Adult Communicative Styles

and children’s language

Caroline Bowen PhD

Speech-Language Pathologist
these slides are about

Language teachers’ communicative styles

The terms ‘teaching’ and ‘teacher’ are
used here in their broadest senses.
For a child learning language, parents,
pre-school teachers, speech-language
pathologists and other adults (and even
older children) are all ‘teachers’.
‘communicative style’
The term ‘communicative style’
refers to the way adults (or
‘language teachers’) engage
children in conversation …
… the language they use and the
way they ask questions.
reticent children
Children with communication impairments
are often quite talkative at home and
with their speech-language pathologists.
These same children may say very little,
or nothing at all, at daycare, pre-school
school, when “out”, etc.
Think about the points raised in this
presentation in relation to helping
reticent children to be more
“forthcoming” conversationally.
intended audience
These slides are for parents and
caregivers of children with speech
sound disorders including:
 functional speech disorders
 developmental phonological disorders
 developmental apraxia of speech
language learning
All children are language learners.
Part of their speech and language
development is innate.
Part of it is learned through the
modelling of people around them.
Parents are young children’s main
speech and language teachers.
researchers have investigated
teachers’ communicative style
looking at:
1. The way adults talk to children,
or, in other words, the adults’
communicative styles.
2. The immediate effect of the
various ‘styles’ on children’s
communication.
the adult communicative styles
investigated were:
1) Enforced repetitions
2) Two-choice questions
3) ‘Wh—’ type questions
4) Personal contributions
5) Phatics
1. enforced repetitions
In this ‘style’:
The adult asks the child to repeat
what the adult says.
enforced repetitions
A = Adult C = Child
A: What are you doing?
C: Painting.
A: Say ‘Painting a house’.
C: Painting a house.
A: Good girl. Good talking.
 bad news!
the researchers found…
the effect of enforced repetitions on
communication
1. Enforced repetitions do not
increase the child’s mean length
of conversational ‘turn’.
2. Children are not able to imitate
structures more complex than
their spontaneous utterances.
2. two-choice questions

In this ‘style’:
The adult asks a child a question that
offers two choices:
 To say yes / no
 To say a word or phrase
two-choice questions
A = Adult C = Child
A: Is that a red pen?
C: No.
A: That’s right, it’s a blue pen.
two-choice questions
A = Adult C = Child
A: Is that a red pen or a blue pen?
C: A blue pen.
A: Yes, that’s right, it is a blue pen.
  bad news and not such bad news:
the researchers found…
the effect on communication of two-
choice questions
1. Children’s verbal responses are
shorter than with any of the other
styles.
2. Children tend to give single-word
responses or non-verbal
responses.
two-choice questions
 Itis difficult for a ‘teacher’ to know if
the child understands 2-choice
questions.
 After all, there is a 50% chance of
the child answering correctly.
 Children can become very passive,
leaving all of the responsibility for
communication with the adult.
two-choice questions
 Canbe useful to help a child
expand a theme.
3. “Wh—” type questions

In this ‘style’:
The adult asks the child a question
containing a ‘Wh—’ question word:
why, what, where, when, who,
whose, which.
“Wh—” type questions
A = Adult C = Child
A: Where’s the truck?
C: [POINTS]
A: And who’s on the truck?
C: Spot.
S: What’s Spot doing?
C: Driving it.
  not such bad news and good news:
the researchers found…
the effect on communication of ‘Wh
—’ type questions
1. In excess, ‘Wh—’ questions are
likely to inhibit children from
playing an active role in
conversation.
2. ‘Wh—’ questions are only likely to
receive an appropriate response if
the child understands the
question.
Wh—’ type questions
 Can be useful for monitoring
comprehension.
 This style leads to the highest
incidence of ‘repair’.
4. personal contributions

In this ‘style’:
The adult avoids asking questions
and chooses topics of interest to
the particular child.
 The topic choice is child-led if
possible.
personal contributions
A = Adult C = Child
A: I went to the Great Australian
Muster in the holidays
C: Me too!
A: I though it was great.
C: But too noisy. Dad said it was too
noisy.
personal contributions
A = Adult C = Child
A: Your dad though it was noisy?
I think he’s right!
C: Mummy said it was noisy too.
Not me. I like it.
A: Noise doesn’t bother you?
C: No, not never!
  good news!
the researchers found…
the effect on communication of
personal contributions
 Children initiate more conversational
turns.
 Children initiate more conversational
topics.
 Children are more talkative.
 Some children say more in this style
than in the phatic style.
personal contributions
 There can be ‘uncomfortable
silences’ when using this style.
 Children and teachers can get over
their ‘fear of silence’!
personal contributions
Children are afforded more time to
think about what they want to
communicate, and to plan how to
do it, with this style.
5. phatics

In this ‘style’:
 The adult tries to say nothing with
any ‘content’ apart from
acknowledging the child’s
contribution
 Questions are avoided.
 Topics are initiated by the child.
 phatics
A = Adult C = Child
 A: That looks good.
 C: It’s going up high.
 A: True.
 C: High up to the sky.
 A: Uh-huh
 C: Maybe it might fall down. Crash!
 A: It might! It’s very high!
   very good news!
the researchers found…
the effect on communication of phatics

1. The increase in MLUm can be

dramatic with this style.
2. Children may begin to tell stories.

 MLUm = the child’s mean length

of utterance measured in
morphemes (units of meaning)
phatics
 Itis often difficult to follow what
children are communicating
because they rely on gesture, mime
and actions, and they leap from
one topic to another!
references
Dillon, J.T. (1982). The
multidisciplinary study of
questioning. Journal of Educational
Psychology 74, 2, 147-165
Wood, D., Wood, H., Griffiths, A. and
Howarth, I. (1986). Teaching and
talking with deaf children.
Chichester: Wiley
summary

 Enforced repetitions 
 Two-choice questions 
 ‘Wh—’ type questions  

 Personal contributions  

 Phatics   
 Caroline Bowen PhD
Speech Pathology Practice
9 Hillcrest Rd, Wentworth Falls, 2782

Phone 61 2 4757 1136

Internet www.speech-language-therapy.com
e-mail cbowen@ihug.com.au