.ca@Audio: Disc9(1):(Begin)34:33@Episode: 11@Situation: FRE and JIM are still playing in the spaceship. PAU approaches them for a secondtime.

1 FRE: 0 ((%act: throws a party hat out of the spaceship))2 PAU:don’t(.)youcan’twreckthose(0.2)he:lmets. (0.4)3 FRE:ihatethishelmet.=4 PAU:=youcan’teventhrowemout. (1.4)5 FRE:wedon’tneedthemºdoweº? (0.2)6 PAU:thenwhydon’tyou↑needthem. %com: FREdoesnotrespond,PAUmovesaway.@End

@Begin@Participants: LOULouise,WINWinnie@Note: rainingthismorning(morechildreninside thanusual)@Filename: Ob2.12.ca@Audio: Disc9(2):(Begin)3:59@Episode: 12@Situation: LOU and WIN have been building bridges etcintheblockcornerforsometime.As LOUdriveshercararoundsheisknocking overblocks.

1 WIN: do:n’tyou’rewreckingeverything.2 LOU:welli’mtryingtogoround.3 LOU: 0((%act:knocksanothersetofblocks))4 WIN:DO:N’T!5 LOU:welli’mtryingtogetthroughandyouputso manythingshere. %com:WINmakesnofurthercomment.@End

church Book.indb 243 13/01/2009 12:11:58


@Begin@Participants: LOULouise,WINWinnie@Note: rainingthismorning(morechildreninside thanusual)@Filename: Ob2.13.ca@Audio: Disc9(2):(Begin)7:08@Episode: 13@Situation: WIN and LOU are playing in the block corner.

1 WIN: 0((%act:drivesacarontotheblocks))2 LOU:iwanttou:se(.)iwasusingthatcar. (0.4)3 WIN:noyouwereusingthatcar. (0.6)4 LOU:what? (0.8)5 WIN:thatcarthatyou’vegotalready¿ %com: Loumakesnoresponse@End

@Begin@Participants: DONDon,ALIAlistair,TOMTom@Filename: Ob2.14.ca@Audio: Disc11(1):(Begin)10:24@Episode: 14@Situation: 9:48am.DONandALIareplayinginthe spaceship. TOM approaches DON, who is wearingawatch.

1 TOM: what’sthetimeDon.2 DON:0((%act:showswatchtoTOM))3 ALI:caniseewhatthetimeis? (0.4)4 DON:oneo’clock. (0.8)5 ALI:that’sthetime?6 TOM:(yeah)th[at]-,7 DON:[one] o’clo:ck (0.4) yea::h (.) it’s one o’clock. (0.2)8 TOM:noit’snot. (2.3)9 DON:(on(.)onthe)timeitsays-,

church Book.indb 244 13/01/2009 12:11:58

Appendix A 245

10 TOM:it’snotthat’steno’clock. %act: ALI then draws DON’s attention back to the spaceshipplay.@End

@Begin@Participants: MIRMiranda,PauPaul@Filename: Ob2.15.ca@Audio: Disc12:(Begin)5:37@Episode: 15@Situation: PAU,FREandMIRarelisteningtoastory tapeonheadsetswithanotherchild.The childrenarehavingproblemscontrolling thevolume(thereisamaincontrolboard with a volume switch for each headset pluggedin).

1 MIR: ican’thea:rit. %act: fiddleswithbuttons (0.2)2 PAU: ↑hey.3 MIR: ican’thearit. (0.9)4 PAU: he:ydon’tyou’llbreakitliketha:t. (1.2)5 MIR: butican’thea:r.6 PAU: 0 ((%act: turns the control button for MIR’s headset))(1.6)7 PAU: nowyoucanhear¿@End

@Begin@Participants: MIRMiranda,PauPaul,FREFred@Filename: Ob2.16.ca@Audio: Disc12:(Begin)5:52@Episode: 16@Situation: PAU, FRE and MIR are still having difficulties with the volume control on theheadsets.

1 PAU: 0((%act:turnsvolumecontroltoanotherheadset))2 FRE: he[::y]. %act: pushingPAU’shandaway

church Book.indb 245 13/01/2009 12:11:58


3 PAU: [hey]. (0.7)4 FRE: i’vegotthiso:ne. (1.4)5 PAU: ican’thearanything. (1.1)6 FRE: wellicanhearit. %act: PAUthenturnstoteacherforhelp.@End

@Begin@Participants: GARGary,SIMSimon@Filename: Ob2.17.ca@Audio: Disc14(1):(Begin)5:03@Episode: 17@Situation: GAR and SIM are playing in the block cornerwiththeplasticconnectorpieces. SIMislookingforapieceandfindsitin oneofGAR’sconstructions.

1 SIM: canibreakthis? (0.5)2 GAR: n:o.3 SIM:well>canihavea-<cani(breakthis).hhh¿=4 GAR:=NONO:(0.3)(noibuiltit)don’t! (1.0)5 SIM:Ga↑ry:(1.0)canihavealittleplayofyours? (0.2)6 GAR:no. (1.3)7 SIM: cani?8 GAR:no.9 SIM:iwon’t[breakit].10 GAR:[idon’twant]thosejets(going)off. (0.2)11 SIM:iwon’tbreakit. (1.8)12 SIM:>Garydoyouwannacome<tomyparty? (0.8)13 GAR:if you- (0.3) if you don’t give those (0.4) those things to me (.) you won’t come to my par:ty. (0.2)

church Book.indb 246 13/01/2009 12:11:58

Appendix A 247

14 SIM:(now)doyouwannacometomyparty? (0.3)15 GAR:youcan-(0.4)leaveitforme(0.3)leaveityou can’tcometomypar:ty. %act: SIMplacesobjectongroundandreturnstobasket tolookforotherplasticconnectorpieces.@End

@Begin@Participants: GARGary,SIMSimon@Filename: Ob2.18.ca@Audio: Disc14(1):(Begin)6:12@Episode: 18@Situation: follows episode 17 by 40 seconds (same context).

1 SIM: Garycan↑ibreakthis. (0.8)2 GAR: no:. (2.0)3 SIM: plea:secanihaveit. (0.2)4 GAR: n:o:.=5 SIM: =andthenthisafternoonyoucanmakeitagai:n.6 GAR: no(0.2)youwillbe-(0.3)youwill(0.4)be(.) behere(0.2)butiwon’t.7 SIM: well-, (4.7)8 SIM: whattimeareyougoingho:me? %com: dialogue between the two boys shifts to conversationaboutwhenlunchtimefallsrelative toGAR’sdeparture.@End

@Begin@Participants: GARGary,SIMSimon@Filename: Ob2.19.ca@Audio: Disc14(1):(Begin)9:36@Episode: 19@Situation: follows episode 24 by 3 minutes (same context).

1 SIM: Gary:(0.5)thisafterno:onisawyouputthe(xx). (0.7)

church Book.indb 247 13/01/2009 12:11:59


2 GAR: n:o:.3 SIM:i’llletyoucometomypar:ty:? (0.4)4 GAR:andif(.)you(.)don’tgiveme(0.5)oneof those(1.0)oneofthosebigthi:ngs(0.6)you [can’tcometomypar:ty].5 SIM:[heyGa::ry]? (0.7)6 SIM:myparty’sbefo:reyou:rs¿7 GAR:noMYparty’sbeforeyours.=8 SIM:=notbef[oremine].9 GAR:[butmineis](0.3)yours-(0.6)my:mumsaid yoursisinFebruary. (1.3)10 SIM:noitisn’t. (0.4)11 GAR:wheni:sit. (1.4)12 SIM:Ga:ryifyou-(0.7)ifyouletmehavethatone xx. (0.3)13 GAR:whatbirthdayisinyour-(0.4)<isin>-(0.3) isyours?14 SIM:mybrother’sinFebru[ary].15 GAR: [my]brotherissi:x¿ %com:continuing conversation focuses on ages of siblings.@End

@Begin@Participants: GARGary,SIMSimon,ROBRobbie@Filename: Ob2.20.ca@Audio: Disc14(2):(Begin)6:07@Episode: 20@Situation: ROB,GARandSIMareplayingintheblock cornerwithconnectorpieces.

1 GAR: 0((%act:takespiecenearROB))2 ROB: heythat’smineGary:. (1.2)3 GAR: it’sjustalittleone¿ (0.2)4 ROB:heydon’t! (1.5)

church Book.indb 248 13/01/2009 12:11:59

Appendix A 249

5 GAR:youdidn’tseeit(.)that[xxifyoucan]the (fishy)onethis(.)((singsong voice))eenymeeny mineymoo(0.2)catchatigerbythetoe(.)if youholler[[lethimgoeenymeenyminey]]moo,6 ROB:[no::(giveit)back]! %act:takespiecefromGAR’sconstruction7 ROB:[[youcan’ttakeitFROMSOMEONEELSE]]! (0.9)8 ROB: thisismine¿ (0.7)9 GAR:then(youcan’t)cometomyparty. (2.7)10 ROB:i>don’twannacometoyour<party. (2.4)11 ROB:idon’twanttocometoyourpartyanyway.12 SIM:idon’twannacometoyourpartyanywayeither. %com:nofurtherresponse.@End

@Begin@Participants: NIGNigel,SIMSimon,@Filename: Ob2.21.ca@Audio: Disc14(2):(Begin)13:16@Episode: 21@Situation: Ithasbeenrainingandallchildrenhave beeninside.Threeminutespriortothis episode the assistant teacher has gone outsidewhichmeansthechildrenmaynow go outside and play under the veranda. NIG did not see the teacher move outside.

1 SIM: i’mgoingoutsi:de. (0.3)2 NIG:noyou’renotallowedto¿ (1.0)3 SIM:wha:t? (0.3)4 NIG:you’renotallowedtogooutside,5 SIM:yea:h¿ (0.3)6 NIG:noyou’renot,

church Book.indb 249 13/01/2009 12:11:59


7 SIM:ia::m? %act: SIMopensdoorandgoesoutside.@End

@Begin@Participants: NIGNigel,PAUPaul,SIMSimon@Filename: Ob2.22.ca@Audio: Disc15:(Begin)28:05@Episode: 22@Situation: NIG,SIMandROBareintheblockcorner. PAUcomesinfromoutsideandknocksover atowerofblocksthatheoriginallybuilt butthatNIGhassinceremodelled.

1 PAU: 0((%act:knocksovertowerofblocks))2 NIG: youWRECKER. (0.7)3 SIM:wedon’tneeditNigel? (0.3)4 PAU:thatwasmyoneimade. (0.6)5 NIG:well(0.2)doyouknowwhatyoudidtoit? (0.7)6 PAU:yes¿ (0.9)7 PAU:iwreckedmythi↑ng(0.2)anditwasn’tyours¿8 NIG:yeahandiputthosethingsupthere¿9 PAU:wellitdoesn’tneedthem. %act: rebuilding(3.0)10 PAU:don’tneed>allofem<. %com: NIGdoesnotrespond@End

@Begin@Participants: NIGNigel,SIMSimon,ROBRobbie@Filename: Ob2.23.ca@Audio: Disc16:(Begin)17:19@Episode: 23@Situation: SIMamdNIGareintheblockcorner.ROB approachesthetwoboys.

1 ROB: Nige::l(.)(comeandhavea)muffinwithme. (0.4)

church Book.indb 250 13/01/2009 12:11:59

Appendix A 251

2 NIG:what? (0.2)3 ROB:you’vegottahaveamuffinwith[me].4 NIG:[i]alreadyhad-, (0.4)5 SIM:i’vealreadyhadmi:ne? (0.4)6 NIG:i’ve>alreadyhadmorningtea<too¿ (1.3)7 NIG:wealreadyhadmorningtea:? (0.6)8 ROB:didnotNigel.9 NIG:yeahi↑did(0.2)>youdidn’t<seeus¿ %act:ROBwalksofftohavemorningtea.@End

@Begin@Participants: SIMSimon,BRIBrian,GARGary@Filename: Ob2.24.ca@Audio: Disc17(1):(Begin)2:14@Episode: 24@Situation: BRIandGARareintheblockcornermaking spaceshipswithconnectorpieces.

%act:SIMlooksatGAR’scontruction.1 SIM: ((laughing))hehelookatGa::ry’shehheh, (0.3)2 BRI:$ohyu:ck$. (0.8)3 BRI:yoursisyuck(.)Gary¿4 GAR:noitisn’t¿ (0.4)5 BRI: yesitis. (1.0)6 GAR:NOITISN’T. (0.5)7 SIM: don’tworryaboutitBrian. %act:BRIreturnstomakinghisownconstruction.@End

church Book.indb 251 13/01/2009 12:11:59


@Begin@Participants: PAUPaul,JIMJim@Filename: Ob2.25.ca@Audio: Disc20(1):(Begin)1:45@Episode: 25@Situation: PAUandJIMhavemadetworampsleading toaswimmingpoolintheblockcorner. The ramps are for the zoo animals they areplayingwith.

1 PAU: here’smy↑house(0.3)here’syourhouse. (0.5)2 PAU:that’smysi-(0.2)thisisallourfunzoo. (0.2)3 PAU:that’syour↑side(0.3)thisismyside(0.2)we stayonour[own]-,4 JIM:[wec]an(.)wecanwa:lkoneachothers? (0.2)5 PAU:yesexcept(0.2)weca::n’t¿ (0.5)6 JIM: 0((%act:pushestherampstogether))7 PAU: ↑heyyou’remakingitdiffere::nt. (0.3)8 PAU:you’rech↑eati:ngineedo:ne.((whining))9 PAU: 0((%act:pullsblocksapart))(2.3)10 JIM: o::y:. (0.2)11 PAU:looksee:? (0.4)12 PAU: noyou’re↑achea:ter:. (0.3)13 PAU:heythatcanbebothofou:rs. (0.3)14 JIM:yeah. (0.3)15 PAU:see? %act:pushesblockstogether (0.9)16 PAU:bothofoursnow.@End

church Book.indb 252 13/01/2009 12:11:59

Appendix A 253

Observation 1 summary

Type Outcome

Ob1.1 Play script I Intervention (C)Ob1.2 Play script r resolvedOb1.3 Play script r resolvedOb1.4 Possession I Intervention (T) VOb1.5 local rules * (Interrupted) (T)Ob1.6 Play script r resolvedOb1.7 local rules r resolvedOb1.8 Object/possession r resolvedOb1.9 Play script a abandonedOb1.10 Object a abandonedOb1.11 Object a abandonedOb1.12 Play script a abandonedOb1.13 local rules r resolvedOb1.14 local rules I Intervention (T)Ob1.15 Object/possession a abandonedOb1.16 Play script r resolvedOb1.17 Object I Intervention (T)Ob1.18 local rules I Intervention (T)Ob1.19 local rules r resolvedOb1.20 Play script r resolvedOb1.21 Object r resolvedOb1.22 local rules a abandonedOb1.23 local rules r resolvedOb1.24 Object r resolvedOb1.25 Object I Intervention (T)Ob1.26 Play script I Intervention (T)Ob1.27 truth r resolvedOb1.28 Play script a abandonedOb1.29 truth a abandonedOb1.30 truth r resolvedOb1.31 Play script I Intervention (C) (T)Ob1.32 Play script I Intervention (C)Ob1.33 Play script r resolvedOb1.34 local rules r resolvedOb1.35 Object I Intervention (T)

church Book.indb 253 13/01/2009 12:11:59


Observation 2 summary

Type Outcome

Ob2.1 Object r resolvedOb2.2 Object I Intervention (C)Ob2.3 truth I Intervention (C)Ob2.4 Object r resolvedOb2.5 truth r resolvedOb2.6 truth r resolvedOb2.7 Object a abandonedOb2.8 Object I Intervention (C)Ob2.9 Object a abandonedOb2.10 Object a abandonedOb2.11 local rules a abandonedOb2.12 Play script r resolvedOb2.13 Object r resolvedOb2.14 truth r resolvedOb2.15 Object r resolvedOb2.16 Object I Intervention (C)Ob2.17 Object r resolvedOb2.18 Object a abandonedOb2.19 truth a abandonedOb2.20 Object a abandonedOb2.21 local rules a abandonedOb2.22 Object a abandonedOb2.23 truth r resolvedOb2.24 truth a abandonedOb2.25 Play script r resolved

church Book.indb 254 13/01/2009 12:12:00

references

Adger, C. T. (1986), When difference does not conflict. Text, 6, 223-237.Adler, P. A. and Adler, P. (1994), Observational techniques. In N. K. Denzin and Y.

S. Lincoln (eds), Handbook of qualitative research. thousand Oak, california: sage.

Ahrens, U. (1997), The interplay between interruptions and preference organization in conversation: new perspectives on a classic topic of gender research. in H. Kotthoff and R. Wodak (eds), Communicating gender in context. amsterdam: Benjamins.

Allan, K. (1994), Speech act theory: An overview. In R. Asher (ed.), Encylopedia of language and linguistics. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Ardington, A. M. (2003), Alliance building in girl’s talk: A conversational accomplishment of playful negotiation. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 26, 38-54.

Aronsson, K. and Thorell, M. (1999), Family politics in children’s play directives. Journal of Pragmatics, 31, 25-47.

Asher, S. R., Singleton, L. C., Tinsley, B. R. and Hymel, S. (1979), A reliable sociometric measure for preschool children. Developmental Psychology, 15, 443-444.

Atkinson, J. M. and Drew, P. (1979), Order in court: The organisation of verbal interaction in judicial settings. london: Macmillan.

Atkinson, J. M. and Heritage, J. (eds) (1984), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis. cambridge: cambridge university Press.

Austin, J. L. (1962), How to do things with words. Oxford: clarendon Press.Bakeman, R. and Brownlee, J. R. (1982), Social rules governing object conflicts

in toddlers and preschoolers. In K. H. Rubin and H. S. Ross (eds), Peer relationships and social skills in childhood. new York: springer-Verlag.

Baker, C. D. and Campbell, R. (2000), Children, language and power. In R. Campbell and D. Green (eds), Literacies and learners: Current perspectives. frenchs forest: Prentice Hall.

Bates, E. (1976), Peer relations and the acquisition of language. In M. Lewis and L. A. Rosenblum (eds), Friendship and peer relations. toronto: John Wiley and sons.

Baxter, L. A. (1984), An investigation of compliance-gaining as politeness. Human Communication Research, 10, 427-456.

Becker, J. A. (1988), “I can’t talk I’m dead”: Preschoolers spontaneous metapragmatic comments. Discourse Processes, 11, 457-467.

church Book.indb 255 13/01/2009 12:12:00


Benoit, P. (1992), The use of argument by preschool children: The emergent production of rules for winning arguments. in W. Benoit and Hample and P. Benoit (eds), Readings in argumentation. new York: Mouton de gruyter.

Benoit, P. J. (1983), The use of threats in children’s discourse. Language and Speech, 26, 305-329.

Benoit, W. L. and Benoit, P. J. (1990), Aggravated and mitigated opening utterances. Argumentation, 4, 171-183.

Bilmes, J. (1988), The concept of preference in conversation analysis. Language in Society, 17, 161-181.

Bilmes, J. (1991), Toward a theory of argument in conversation: The preference for disagreement. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the second international conference on argumentation, amsterdam.

Bloom, L. (1970), Language development: Form and function in emerging grammars. cambridge, Ma: Mit Press.

Bloom, L. (1993), Transcription and coding for child language research: The parts are more than the whole. In J. A. Edwards and M. D. Lampert (eds), Talking data: Transcription and coding in discourse research. Hillsdale, nJ: lawrence erlbaum associates.

Boden, D. and Zimmerman, D. H. (1991), Talk and social structure: Studies in ethnomethodology and conversation analysis. cambridge: Polity Press.

Boggs, S. T. (1978), The development of verbal disputing in part-Hawaiin children. Language in Society, 7, 325-344.

Boyle, R. (2000), Whatever happened to preference organization? Journal of Pragmatics, 32, 583-604.

Brenneis, D. (1988), Language and disputing. American Review of Anthropology, 17, 221-237.

Brenneis, D. and Lein, L. (1977), “You fruithead”: A sociolinguistic approach to children’s dispute settlement. In S. Ervin-Tripp and C. Mitchell-Kernan (eds), Child discourse. new York: academic Press.

Brown, P. and Levinson, S. C. (1978), Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomena. In E. N. Goody (ed.), Questions and politeness: Strategies in social interaction. cambridge: cambridge university Press.

Brown, P. and Levinson, S. C. (1987), Politeness: Some universals in language usage. cambridge: cambridge university Press.

Brown, R. (1973), A first language: The early stages. cambridge, Ma: Harvard university Press.

Button, G. and Lee, J. R. E. (eds) (1987), Talk and social organization. clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Camras, L. A. (1980), Children’s understanding of facial expressions used during conflict encounters. Child Development, 51, 879-885.

Chen, D. W., Fein, G. G., Killen, M. and Tam, H.-P. (2001), Peer conflicts of preschool children: issues, resolution, incidence and age-related patterns. Early Education and Development, 12, 523-544.

church Book.indb 256 13/01/2009 12:12:00

References 257

Chen, X. and French, D. C. (2008), Children’s social competence in cultural context. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 591-616.

Chomsky, N. (1957), Syntactic structures. the Hague: Mouton.Chomsky, N. (1965), Aspects of the theory of syntax. cambridge, Ma: Mit Press.Chung, T.-Y. and Asher, S. R. (1996), Children’s goals and strategies in peer

conflict situations. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 42(1), 125-147.Cicourel, A. V. (1978), Interpretation and summarization: Issues in the child’s

acquisition of social structure. In J. Glick and K. A. Clarke-Stewart (eds), The development of social understanding. new York: gardiner Press.

Clark, H. H. (1997), Using language. cambridge: cambridge university Press.Clayman, S. and Heritage, J. (eds) (2002), The news interview: Journalists and

public figures on the air. cambridge: cambridge university Press.Coie, J. D. and Dodge, K. A. (1988), Multiple sources of data on social behavior

and social status in the school: a cross-age comparison. Child Development, 59, 815-829.

Coie, J. D., Dodge, K. A. and Kupersmidt, J. B. (1990), Peer group behavior and social status. In S. R. Asher and J. D. Coie (eds), Peer rejection in childhood. Cambridge studies in social and emotional development. cambridge: cambridge university Press.

Corsaro, W. A. (1979), “We’re friends, right?” Children’s use of access rituals in a nursery school. Language in Society, 8, 315-336.

Corsaro, W. A. (1985), Friendship and peer culture in the early years. norwood, new Jersey: ablex Publishing corporation.

Corsaro, W. A. (1985), Sociological approaches to discourse. In T. v. Dijk (ed.), Handbook of discourse analysis, Volume 3: Discourse and dialogue. london: academic Press.

Corsaro, W. A. (2004), The sociology of childhood. second edition. thousand Oaks, ca: Pine forge Press.

Corsaro, W. A. and Maynard, D. W. (1996), Format tying in discussion and argumentation among italian and american children. in d. i. slobin and J. Gerhardt (eds), Social interaction, social context and language: Essays in honor of Susan Ervin-Tripp. Mahwah, nJ: lawrence erlbaum associates.

Corsaro, W. A. and Rizzo, T. A. (1990), Disputes in the peer culture of American and Italian nursery-school children. In A. D. Grimshaw (ed.), Conflict talk: Sociolinguistic investigations of arguments in conversations. cambridge: cambridge university Press.

Coulter, J. (1983), Contingent and a priori structures in sequential analysis. Human Studies, 6, 361-376.

Coulter, J. (1990), Elementary properties of argument sequences. In G. Psathas (ed.), Interaction competence. Washington, dc: university Press of america.

Coulthard, M. (1985), An introduction to discourse analysis. Burnt Mill, essex: longman.

Coupland, N., Grainger, K. and Coupland, J. (1988), Politeness in context: intergenerational issues. Language in Society, 17, 253-262.

church Book.indb 257 13/01/2009 12:12:00


Craig, R. T., Tracy, K. and Spisak, F. (1986), The discourse of requests: Assessment of a politeness approach. Human Communication Research, 12, 437-468.

Crockenberg, S. and Lourie, A. (1996), Parents’ conflict strategies with children and children’s conflict strategies with peers. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 42(4), 495-518.

Danby, S. (2002), The communicative competence of young children. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 27, 25-30.

Danby, S. and Baker, C. D. (1998), How to be masculine in the block area. Childhood, 5, 151-175.

Danby, S. and Baker, C. D. (2000), Unravelling the fabric of social order in block area. In S. Hester and D. Francis (eds), Local educational order: Ethnomethodological studies of knowledge in action. amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Davidson, J. (1984), Subsequent versions of invitations, offers, requests and proposals dealing with potential or actual rejection. in J. M. atkinson and J. Heritage (eds), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis. cambridge: cambridge university Press.

Dawe, H. C. (1934), An analysis of two hundred quarrels of preschool children. Child Development, 5, 139-157.

Diez, M. E. (1986), Negotiation competence: A conceptualization of the rules of negotiation interaction. In D. G. Ellis and W. A. Donohue (eds), Contemporary issues in language and discourse processes. Hillsdale, new Jersey: lawrence arlbaum associates.

Ditchburn, S. (1988), Conflict management in young children’s play. International Journal of Early Childhood, 20, 62-70.

Dodge, K. A. (1983), Behavioral antecedents of peer social status. Child Development, 54, 1386-1399.

Dodge, K. A., Coie, J. D., Petit, G. S. and Price, J. M. (1990), Peer status and aggression in boy’s play groups: developmental and contextual analyses. Child Development, 61, 1289-1309.

Dore, J. (1979), Conversational acts and the acquisition of language. In E. Ochs and B. Schieffelin (eds), Developmental Pragmatics. new York: academic Press.

Dore, J. (1985), Children’s conversations. In T. A. van Dijk (ed.), Handbook of discourse analysis. london: academic Press.

Drew, P. (1984), Speaker’s reportings in invitation sequences. In J. M. Atkinson and J. Heritage (eds), Structures in social action: Studies in conversation analysis. cambridge: cambridge university Press.

Drew, P. and Heritage, J. (eds) (1992), Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings. cambridge: cambridge university Press.

Du Bois, J. W. (1991), Transcription design principles for spoken discourse research. Pragmatics, 1(1), 71-106.

Du Bois, J. W., Schuetze-Coburn, S., Cumming, S. and Paolino, D. (1993), Outline of discourse transcription. In J. A. Edwards and M. D. Lampert (eds), Talking

church Book.indb 258 13/01/2009 12:12:00

References 259

data: Transcription and coding in discourse research. Hillsdale, new Jersey: lawrence erlbaum associates.

Dundes, A., Leach, J. and Ozkok, B. (1972), The strategy of Turkish boys’ verbal duelling rhymes. In J. Gumperz and D. Hymes (eds), Directions in sociolinguistics. new York: Holt, rinehart and Winston.

Dunn, J. and Munn, P. (1987), Development of justification in disputes with mother and siblings. Developmental Psychology, 23, 791-798.

Dunn, J. and et al. (1995), Conflict, understanding and relationships: developments and differences in the preschool years. Early Education and Development, 6, 303-316.

Edmondson, W. (1981), Spoken discourse. london: longman.Edwards, J. A. (1993), Principles and contrasting systems of discourse transcription.

In J. A. Edwards and M. D. Lampert (eds), Talking Data: Transcription and coding in discourse research. Hillsdale, new Jersey: lawrence erlbaum associates.

Ehlich, K. and Wagner, J. (eds) (1995), The discourse of business negotiation. Berlin: Mouton de gruyter.

Eisenberg, A. R. (1987), Learning to argue with parents and peers. Argumentation, 1, 113-125.

Eisenberg, A. R. (1990), Teasing: Verbal play in two mexicano homes. In B. Schieffelin and E. Ochs (eds), Language socialization across cultures. cambridge: cambridge university Press.

Eisenberg, A. R. and Garvey, C. (1981), Children’s use of verbal strategies in resolving conflicts. Discourse Processes, 4, 149-170.

Emihovich, C. (1986), Argument as status assertion: Contextual variations in children’s disputes. Language in society, 15, 485-500.

Ervin-Tripp, S. (1977), “Wait for me, roller-skate!” In S. Ervin-Tripp and C. Mitchell-Kernan (eds), Language, thought and culture: Advances in the study of cognition. new York: academic Press.

Ervin-Tripp, S. (1978), Whatever happened to communicative competence? Studies in the Linguistic Sciences, 8, 237-258.

Ervin-Tripp, S. (1982), Ask and it shall be given to you: Children’s requests. In H. Byrnes (ed.), Contemporary perceptions of language. Washington, dc: georgetown university Press.

Ervin-Tripp, S., Guo, J. and Lampert, M. D. (1990), Politeness and persuasion in children’s control acts. Journal of Pragmatics, 14, 307-331.

Fabes, R. A., Eisenberg, A. R., Smith, M. C. and Murphy, B. C. (1996), Getting angry with peers: associations with liking the provocateur. Child Development, 67, 942-956.

Farris, C. S. P. (2000), Cross-sex peer conflict and the discursive production of gender in a chinese preschool in taiwan. Journal of Pragmatics, 32, 539-568.

Fine, G. A. and Sandstrom, K. L. (1988), Knowing children: Participant observation with minors, Sage University Paper Series on Qualitative Research Methods. sage: Beverly Hills, california.

church Book.indb 259 13/01/2009 12:12:00


Fine, J. and Freedle, R. (1983), Developmental issues in discourse. norwood, nJ: ablex.

Firth, A. (ed.) (1995), The discourse of negotiation: Studies of language in the workplace. Oxford: Pergamon.

Ford, C. E., Fox, B. A. and Thompson, S. A. (eds) (2002), The language of turn and sequence. new York: Oxford university Press.

Forrester, M. A. (1996), Psychology of language: A critical introduction. london: sage.

Foster, S. (1990), The communicative competence of young children. new York: longman.

Fraser, B. (1980), Conversational mitigation. Journal of Pragmatics, 4, 341-350.Gardner, R. (2001), When listener’s talk: Response tokens and listener stance.

Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing.Garfinkel, H. (1967), Studies in ethnomethodology. englewood cliffs, nJ:

Prentice-Hall.Garfinkel, H. (1972), Remarks on ethnomethodology. In J. Gumperz and D. Hymes

(eds), Directions in sociolinguistics. new York: Holt, rinehart and Winston.Garvey, C. (1974), Requests and responses in children’s speech. Journal of Child

Language, 2(41-63).Garvey, C. (1984), Children’s talk. cambridge, Ma: Harvard university Press.Garvey, C. and Berninger, G. (1981), Timing and turn-taking in children’s

conversations. Discourse Processes, 4, 27-57.Garvey, C. and Shantz, C. U. (1995), Conflict talk: Approaches to adversative

discourse. In C. U. Shantz and W. W. Hartup (eds), Conflict in child and adolescent development. new York: cambridge university Press.

Genishi, C. and Di Paolo, M. (1982), Learning through argument in the preschool. In L. C. Wilkinson (ed.), Communicating in the classroom. new York: academic Press.

Gilligan, C. (1982), In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s development. cambridge, Ma: Harvard university Press.

Gilligan, C. (1988), Two moral orientations: Gender differences and similarities. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 34(3), 223-237.

Goffman, E. (1955), On face-work: Analysis of ritual elements in social interaction. Psychiatry, 18, 213-231.

Goffman, E. (1959), The presentation of self in everyday life. garden city, nY: doubleday.

Goffman, E. (1961), Encounters: Two studies in the sociology of interaction. new York: Bobbs-Merrill.

Goffman, E. (1963), Behavior in public places: Notes on the social organization of gatherings. new York: free Press.

Goffman, E. (1964), The neglected situation. American Anthropologist, 66(6, part ii), 133-136.

Goffman, E. (1967), Interaction ritual: Essays in face-to-face behavior (Vol. 18), chicago: aldine.

church Book.indb 260 13/01/2009 12:12:00

References 261

Goffman, E. (1971), Relations in Public. new York: Basic Books.Goodwin, C. (1981), Conversational organisation: Interaction between speakers

and hearers. new York: academic Press.Goodwin, C. and Goodwin, M. H. (1990), Interstitial argument. In A. D.

Grimshaw (ed.), Conflict talk: Sociolinguistic investigations of arguments in conversations. cambridge: cambridge university Press.

Goodwin, C. and Heritage, J. (1990), Conversation analysis. Annual Review of Anthropology, 19, 283-307.

Goodwin, M. H. (1982), Processes of dispute management among urban black children. American Ethnologist, 9(76-96).

Goodwin, M. H. (1983), Aggravated correction and disagreement in children’s conversations. Journal of Pragmatics, 7, 657-677.

Goodwin, M. H. (1990), He-said-she-said: Talk as social organization among black children. Bloomington, in: indiana university Press.

Goodwin, M. H. and Goodwin, C. (1987), Children’s arguing. In S. Philips and S. Steele and C. Tanz (eds), Language, gender and sex in comparative perspective. new York: cambridge university Press.

Goodwin, M. H., Goodwin, C. and Yaeger-Dror. (2002), Multi-modality in girls’ game disputes. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 1621-1649.

Graue, M. E. and Walsh, D. J. (1998), Studying children in context: Theories, methods and ethics. thousand Oaks, ca: sage.

Green, E. H. (1933), Frienships and quarrels among preschool children. Child Development, 4(1), 237-252.

Green, V. A. and Cillessen, A. H. N. (2008), Achievement versus maintenance of control in six-year-old children’s interactions with peers: an observational study. Educational Psychology, 28, 161-180.

Grice, H. P. (1975), Logic and conversation. In P. Cole and J. L. Morgan (eds), Syntax and semantics 3: Speech acts. new York: academic Press.

Grice, H. P. (1978), Further notes on logic and conversation. In P. Cole (ed.), Syntacs and semantics 9: Pragmatics. new York: academic Press.

Grimshaw, A. D. (1980), Mishearings, misunderstandings and other nonsuccesses in talk: a plea for redress of speaker-oriented bias. Sociological inquiry, 50, 33-74.

Grimshaw, A. D. (1990), Research on conflict talk: Antecedents, resources, findings, directions. In A. D. Grimshaw (ed.), Conflict talk. cambridge: cambridge university Press.

Grootevant, H. D. and Cooper, C. R. (1985), Patterns of interaction in family relationships and the development of identitiy exploration in adolescence. Child Development, 56, 415-428.

Gumperz, J. (1982), Discourse strategies. cambridge: cambridge university Press.Gumperz, J. (1986), Interactional sociolinguistics in the study of schooling. In

J. Cook-Gumperz (ed.), The social construction of literacy. cambridge: cambridge university Press.

church Book.indb 261 13/01/2009 12:12:01


Gumperz, J. and Berenz, N. (1993), Transcribing conversational exchanges. In J. A. Edwards and M. D. Lampert (eds), Talking data: Transcription and coding in discourse research. Hillsdale, new Jersey: lawrence erlbaum associates.

Gumperz, J. J. and Hymes, D. (eds) (1972), Directions in sociolinguistics: The ethnography of communication. new York: Holt, rinehart and Winston.

Halliday, M. A. K. (1975), Learning how to mean: Explorations in the development of child language. london: edward arnold.

Halliday, M. A. K. (1978), Language as a social semiotic. london: edward arnold.Halliday, M. A. K. and Hasan, R. (1976), Cohesion in English. london: longman.Hartup, W. W. (1992), Peer relations in early and middle childhood. In V. B. v.

Hasselt and M. Hersen (eds), Handbook of social development: A lifespan perspective. new York: academic Press.

Hartup, W. W. (1995), Conflict and friendship relations. In C. U. Shantz and W. W. Hartup (eds), Conflict in child and adolescent development. new York: cambridge university Press.

Hartup, W. W., Laursen, B., Stewart, H. I. and Eastenson, A. (1988), Conflict and friendship relations of young children. Child Development, 59, 1590-1600.

Haslett, B. (1983), Preschoolers’ communicative strategies in gaining compliance from peers. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 69, 84-99.

Hatch, J. A. (1987), Peer interaction and the development of social competence. Child Study Journal, 17, 169-183.

Hatch, J. A. (1995), Ethical conflicts in classroom research: Examples from a study of peer stigmatization in kindergarten. In J. A. Hatch (ed.), Qualitative research in early childhood settings. Westport, connecticut: Praeger.

Hay, D. F. (1984), Social conflict in early childhood. Annals of Child Development, 1, 1-44.

Hay, D. F. and Ross, H. S. (1982), The social nature of early conflict. Child development, 53, 105-113.

Hayashi, T. (1996), Politeness in conflict management: A conversation analysis of dispreferred message from a cognitive perspective. Journal of Pragmatics, 25(2), 227-255.

Heritage, J. (1984), Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. cambridge: Polity Press.Heritage, J. (1995), Conversation analysis: Methodological aspects. In U. M.

Quasthoff (ed.), Aspects of oral communication. Berlin: Walter de gruyter.Heritage, J. and Watson, D. R. (1979), Formulations as conversational objects. In

G. Psathas (ed.), Everyday language: Studies in ethnomethodology. new York: irvington.

Hess, R. D. and McDevitt, T. M. (1984), Some cognitive consequences of maternal intervention techniques: a longitudinal study. Child Development, 55, 2017-2030.

Holtgraves, T. (2000), Preference organization and reply comprehension. Discourse Processes, 30(2), 87-106.

Horowitz, L., Jansson, L., Ljungbergm T. and Hedenbro, M. (2005), Behavioural patterns of conflict resolution strategies in preschool boys with language

church Book.indb 262 13/01/2009 12:12:01

References 263

impairment in comparison with boys with typical language development. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders, 41, 441-466.

Hutchby, I. and Wooffitt, R. (2008), Conversation analysis: Principles, practices and applications. second edition. cambridge: Polity Press.

Hymes, D. (1972), On communicative competence. In J. B. Pride and J. Holmes (eds), Sociolinguistics. Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Hymes, D. (1974), Foundations in sociolinguistics: An ethnographic approach. Philadelphia: university of Pennsylvania Press.

Jackson, S. and Jacobs, S. (1980), Structure of conversational argument: Pragmatic bases for the enthymene. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 66, 251-265.

Jacobs, S. and Jackson, S. (1982), Conversational argument: A discourse analytic approach. In J. R. Cox and C. A. Willard (eds), Advances in argumentation theory and research. carbondale, il: southern illinois university Press.

Jefferson, G. (1985), An exercise in the transcription and analysis of laughter. In T. A. van Dijk (ed.), Handbook of Discourse Analysis. london: academic Press.

Jefferson, G. (1989), Preliminary notes on a possible metric which provides for a ‘standard maximum’ silence of approximately one second in conversation. In B. Roger and P. Bull (eds), Conversation: An Interdisciplinary perspective. clevedon: Mulitilingual Matters.

Jefferson, G. (1996), A case of transcriptional stereotyping. Journal of Pragmatics, 26, 159-170.

Johansson, S. (1995), The encoding of spoken texts. In N. Ide and J. Veronis (eds), Text encoding initiative: Background and context. dordrecht: Kluwer academic Publishers.

Kakava, C. (2003), Discourse and conflict. In D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen and H. Hamilton, E. (eds), The Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Oxford: Blackwell (pp. 651-670).

Kasper, G. (1990), Linguistic politeness. Journal of Pragmatics, 14, 193-218.Katriel, T. (1985), Brogez: Ritual and strategy in Israeli children’s conflicts.

Language in Society, 14, 467-490.Kochman, T. (1983), The boundary between play and nonplay in black verbal

dueling. Language in Society, 12, 329-337.Kotthoff, H. (1993), Disagreement and concession in disputes: On the context

sensitivity of preference structures. Language in Society, 22, 193-216.Krasnor, L. R. and Rubin, K. H. (1983), Preschool social problem solving: Attempts

and outcomes in naturalistic interaction. Child Development, 54, 1545-1558.Kyratzis, A. (1992), Gender differences in the use of persuasive justifications in

children’s pretend play. In K. Hall and M. Bucholtz and B. Moonwoman (eds), Locating power. Proceedings of the second Berkeley Women and Language Conference, 2. Berkeley: university of california.

Kyratzis, A. and Ervin-Tripp, S. (1999), The development of discourse markers in peer interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 31, 1321-1338.

church Book.indb 263 13/01/2009 12:12:01


Kyratzis, A. and Guo, J. (2001), Preschool girls’ and boys’ verbal conflict strategies in the us and china: cross-cultural and contextual considerations. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 34, 45-74.

Labov, W. (1972a), Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia: university of Pennsylvania Press.

Labov, W. (1972b), Rules for ritual insults. In D. Sudnow (ed.), Studies in social interaction. new York: free Press.

Labov, W. and Fanshel, D. (1977), Therapeutic discourse: Psycotherapy as conversation. new York: academic Press.

Lampert, M. D. and Ervin-Tripp, S. (1993), Structured coding for the study of language and social interaction. In J. A. Edwards and M. D. Lampert (eds), Talking data: Transcription and coding in discourse research. Hillsdale, new Jersey: lawrence erlbaum associates.

Laursen, B. and Hartup, W. W. (1989), The dynamics of preschool children’s conflicts. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 35(3), 281-297.

Laursen, B., Hartup, W. W. and Koplas, A. L. (1996), Towards understanding peer conflict. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 42(1), 76-102.

Lein, L. and Brenneis, D. (1978), Children’s disputes in three speech communities. Language in society, 7, 299-323.

Lemke, J. L. (1990), Talking science: Language, learning and values. norwood: ablex Publishing company.

Lerner, G. (1996), Finding ‘face’ in the preference structures of talk-in-interaction. Social Psycology Quarterly, 59, 303-321.

Lever, J. (1976), Sex differences in the games children play. Social Problems, 23, 478-487.

Levinson, S. C. (1981), The comparative inadequacies of speech act models of dialogue. In H. Parret and M. Sbisa and J. Verschueren (eds), Possibilities and limitations of pragmatics: Proceedings of the conference of pragmatics, Urbino, July 8-24, 1979. amsterdam: John Benjamins B V.

Levinson, S. C. (1983), Pragmatics. cambridge: cambridge university Press.Lewis, D. K. (1969), Convention: A philosophical study. cambridge Ma: Harvard

university Press.Lewis, D. K. (1979), Scorekeeping in a language game. Journal of Philosophical

Logic, 8, 339-359.Maccoby, E. E. (1996), Peer conflict and intrafamily conflict: Are there conceptual

bridges? Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 42(1), 165-176.MacWhinney, B. (1982), Basic processes in syntactic acquisition. In S. A. Kuczaj

II (ed.), Language development (Vol.1 ): Syntax and semantics. Hillsdale, nJ: erlbaum associates.

MacWhinney, B. (2000), The CHILDES project: Tools for analyzing talk. third edition. Mahwah, nJ: lawrence erlbaum associates.

MacWhinney, B. and Snow, C. (1985), The child language data exchange system. Journal of Child Language, 12, 271-296.

church Book.indb 264 13/01/2009 12:12:01

References 265

Malloy, H. and McMurray, P. (1996), Conflict strategies and resolutions: Peer conflict in an integrated early childhood classroom. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 11, 185-206.

Maltz, D. and Borker, R. (1982), A cultural approach to male-female miscommunication. In J. Gumperz (ed.), Language and social identity. cambridge: cambridge university Press.

Mandell, N. (1988), The least-adult role in studying children. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 16, 433-467.

Maynard, D. W. (1985a), How children start arguments. Language in society, 14, 1-30.

Maynard, D. W. (1985b), On the functions of social conflict among children. American sociological review, 50, 207-223.

Maynard, D. W. (1986a), Offering and soliciting collaboration in multi-party disputes among children (and other humans), Human studies, 9, 261-285.

Maynard, D. W. (1986b), The development of argumentative skills among children. In P. A. Adler and P. Adler (eds), Sociological studies of child development. greenwich, conneticut: Jai Press.

McEvoy, W. (1989), Woodbine Place. newcastle upon tyne: common features.McHoul, A. (2008) Questions of context in studies of talk and interaction –

ethnomethodology and conversation analysis. Journal of Pragmatics, 40, 823-826.

McTear, M. (1979), “Hey! I’ve got something to tell you”: A study of the initiation of conversational exchanges by preschool children. Journal of Pragmatics, 3, 321-336.

McTear, M. (1985), Children’s conversations. Oxford: Blackwell.Mey, J. L. (2001), Pragmatics: An introduction. Oxford: Blackwell.Miller and Chapman (1983), SALT: Systematic Analysis of Language Transcripts,

user’s manual.Miller, P. M., Danaher, D. L. and Forbes, D. (1986), Sex-related strategies for coping

with interpersonal conflict in children aged five and seven. Developmental Psychology, 22(4), 543-548.

Moerman, M. (1988), Talking culture: Ethnography and conversation analysis. Philadelphia: university of Pennsylvania Press.

Muntigl, P. and Turnbull, W. (1998), Conversational structure and facework in arguing. Journal of Pragmatics, 29, 225-256.

Newman, R. S., Murray, B. and Lussier, C. (2001), Confrontation with aggressive peers at school: students’ reluctance to seek help from the teacher. Journal of educational psychology, 93(2), 398-410.

Ninio, A. and Snow, C. (1996), Pragmatic development. Oxford: Westview Press.Ochs, E. (1979), Transcription as theory. In E. Ochs and B. Schieffelin (eds),

Developmental Pragmatics. new York: academic Press.Ochs, E. (1983), Conversational competence in children. In E. Ochs and B.

Schieffelin (eds), Aquiring conversational competence. london: routledge and Kegan Paul.

church Book.indb 265 13/01/2009 12:12:01


Ochs, E. and Schieffelin, B. (1979), Developmental pragmatics. new York: academic Press.

Ochs, E. and Schieffelin, B. (1983), Acquiring conversational competence. london: routledge and Kegan Paul.

Odom, S. L. and Ogawa, I. (1992), Direct observation of young children’s social interaction with peers: a review of methodology. Behavioral Assessment, 14, 407-441.

O’Keefe, B. J. and Benoit, P. J. (1982), Children’s arguments. In J. R. Cox and C. A. Willard (eds), Advances in argumentation theory and research. carbondale: southern illinois university Press.

O’Keefe, D. J. (1977), Two concepts of argument. Journal of the American Forensic Association, 13, 121-128.

Parsons, T. (1937), The structure of social action. new York: Mc-graw-Hill.Phinney, J. S. (1986), The structure of 5-year-olds’ verbal quarrels with peers and

siblings. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 147(1), 47-60.Piaget, J. (1959), The language and thought of the child. new York: Harcourt

Brace.Piaget, J. (1965), The moral judgement of the child. london: routledge and Kegan

Paul.Pomerantz, A. (1975), Second assessments: A study of some features of agreements/

disagreements. unpublished unpublished Phd dissertation, university of california, irvine.

Pomerantz, A. (1978), Compliment responses: Notes on the co-operation of multiple constraints. In J. N. Schenkein (ed.), Studies in the organization of conversational interaction. new York: academic Press.

Pomerantz, A. (1984), Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In J. M. Atkinson and J. Heritage (eds), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis. cambridge: cambridge university Press.

Pomerantz, A. and Fehr, B. J. (1997), Conversation analysis: An approach to the study of social action as sense making practices. In T. v. Dijk (ed.), Discourse as social interaction. london: sage.

Pruitt, D. G. (1981), Negotiation behavior. new York: academic Press.Pruitt, D. G. and Carnevale, P. J. (1993), Negotiation in social conflict. Pacific

grove, ca: Brooks/cole Publishing.Psathas, G. (ed.) (1979), Everyday language: Studies in ethnomethodology. new

York: irvington.Psathas, G. (ed.) (1990), Interaction competence. Washington, dc: university

Press of america.Psathas, G. (1995), Conversation analysis: The study of talk-in-interaction.

thousand Oaks, california: sage Publications.Psathas, G. and Anderson, T. (1990), The ‘practices’ of transcription in conversation

analysis. Semiotica, 78(1/2), 75-99.

church Book.indb 266 13/01/2009 12:12:01

References 267

Putallaz, M. and Sheppard, B. H. (1995), Conflict management and social competence. In C. U. Shantz and W. W. Hartup (eds), Conflict in child and adolescent development. new York: cambridge university Press.

Rapoport, A. and Chammah, A. (1965), Prisoner’s Dilemna. ann arbor, Mi: university of Michigan Press.

Rizzo, T. A. (1992), The role of conflict in friendship development. In W. A. Corsaro and P. J. Miller (eds), Interactive approaches to children’s socialization: New directions for child development. san francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Romaine, S. (1984), The language of children and adolescents: The acquisition of communicative competence. Oxford: Blackwell.

Ross, H. S. (1996), Negotiating principles of entitlement in sibling property disputes. Developmental Psychology, 32(1), 90-101.

Ross, H. S. and Conant, C. L. (1995), The social structure of early conflict: interaction, relationships and alliances. in c. u. shantz and W. W. Hartup (eds), Conflict in child and adolecent development. new York: cambridge university Press.

Sackin, S. and Thelen, E. (1984), An ethological study of peaceful associative outcomes to conflict in preschool children. Child development, 55, 1098-1102.

Sacks, H. (1979), Hotrodder: A revolutionary category. In G. Psathas (ed.), Everyday language: Studies in ethnomethodology. new York: irvington.

Sacks, H. (1984a), Notes on methodology. In J. M. Atkinson and J. Heritage (eds), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis. cambridge: cambridge university Press.

Sacks, H. (1984b), On doing “being ordinary”. In J. M. Atkinson and J. Heritage (eds), Strucures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis. cambridge: cambridge university Press.

Sacks, H. (1987), On the preferences for agreement and contiguity in sequences in conversation. In G. Button and J. R. E. Lee (eds), Talk and social organization. clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Sacks, H. (1995a), Lectures on conversation (Vol. I), Oxford: Blackwell.Sacks, H. (1995b), Lectures on conversation (Vol. II), Oxford: Blackwell.Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. and Jefferson, G. (1974), A simplest systematics for the

organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50(4), 696-735.Sacks, H. and Schegloff, E. A. (1979), Two preferences in the organization of

reference to persons in conversation and their interaction. In G. Psathas (ed.), Everyday language: Studies in ethnomethodology. new York: irvington.

Schegloff, E. A. (1968), Sequencing in conversational openings. American Anthropologist, 70, 1075-1095.

Schegloff, E. A. (1972), Notes on conversational practice: Formulating place. In D. Sidnell, J. (1995), Repair. In J. Verschueren and J.-O. Ostman (eds), Handbook of Pragmatics. amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Sudnow (ed.), Studies in social interaction. new York: free Press.

church Book.indb 267 13/01/2009 12:12:01


Schegloff, E. A. (1979), Identification and recognition in telephone conversation openings. In G. Psathas (ed.), Everyday language: Studies in ethnomethodology. new York: irvington.

Schegloff, E. A. (1984), On some questions and ambiguities in conversation. In J. M. Atkinson and J. Heritage (eds), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis. cambridge: cambridge university Press.

Schegloff, E. A. (1988a), Applying speech act theory to ordinary conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 12, 55-62.

Schegloff, E. A. (1988b), Goffman and the analysis of conversation. In P. Drew and A. Wootton (eds), Erving Goffman: Exploring the interaction order. cambridge: Polity Press.

Schegloff, E. A. (1995a), Introduction. In H. Sacks (ed.), Lectures on conversation. Oxford: Blackwell.

Schegloff, E. A. (1995b), Introduction. In H. Sacks (ed.), Lectures on conversation. Oxford: Blackwell.

Schegloff, E.A. (2007) Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis. cambridge: cambridge university Press.

Schegloff, E. A., Jefferson, G. and Sacks, H. (1977), The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language, 53, 361-382.

Schegloff, E. A. and Sacks, H. (1973), Opening up closings. Semiotica, 8, 289-327.Schelling, T. (1960), The strategy of conflict. cambridge, Ma: Harvard university

Press.Schenkein, J. N. (ed.) (1978), Studies in the organization of conversational

interaction. new York: academic Press.Schieffelin, B. and Ochs, E. (eds) (1986), Language socialization across cultures.

cambridge: cambridge university Press.Schiffrin, D. (1985), Conversational coherence: The role of ‘well’. Language, 61,

640-667.Schiffrin, D. (1987), Discourse markers. cambridge: cambridge university Press.Schiffrin, D. (1994), Approaches to discourse. Oxford: Blackwell.Searle, J. R. (1969), Speech acts. cambridge: cambridge university Press.Searle, J. R. (1975a), A taxonomy of illocutionary acts. In K. Gunderson (ed.),

Language, mind and knowledge. Minneapolis: university of Minnesota Press.Searle, J. R. (1975b), Indirect speech acts. In P. Cole and J. L. Morgan (eds),

Syntax and semantics Vol. 3: Speech acts. new York: academic Press.Shantz, C. U. (1987), Conflicts between children. Child development, 58, 283-305.Shantz, C. U. and Shantz, D. W. (1985), Conflict between children: Social-

cognitive and sociometric correlates. In M. W. Berkowitz (ed.), Peer conflict and psychological growth. san francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Sheldon, A. (1990), Pickle fights: Gendered talk in preschool disputes. Discourse processes, 13, 5-31.

Sheldon, A. (1992), Conflict talk: Sociolinguistic challenges to self-assertion and how young girls meet them. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 38(1), 95-117.

church Book.indb 268 13/01/2009 12:12:02

References 269

Sheldon, A. (1996), You can be the baby brother, but you aren’t born yet: Preschool girls’ negotiation for power and access in pretend play. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 29, 57-80.

Silver, C. and Harkins, D. (2007), Labeling, Affect and Teachers’ Hypothetical Approaches to Conflict Resolution: An Exploratory Study. Early Education and Development, 18, 625-645.

Silverman, D. (1998), Harvey Sacks: Social Science and conversation analysis. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Sinclair, H. (1994), Early cognitive development and the contribution of peer interaction: A Piagetian view. In S. Friedman and H. C. Haywood (eds), Developmental follow-up: Concepts, domains and methods. san diego: academic Press.

Sinclair, J.M. and Coulthard, R.M. (1975) Towards an analysis of discourse: The English used by teachers and pupils. Oxford: Oxford university Press.

Skinner, B. F. (1957), Verbal behavior. new York: appleton-century-crofts.Sluckin, A. (1981), Growing up in the playground: The social development of

children. london: routledge and Kegan Paul.Smith, P. K. (1988), The cognitive demands of children’s social interaction with

peers. In R. W. Byrne and A. Whiten (eds), Machiavellian Intelligence: Social expertise and the evolution of intellect in monkeys, apes and humans. Oxford: clarendon Press.

Sprott, R. A. (1992), Children’s use of discourse markers in disputes: Form-function relations and discourse in child language. Discourse Processes, 15, 423-439.

Stalpers, J. (1995), The expression of disagreement. In K. Ehlich and J. Wagner (eds), The discourse of business negotiation. Berlin: Mouton de gruyter.

Strayer, F. F. and Strayer, J. (1976), An ethological analysis of social agonism and dominance relations among preschool children. Child development, 47, 980-989.

Sudnow, D. (ed.) (1970), Studies in social interaction. new York: free Press.Taylor, A. R. and Trickett, P. K. (1989), Teacher preference and children’s

sociometric status in the classroom. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 35, 343-361.Taylor, T. J. and Cameron, D. (1987), Analysing conversation: Rules and units in

the structure of talk. Oxford: Pergamon Press.ten Have, P. (2007), Doing conversation analysis: A practical guide. second

edition. london: sage.ten Have, P. and Psathas, G. (eds) (1995), Situated order: Studies in the social

organization of talk and embodied activites. Washington, dc: university Press of america.

Terry, R. and Coie, J. D. (1991), A comparison of methods for defining sociometric status among children. Developmental Psychology, 27, 876-880.

Thompson, L. (1997), The development of pragmatic competence: Past findings and future directions for research. In L. Thompson (ed.), Children talking:

church Book.indb 269 13/01/2009 12:12:02


The development of pragmatic competence. clevedon, england: Multilingual Matters.

Toolan, M. (1989), Ruling out rules in the analysis of conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 13, 251-274.

Tracy, K. (1990), The many faces of facework. In H. Giles and W. P. Robinson (eds), The handbook of language and social psychology. chichester, england: John Wiley.

Trudge, J. and Rogoff, B. (1989), Peer influences on cognitive development. Piagetian and Vygotskian perspectives. in M. H. Bornstein and J. s. Bruner (eds), Interaction in human development. Hillsdale, nJ: lawrence erlbaum associates.

van Dijk, T. A. (1985), Handbook of discourse Analysis, Volume 1. Orlando: academic Press.

van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., Blair, J. A. and Willard, C. A. (eds) (1991), Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Argumentation. amsterdam: siscat international society for the study of argumentation (ISSA).

van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R. and Henkemans, A. F. S. (2002), Argumentation: Analysis, evaluation, presentation. Mahwah, nJ: lawrence erlbaum associates.

Vestal, A. and Jones, N. A. (2004), Peace Building and Conflict Resolution in Preschool children. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 19, 131-142.

Vuchinich, S. (1984), Sequencing and social structure in family conflict. Social Psychology Quarterly, 47, 217-223.

Vuchinich, S. (1990), The sequential organization of closing in verbal family conflict. In A. D. Grimshaw (ed.), Conflict talk: Sociolinguistic investigations of arguments in conversations. cambridge: cambridge university Press.

Vuchinich, S. (1999), Problem solving in families: Research and practice. thousand Oaks, ca: sage Publications.

Vygotsky, L. (1986), Thought and language. cambridge, Ma: the Mit Press.Waksler, F. C. (1991), Studying children: Phenomenological insights. In F. C.

Waksler (ed.), Studying the social worlds of children: Sociological readings. Bristol, Pa: the falmer Press.

Walton, M. D. (2000), Say it’s a lie or I’ll punch you: Naive epistomology in classroom conflict episodes. Discourse Processes, 29, 113-136.

Watson, G. and Seiler, R. M. (eds) (1992), Text in context: Contributions to ethnomethodology. london: sage.

Wilson, K. E. (1988), Development of conflict and conflict resolution among preschool children. Unpublished masters thesis, Pacific Oaks College, Pasadena, ca.

Wilson, S. R. (1992), Face and facework in negotiation. In L. L. Putnam and M. E. Roloff (eds), Communication and negotiation. newbury Park, ca: sage.

church Book.indb 270 13/01/2009 12:12:02

References 271

Wilson, S. R., Kim, M. and Meischke, H. (1991), Evaluating Brown and Levinson’s politeness theory: a revised analysis of directives and face. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 25, 215-252.

Wood, B. S. and Gardner, R. (1980), How children “get their way”: Directives in communication. Communication Education, 29, 264-272.

Wooffitt, R. (2005) Conversation analysis and discourse analysis: A critical introduction. london, sage.

Zimmerman, D. H. (1988), On conversation: The conversation analytic perspective. Communication Yearbook, 11, 406-432.

church Book.indb 271 13/01/2009 12:12:02

abandoned disputes 120, 122–3, 125, 127, 136, 164

abandonment 5, 27, 111, 120, 123–30, 140–1

failure to respond 123–7increasing volume 130topic shifts 127–9

acceptance 18, 24–5, 42, 44, 46, 115–17, 142–3

accountability 45, 47, 85accounts

behavioural obligations 104–7continuum of objectivity 175–9in dispreferred turn shapes 95–108downgrading 179–80, 183–5epistemological 107–8in final utterances of resolved disputes

151–60hierarchy of 175–6, 179–80ownership rights 99–102preceding preferred turn shapes 160–75properties of objects, play spaces and

play scripts 102–4saliency in dispute resolution 187–9upgrading 179–83volition, necessity and personal

preference 95–9acknowledgement 90, 92actions

categories of 29, 47, 49–51dispreferred 43, 45–6, 49, 51objectionable 98, 149, 164preferred 45, 47–9, 51, 189

active resolution 123, 129adjacency pairs 40–2, 46, 75, 155, 179adult speech 2, 19, 75, 78, 109adults 1–2, 5, 20, 36, 193adversative discourse 2–5, 7–8, 10, 18–19,

24, 59–63, 193–5as productive interaction 3

adversative episodes 8, 11, 19, 23–4, 27, 57

age 2, 7, 13, 34, 53, 59, 139–40aggravation 17, 19agreement 44, 46, 49–51, 62, 111, 114,

189–90analysts 29, 34–9, 42, 177, 184analytic research 32, 35–7, 55, 108antecedent events 10–12, 18argumentation 3, 16

theory 2argumentative sequences 19, 22–3, 26, 71,

125asher, r. 21assertions 8, 17–18, 23–4, 99, 133atkinson, J. M. 32, 36–7, 43, 45–7, 49, 189atypical dispreferred turn shapes 93–4atypical preferred turn shapes 75–8atypicality 5, 75–9, 93–4, 193authority 3, 18–19, 23, 95, 102, 108, 130

teacher’s 182

Baker, c. d. 2, 26, 60behavioural obligations 104–7Benoit, P. 8–9, 12–13, 18, 21, 24, 136, 140Berenz, n. 54–5Bilmes, J. 46–8, 50–1birthdays/birthday parties 113, 129,

137–40, 142–3, 179Bloom, l. 3, 54Boggs, s. t. 18–19, 22–3, 61, 65boundaries 8–9, 26, 31, 35, 41

of preference 136, 149Boyle, r. 47–8, 50–1boys 15–16, 21, 57, 59, 91, 183–4, 195breakdowns in shared play/collaborative

activity 5, 123, 137, 141, 149, 180Brenneis, d. 3, 10, 17–18, 22, 28, 61, 65brevity 63–4, 68, 71, 75, 130

ca, see conversation analysiscalendar 158, 182

index

church Book.indb 273 13/01/2009 12:12:02


challenges 16, 19, 58, 90, 101–2, 107, 188–9

child-initiated intervention 133chomsky, n. 3claims 20–3, 95–6, 98–9, 106–8, 141–2,

157–9, 176–7epistemological 151, 156, 163, 176factual 95, 108, 175–6ownership 169–70, 174prior 99–101, 115, 154, 163, 165

closings 12, 26–7, 111–12, 115, 129–30, 133, 140–1, 149, see also outcomes; resolutions

of resolved disputes 151, 157–8, 160, 169communicative competence 3–4

developing 2, 4, 6, 21, 193, 195communities, speech 22compliance 136, 142compromise 17–18, 26–8, 61, 73, 112,

115–19, 179conditional directives 17conditional threats 138, 142, 145conflict

between children 1closings, see closingscontinuation 111, 176definition 2, 7–8, 13episodes 9, 12, 17, 23, 26–7, 36, 78frequency 13–16, 57–9openings 10–12outcomes 20, 26–9, 52, 78resolution, see resolutionssituations 1, 21, 61–2, 108, 195strategies, see strategiestypes 13–16, 57–9verbal 2, 4, 10, 80, 109, 111

connected discourse 33, 193connector pieces 120, 158, 182constraints 40, 57, 103

behavioural 104–5context 9, 36, 45, 75, 189–90, 194

local 33, 42, 47, 50–1, 120sequential 49–50, 136, 141, 152social 4–5, 31, 37, 193

contiguity 44, 46, 71continuation of conflict 111, 133, 176,

189–90continuum of objectivity 175–9, 195

contours, terminal 55, 197contradicting routines 22–3contradiction 8, 18, 22–3, 63, 70, 76, 126contrived episodes/situations 13, 34conversation

development of 35–6features of 35–7maxims of 42, 45sequential organisation, see sequential

organisationconversation analysis 5, 7, 30–52, 55

applicability 52emic perspective 36–7methodological advantages 33–7theory 47

conversational preference 48–9, 62, see also preference

correction 12, 19, 39, 156corsaro, W. a. 2–4, 8–10, 13, 15, 19, 24,

58–9coulter, J. 8–9, 50, 64counter insults 18, 22–3counter threats 1, 18, 147counters 17cycles of threats 18, 147

danby, s. 2, 26, 60, 138data-driven analysis 35–6data, introduction to 53–4davidson, J. 44dawe, H. c. 13–15delay 43–5, 50–1, 63–6, 74–6, 80–92

markers 63, 80, 85–92, 94, 108pauses 80–5prefatory 78, 92

denials 8, 17–18, 23, 50, 61development of conversation 35–6development of disputes 5, 175, 193developmental psychology 7, 13di Paolo, M. 14–15, 17–18, 26, 28, 58–9, 61direct opposition 39, 65, 75, 173, 190–1

markers 62short 5, 190

direct threats 138directness 63, 71–2, 75, 130discourse analysis 29, 32, 35, see also

conversation analysisdiscourse markers 44

church Book.indb 274 13/01/2009 12:12:02

Index 275

discrepancies 10, 14–15, 28, 56–7dislike 95, 98, 159, 173, 177dispreference 16, 44, 47

markers 85, 87, 109, 115, 149dispreferred actions 43, 45–6, 49, 51dispreferred responses 43–4, 46–7, 49, 149dispreferred status 45, 50, 136dispreferred turn shapes 5, 80–93, 121,

149, 189–90, 192–3accounts in 95–108atypical 93–4

disputesabandoned 120, 122–3, 125, 127, 136,

164closing of, see dispute closingsclosings, see closingsfrequency 14, 57, 59–60, 193multi-party 24–6, 78–9, 109, 165object 14–15, 58–9, 144outcomes, see outcomespeer, see peer disputesresolution, see resolutions

ditchburn, s. 27double-voice discourse 16downgrading 178–80, 183–5du Bois, J. W. 54dunn, J. 11dyads 24–5

edwards, J. a. 54effectiveness 99, 116, 160, 176, 178–9eisenberg, a. r. 3–4, 8–11, 15, 17–20, 23,

27–8, 59emic perspective, conversation analysis

36–7endings, see closings; outcomes;

resolutionsenvironments, observation 56–8, 60, 63,

91, 102, 106, 112episodes

adversative 8, 11, 19, 23–4, 27, 57resolved 112, 123, 168

epistemological accounts 107–8, 164–5epistemological claims 151, 156, 163, 176ervin-tripp, s. 54, 88escalation 18, 42, 65, 134

pattern of 19, 22ethnomethodology 31

events, antecedent 10–12, 18exchanged threats 162, 164existing research 4, 7, 12, 18, 57, 62

limitations 29expectations 16, 39–42, 46–50, 60, 95,

149, 157social 48, 51, 58, 105

explanation requests 17extended sequences 55, 178–9, 191external intervention 130–2

facework 49, 195factual claims 95, 108, 175–6failures to respond 41, 44, 51, 119–25final sequences 151, 160final utterances 5, 112, 124, 126–7, 136

resolved disputes 121, 149, 151–60, 193

first pair parts 40–1, 43–5, 51, 162food 42, 70, 131, 172format 9, 15–16, 19, 51, 156

tying 24fraser, B. 19, 95frequency, conflict 13–16, 57–60, 193friendship 3, 20, 60, 137, 146

relations 13threats 179

gaps 22, 37, 63–4, 80garvey, c. 4, 8–11, 15, 17–19, 23, 27–8,

33gender 13, 15, 57, 59, 195genishi, c. 14–15, 17–18, 26, 28, 58–9, 61gilligan, c. 16, 21girls 15–16, 21, 57, 84–6, 144–5, 173–5,

183–4goffman, e. 31, 35, 43, 49goodwin, c. 4, 15–16, 19, 21, 23–5, 33, 51goodwin, M. H. 3–4, 15–16, 19, 21, 23–5,

28, 33gumperz, J. 4, 54–5

Halliday, M. a. K. 4, 24harm-threats 18, 24, 136Hartup, W. W. 3, 11, 20Haslett, B. 17–18, 136, 147Hay, d. f. 3, 8–9, 14, 59hesitations 19, 35, 43–4, 51, 62, 80, 85

church Book.indb 275 13/01/2009 12:12:02


hierarchy of accounts 175–6, 179–80

ignoring 17immediate responses 63–7increasing volume 130indirect threats 1, 138, 143initial opposition 10–12, 17–18, 23, 63insertion sequences 8, 25, 40–1insistence 17insults 17–18, 22–4, 61

counter 18, 22–3intentions 3, 14, 16, 18, 29, 45, 60–1inter-turn pauses 63, 79–80, 84, 109interrogatives 126, 128–9interruptions 44, 123intervention 1, 130–3

child-initiated 133external 130–2strategies 5, 60, 195teacher 5, 20, 111–12, 130, 132–8, 140,

193–4teacher attitudes 60–1teacher-initiated 130, 133–4

intonation 19, 73, 197inversion 22, 63–4, 70, 136, 190invitations 42–3, 45–6, 48–9, 137–42, 179israeli children 9, 78italian children 15, 19

Jackson, s. 29, 42, 189Jacobs, s. 29, 42, 189Jefferson, g. 31, 36–9, 47, 55–6, 197justifications 17, 95, 102–4, 106–9, 155–8,

160–3, 173–80objective 193quantifiable 160retrospective 54subjective 178–9, 188

justified objections 87, 141, 153justified opposition 5, 162, 192

knowledge 27, 33, 58, 107–8, 156Koplas, a. l. 3, 20Kotthoff, H. 50–1, 190

labov, W. 9, 15, 19, 32, 53lampert, M. d. 54language 3–4, 7, 32, 50, 53

acquisition 3latched utterances 64laursen, B. 3, 11, 20lein, l. 3, 10, 17–18, 22, 28, 61, 65length, turn 63, 68–74levinson, s. c. 19, 32, 35, 43, 45, 47, 49lewis, M. 41, 48liking 99, 173, 181linguistic markedness, see markednesslinguistic preference, see preferencelocal context 33, 42, 47, 50–1, 120local rules 58–9, 95, 105lussier, c. 20–1, 130

markedness 43–5, 47–50, 149, 187, 192–3markers 5, 43–4, 51, 73, 85, 87–8, 90–3

delay 63, 80, 94–5, 108dispreference 85, 87, 109, 115, 149

maxims of conversation 42, 45Maynard, d. W. 3–4, 8–12, 18–19, 24–6,

28, 39, 78Mctear, M. 4, 73methodology 13, 31, 33–7, 56, 62mitigation 17, 19–20, 95, 135modified acceptance 115–19motivation 15, 28, 34–5, 47–8, 60–1, 177,

184multi-party disputes 24–6, 78–9, 109, 165Murray, B. 20–1, 130mutuality 8–9

necessity 95–5, 99, 155, 172negotiation 20–1, 27–8, 58, 135, 141, 190,

194newman, r. s. 20–1, 130next-turn opposition 146non-opposition 136, 179nonverbal actions 10–11, 35, 66–8, 197novel content 65, 76, 118, 124, 132, 190–2novel positions 117–18

object disputes 14–15, 58–9, 99–102, 143–4, 151–4, 161–3, 176–80

objectionable actions 98, 149, 164objections 8–9, 25–6, 99–100, 104–5,

121–2, 126–7, 152–5justified 87, 141, 153repeated 132

church Book.indb 276 13/01/2009 12:12:03

Index 277

objectivity 175–80, 184continuum of 175–9, 195relative 176–7, 179in threats 178–9

objects, see object disputes; properties of objects

observation environments 56–8, 60, 63, 91, 102, 106, 112

observers 56, 94, 133, 168, 183, 197Ochs, e. 4, 54O’Keefe, B. J. 2, 8–9, 12–13, 18, 147one-word objections/utterances 68–9, 71openings, conflict 10–12opposition 2–5, 8–12, 14–19, 95–6,

98–103, 107–9, 189–93categories of 17delayed and justified 92–3direct forms of 190–1initial 10, 12, 17–18, 23, 63initial statement of 10–12justified 5, 162, 192markers 62, 72–3, 93, 126next-position 189next-turn 146organisation of 118, 134overt 10, 12, 19, 136, 175–6, 189–90,

193unjustified 131

organisationof opposition 118, 134sequential, see sequential organisationsocial 15, 28

organising principles 5, 24, 51, 53, 62, 160, 176

orientation 9, 16, 35–7, 42, 46other-initiated repair 19, 39, 189outcomes 56, 109, 111–49

abandonment 123–30compromise 115–19dispute closings 149failure to respond 119–27increasing volume 130intervention 130–6modified acceptance 115–19and preference 151–85resolutions 112–23threats 136–49topic shifts 127–9

win/loss 112–15overt opposition 10, 12, 19, 136, 175–6,

189–90, 193ownership 59, 99–100, 106, 134, 169,

177–8, 180claims 169–70, 174, 182rights 95, 99–102, 115, 158–9, 176–7

pair parts 43, 50, 52, 149, 189, 192first 40–1, 43–5, 51, 162second 5, 40–5, 50–2, 136, 149, 162,

189–90pairs, adjacency 40–2, 46, 75, 155, 179parents 7, 20, 53part-Hawaiian children 18, 22partial repetition 19participant orientation, see orientationparty invitations, see invitationspatterns of discourse 25, 27, 59patterns of escalation 19, 22pauses 43–4, 62–4, 75–6, 80–5, 108–9,

142–5inter-turn 63, 79–80, 84, 109

peer disputes 53–109personal preferences, see preference,

personalpersonal volition, see volitionpersuasiveness 111, 145, 151, 157, 175–7,

179, 187physical force 17Piaget, J. 3, 16pitch 22, 55, 67play scripts 27, 58–9, 102–4, 154–6,

162–3, 171, 175–7play space 13–14, 57, 99–104, 125–6, 132,

169, 175–6politeness 16, 19, 49, 195Pomerantz, a. 32, 44–5, 47–8, 50, 85, 108,

189possession 14–15, 95–6, 98–9, 134, 145,

158, 170power 15, 140–1preference 20, 39, 42–52, 62, 75, 98, 189

boundaries 136, 149categorisation of actions 49–51and dispute resolution 189–91features 5, 47, 49, 62–3, 108–9, 187,

192–3

church Book.indb 277 13/01/2009 12:12:03


function of 189–90interpretation differences 47–9linguistic 48–9, 194organisation 5, 42–53, 62, 78, 109,

191–5and outcomes 151–85personal 46, 48–9, 95–9problems with concept 47–51psychological 48–9and psychology 45–6status 43–5, 47, 49–51, 68, 84structural nature of concept 45–6

preferred actions 45, 47–9, 51, 189preferred responses 43–4, 46–7, 51, 80, 95,

136, 163preferred status 49, 71, see also preference,

statuspreferred turn shapes 63–74, 134–6

accounts preceding 160–75atypical 75–8multi-party disputes 78–80

prior claims 99–101, 115, 154, 163, 165prior rights 99, 132, 169prior utterances 2, 12, 25, 55, 62–3, 66–8,

189–90productive interaction, adversative

discourse as 3properties of objects 102–4, 108, 160,

175–6Psathas, g. 31–2, 55psychological inferences 47–8psychological preference 48–9

real interaction, recording 33–5reasons 17recording of real interaction 33–5referents 145, 151, 176–7, 179–80, 184refusals 8, 17–18, 24, 43, 102, 152, 155rejections 18, 24, 44–6, 122, 144, 162relative objectivity 176–7, 179repair 8, 12, 37–9

other-initiated 19, 39, 189repeated objections 132repetition 22, 41, 70, 132, 135, 157, 190

partial 19research

analytic 32, 35–7, 55, 108existing, see existing research

researchers 13, 16, 27, 33–6, 54, 56resolutions 8–10, 27–8, 149, 175–9, 193–5

active 123, 129compromise 115–19failure to respond 119–23how to resolve disputes 187–95modified acceptance 115–19saliency of accounts 187–9sequence of turn shapes 191–3why preference? 189–91win/loss outcomes 112–15

resolved disputes 28, 112, 115–16, 123, 151–2, 159–61, 190

closings 151, 157–8, 160, 169final utterances 121, 149, 151, 160

resources 1, 14, 57–8responses

dispreferred 43–4, 46–7, 49, 149immediate 63–7preferred 43–4, 46–7, 51, 80, 95, 136, 163

restarts 93, 100, 143, 151, 153, 160, 182rights

ownership, see ownership rightsprior 99, 132, 169

rizzo, t. a. 3, 8, 10, 13, 15, 19–20, 58–9ross, H. s. 3, 7–8, 10, 13–14, 59rudeness 41, 105rules 3, 33–4, 37–9, 104–7, 166–8, 176–7

local 58–9, 95, 105social 18

sacks, H. 26, 31, 34, 36–42, 44–9, 55, 62schegloff, e. 26, 31–2, 36–42, 47, 55, 197schieffelin, B. 4schiffrin, d. 32, 44, 87scripts, play 27, 58–9, 102–3, 154–6,

162–3, 171, 175–7searle, J. r. 32, 35second pair parts 5, 40–5, 50–2, 136, 149,

162, 189–90self-repair 39sequence of turn shapes

and dispute resolution 191–3sequences

argumentative 19, 22–3, 26, 71, 125extended 55, 178–9, 191insertion 8, 25, 40–1invitation 46, 49

church Book.indb 278 13/01/2009 12:12:03

Index 279

side 8, 147, 162of strategies 22–6threats in 141–9

sequential context 49–50, 136, 141, 152sequential organisation 33, 37–42, 45, 52,

78, 121shantz, c. u. 8–9, 11, 14–15, 33, 59sharing 14, 17, 80, 89, 166–8

rule 106–7, 157sheldon, a. 16, 91shifts 26–8, 31, 54–5, 58, 76, 117, 128short utterances 68, 99, 191

repeated 166shouting 60, 130, 134, 146, 194side sequences 8, 147, 162silence 44, 47, 64, 112, 119, 121single utterances 29, 31–3, 35, 37, 55, 172,

193social context 4–5, 31, 37, 193social expectations 48, 51, 58, 105social organisation 15, 28social rules 18social status 2, 194social structure 3, 15social worlds 2–3, 6, 195space, play, see play spacespeech

acts 5, 24, 32–3, 88adult 2, 19, 75, 78, 109communities 22

staff intervention 131–2stalemate 132, 144, 162status

dispreferred 45, 50, 136preference 43–5, 47, 49–51, 68, 84preferred 49, 71social 2, 194

strategies 4, 7, 25–7, 116–17, 141–3sequences of 22–6, 61–2types of 61–2verbal 16–21

stress 19, 22, 35, 55, 197structures

social 3, 15syntactic 23–4, 64

subjective justifications 178–9, 188subjectivity 16, 48, 177

submission 26, 112–13, 136, 141, 149, 177–8

syntactic structures 23–4, 64

talk-in-interaction 2–3, 5, 9, 33–4, 37, 53–4, 78

teacher-initiated intervention 130, 133–4teachers 60–1, 107–8, 130–5, 140, 166,

171–2, 182conflict intervention attitudes 60–1instructions 4, 106, 135intervention 5, 20, 111–12, 130, 132–8,

140, 193–4tell-authority threats 24, 137, 140, 170thompson, s. a. 4, 32threats 17–18, 22–4, 94, 125, 136–49,

178–9birthday party 143, 179conditional 138, 142, 145counter 1, 18, 147direct 138exchanged 162, 164function 5, 125, 141, 149harm 18, 24, 136implied 114, 143indirect 1, 138, 143objectivity in 178–9in sequences 141–9tell-authority 24, 137, 140, 170types 136–41unspecified outcome 18, 24, 136withholding actions/object 24, 136–7,

141, 147topic shifts 24, 117–19, 127–9, 144

mid-episode 139topics, dispute 95, 117, 184, 195toys 14, 79, 106, 113, 155, 164, 167transcription 54–6

conventions 54–5, 197transcripts 12, 34–5, 54–64truth 14, 58–9, 107turn length 63, 68–74turn shapes

dispreferred, see dispreferred turn shapes

preferred, see preferred turn shapessequence and dispute resolution 191–3

turn-taking 37–9

church Book.indb 279 13/01/2009 12:12:03


unspecified outcome threats 18, 24, 136upgrading 159, 178–9, 187utterances

short 68, 99, 191single 29, 31–3, 35, 37, 55, 172, 193

verbal strategies 16–21video recordings 5, 53, 56, 58, 80

volition 95–5, 99–100, 159–60, 162, 175–6volume, increasing 22, 130, 170Vuchinich, s. 2, 7, 27, 111–12, 123, 127

win/loss outcomes 112–15withholding actions/object threats 24,

136–7, 141, 147

church Book.indb 280 13/01/2009 12:12:03

[amelia church] preference organisation and peer d

Documents

social interaction

social psychology

social studies of technology

social activities

social skills

study of social action

amelia preference organisation

young children