The relation of language to context in children’s speech the role of HAFTA statements in structuring 3-year-old’s discourse.

References

1. Austin, J
   (1961) How to do things with words. Oxford: Clarendon Press
   [Google Scholar]
2. Brown, P. & Levinson, S
   (1978/1987) Politeness. Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
   [Google Scholar]
3. Corsaro, W
   (1985) Friendship and Peer culture in the Early Years. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex
   [Google Scholar]
4. D'Andrade, R
   (1987) A folk model of the mind. In D. Holland & N. Quinn (eds.), Cultural models in language and thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
   [Google Scholar]
5. Du Bois, J
   (1987) The Discourse basis of Ergativity. Language63: 805-855 doi: 10.2307/415719
   https://doi.org/10.2307/415719 [Google Scholar]
6. Eisenberg, A. and Garvey, C
   (1981) Children's use of verbal strategies in resolving conflicts. Discourse Processes4: 149-170 doi: 10.1080/01638538109544512
   https://doi.org/10.1080/01638538109544512 [Google Scholar]
7. Ervin-Tripp, S
   (1976) Is Sybil there? The structure of some American English directives. Language in Society5: 25-66 doi: 10.1017/S0047404500006849
   https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500006849 [Google Scholar]
8. Ervin-Tripp, S
   (1977) Wait for me roller skate!In S. Ervin-Tripp & C. Mitchell-Kernan (eds.), Child Discourse.New York: Academic Press
   [Google Scholar]
9. Ervin-Tripp, S. and Gordon, D
   (1985) The development of requests. In R.L. Schiefelbusch (ed.), Communicative competence: Assessment and intervention. San Diego, Calif.: College-Hill
   [Google Scholar]
10. Ervin-Tripp, S. , Strage, A. , Lampert, M. and Bell, N
    (1987) Understanding requests. Linguistics25: 107-143 doi: 10.1515/ling.1987.25.1.107
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1987.25.1.107 [Google Scholar]
11. Fillmore, C
    (1982) Frame Semantics. In Linguistic Society of Korea (ed.), Linguistics in the Morning Calm. Seoul: Hanshin
    [Google Scholar]
12. Fillmore, C
    (1985) Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di Semantica6: 222-253
    [Google Scholar]
13. Fleischman, S
    (1982) The Future in thought and language: Diachronic evidence from Romance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
    [Google Scholar]
14. Garvey, C
    (1975) Requests and responses in children's speech. Journal of Child Language2: 41-63 doi: 10.1017/S030500090000088X
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S030500090000088X [Google Scholar]
15. Garvey, C
    (1989) The modals of necessity and obligation in children's pretend play. Poster presented atthe Biennial Meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development
    [Google Scholar]
16. Gee, J
    . (nee Gerhardt) (1985) An interpretive approach to the study of modality: What child language can tell the linguist. Studies in Language9:2: 197-229 doi: 10.1075/sl.9.2.03gee
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.9.2.03gee [Google Scholar]
17. Gee, J. (nee Gerhardt) and Savasir, I
    (1985) On the use of WILL & GONNA: Towards a description of activity-types for child language. Discourse Processes8: 143-175 doi: 10.1080/01638538509544612
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01638538509544612 [Google Scholar]
18. Gerhardt, J. and Savasir, I
    (1986) The use of the simple present in the speech of two three-year-olds: Normativity not subjectivity. Language in Society15: 501-536 doi: 10.1017/S0047404500011994
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500011994 [Google Scholar]
19. Gerhardt, J
    (1988) From discourse to semantics: The development of verb morphology and forms of self-reference in the speech of a two-year-old. Journal of Child Language15: 337-393 doi: 10.1017/S030500090001240X
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S030500090001240X [Google Scholar]
20. Gerhardt, J
    . (in press) Core Uses and Extended Uses of HAFTA, NEEDTA and WANNA for children
21. Gibbs, R. W
    (1979) Contextual effects in understanding indirect requests. Discourse Processes2: 1-10 doi: 10.1080/01638537909544450
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01638537909544450 [Google Scholar]
22. Givon, T
    (1982) Logic vs. pragmatics, with human language as the referee: toward an empirically viable epistemology. Journal of Pragmatics6.1: 81–133 doi: 10.1016/0378‑2166(82)90026‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(82)90026-1 [Google Scholar]
23. Givon, T
    (1984) Syntax: A Functional-Typological introduction, vol. 1. Amsterdam: John Benjamins
    [Google Scholar]
24. Givon, T
    (1989) Mind, Code and Context: Essays in pragmatics. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum
    [Google Scholar]
25. Goffman, E
    (1976) Replies and responses. Language in Society5: 257-313 doi: 10.1017/S0047404500007156
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500007156 [Google Scholar]
26. Goffman, E
    (1978) Response Cries. Language54: 787-815 doi: 10.2307/413235
    https://doi.org/10.2307/413235 [Google Scholar]
27. Goffman, E
    (1983) Forms of Talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press
    [Google Scholar]
28. Gordon, D. and Lakoff, G
    (1971) Conversational Postulates. Papers from the Seventh Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society.Chicago: Chicago Linguistics Society
    [Google Scholar]
29. Gumperz, J
    (1982) Discourse Strategies. New York: Cambridge University Press doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511611834
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511611834 [Google Scholar]
30. Gumperz, J
    (1989) Some further notes on contextualization. Unpublished Manuscript, University of California, Berkeley
31. Hare, R.M
    (1951) The language of morals. Oxford: Clarendon Press
    [Google Scholar]
32. Harris, Z
    (1951) Methods in Structural Linguistics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press
    [Google Scholar]
33. Heritage, J. and Atkinson, J. M
    1984 Introduction. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (eds.)structures of Social Action: Studies in conversational analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
    [Google Scholar]
34. Hopper, P
    (1979) Aspect and foregrounding in discourse. In T. Givon (ed.)Syntax and Semantics vol, 12: Discourse and Syntax. New York: Academic Press
    [Google Scholar]
35. Hymes, D
    (1972) Models of the interaction of language and social life. In J. Gumperz & D. Hymes (eds.)Directions in Sociolinguistics. New York: Holt, Rinehart &Winston
    [Google Scholar]
36. Keller-Cohen, D. , Chalmer, K. and Remler, J
    (1979) The Development of discourse negation in the Nonnative child. In. E. Ochs & B. Schieffelin (eds.)Developmental Pragmatics. New York: Academic Press
    [Google Scholar]
37. Kenny, A
    (1963) Action, emotion and will. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul
    [Google Scholar]
38. Labov, W. and Fanshell, D
    (1977) Therapeutic Discourse: Psychotherapy as conversation.New York: Academic Press
    [Google Scholar]
39. Levinson, S
    (1979) Activity types and language. Linguistics17: 356-99 doi: 10.1515/ling.1979.17.5‑6.365
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1979.17.5-6.365 [Google Scholar]
40. Levinson, S
    (1983) Pragmatics. New York: Cambridge University Press
    [Google Scholar]
41. Lyons, J
    (1977) Semantics. vol. 2. New York: Cambridge University Press
    [Google Scholar]
42. Mann, W.C. , and Thompson, S. A
    . Relational propositions in discourse. Discourse Processes9: 57-90 doi: 10.1080/01638538609544632
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01638538609544632 [Google Scholar]
43. McTear, M
    (1985) Children's conversations. Oxford: Basil Blackwell
    [Google Scholar]
44. Meldon, A.I
    (1961) Free Action. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul
    [Google Scholar]
45. Minsky, M
    (1975) A Framework for representing knowledge. In Patrick Winston (ed.)The Psychology of computer vision. New York: McGraw Hill
    [Google Scholar]
46. Palmer, F
    (1979) Modality and the English Modals. New York: Longmans
    [Google Scholar]
47. Palmer, F
    (1986) Mood and Modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
    [Google Scholar]
48. Pike, K
    (1964) Towards a theory of the structure of human behavior. In D. Hymes (ed.)Language, culture and society. New York: Harper & Row
    [Google Scholar]
49. Pomerantz, A
    (1984) Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: some feature of preferred/ dispreferred turn shapes. In J.M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (eds.)Structures of social action: Studies in conversational analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
    [Google Scholar]
50. Ricoeur, P
    (1976) Interpretation theory: Discourse and the surplus of meaning. Forthworth: The Texas Christian University Press
    [Google Scholar]
51. Rumelhardt, D
    1974 Notes on a schema for stories. In Bobrow, D. & Collins, A . (eds.)Representations and understanding. Studies in cognitive science. New York: Longmans
    [Google Scholar]
52. Schank, R.C. and Abelson, R.P
    (1977) Scripts, Plans, Goals and Understanding.Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum
    [Google Scholar]
53. Schegloff, E. A
    (1984) On some questions and ambiguities in conversation. In J.M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (eds.)Structures of social action: Studies in conversational analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
    [Google Scholar]
54. Schegloff, E. A. and Sachs, H
    (1973) Opening up closings. Semiotica7: 289-327 doi: 10.1515/semi.1973.8.4.289
    https://doi.org/10.1515/semi.1973.8.4.289 [Google Scholar]
55. Schiffrin, D
    (1987) Discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511611841
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511611841 [Google Scholar]
56. Searle, J
    (1975) Indirect speech acts. In Cole, P. & Morgan, J.D . (eds.)Syntax and Semantics. vol. 5: Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press
    [Google Scholar]
57. Searle, J
    (1979) A taxonomy of illocutionary acts. In J. Searle (ed.)Expression and Meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [First appeared in a volume ed. by K. Gunderson Language, Mind and Knowledge Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol VII.Univ. of Minnesota Press, 1975.] doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511609213
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511609213 [Google Scholar]
58. Searle, J
    (1979) Literal Meaning. In J. Searle (ed.)Expression and Meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [First appeared inErkenntnis, Vol 13. 1978] doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511609213
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511609213 [Google Scholar]
59. Searle, J
    (1983) Intentionality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139173452
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173452 [Google Scholar]
60. Silverstein, M
    (1976) Shifters, linguistic categories and cultural description. In K. Basso & H. Selby (eds.)Meaning in anthropology. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press
    [Google Scholar]
61. Sinclair, J. M. and Coulthard, R.M
    (1975) Towards an analysis of discourse: the English used by teachers and pupils.Oxford: Oxford University Press
    [Google Scholar]
62. Shatz, M
    (1978) Children's comprehension of their mother's question-directives. Journal of Child Language5: 39-46 doi: 10.1017/S0305000900001926
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000900001926 [Google Scholar]
63. Stubbs, M
    (1983) Discourse Analysis. Oxford: Basic Blackwell
    [Google Scholar]
64. Talmy, L
    (1985) Force Dynamics in language and thought. InPapers from the Parasession on Causatives and Agentivity. Chicago: Chicago Linguistics Society
    [Google Scholar]
65. Talmy, L
    (1988) Force Dynamics in language and cognition. Cognitive Science12: 49-100 doi: 10.1207/s15516709cog1201_2
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1201_2 [Google Scholar]
66. Toulmin, S
    (1958) The Uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
    [Google Scholar]
67. Traugott, E
    (1989) On the rise of epistemic meanings in English: An example of subjectification in semantic change. Language65: 31-53 doi: 10.2307/414841
    https://doi.org/10.2307/414841 [Google Scholar]
68. Twadell, W.T
    (1963) The English verb auxiliaries. Providence R.I.: Brown University Press
    [Google Scholar]
69. Vygotsky, L
    (1962) Thought and Language. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press
    [Google Scholar]
70. Wertsch, J. and Stone, A
    (1985) The Concept of internalization. In J. Wertsch (ed.)Culture, cognition and communication. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
71. White, A
    (1975) Modal Thinking. Ithica: Cornell University Press
    [Google Scholar]
72. Zubin, D
    (1979) Discourse function of morphology: The Focus system in German. In T. Givon (ed.)Syntax and Semantics, vol. 12: Discourse and Syntax. New York: Academic Press
    [Google Scholar]