臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

中文摘要
在日常對話中，重疊現象（overlapping）時有所見，即使在兒童的對話裡，也可能出現頻率不高的重疊語；然而，如同文獻（Ervin-Tripp, 1979; Hsu 2000）所示，兒童重疊語的出現會因為他們預知他人談話的能力提昇而增加。因此，本文將探討兒童重疊語的發展情況與其潛藏的相關能力的關係。
本文語料的採集是從台北地區隨機選出32位4到12歲兒童的對話中取得，並根據他們的年齡差異分為8組：（1）4;6到5;5（2）5;6到6;5（3）6;6到7;5（4）7;6到8;5（5）8;6到9;5（6）9;6到10;5（7）10;6到11;5（8）11;6到12;5。所有取得的語料皆予以錄音並轉寫成文字。因為本研究欲探討兒童的年齡是否會影響其重疊語的發展，所以採One-way ANOVA 的統計方法予以檢測。
研究的結果顯示，兒童的重疊語的確隨年齡增長而增加，此外，不同年齡的兒童所慣用的重疊語型態亦有所不同。從協同性疊語（Rapport Overlap）來看，它的出現的確隨年齡增長而增加。此外，不同年齡層的兒童使用協同性疊語的時機也不同。對兒童而言，去重疊對方尚未問完的問題或言談較為容易。然而，要他們以疊語的方式去詢問對方言談中的不足或補充說明，相形之下難度顯得較高。
至於兒童的權威性插話（Power Interruption），卻會隨年齡的增長而減少。研究發現，隨著年齡增加，兒童使用權威性插話來表達自己的不贊同（disagreement）、修正他人的錯誤（correction）、或澄清自己的意思（clarification）的機率亦上升。這是因為他們逐漸有能力去預先偵測到對方言論中與自己意見相左的部分；然而，所有年齡的兒童卻都很少再針對自己的反駁做進一步言論上的佐證。另一發現是，權威性插話中兒童相互爭發言權的現象卻隨年齡降低。
從協同性疊化和權威性插話的發展情形來看，結果發現7歲6個月以後的兒童出現的協同性疊話多於權威性插話；此外，他們也有較多不同的重疊語型態。其原因出自於，該年齡的小孩已經進入了具體運思期，於是乎我們可以推論重疊語的發展與兒童的認知發展有關。
有了以上的認識與發現，我們得以進一步了解兒童會在何時以及何以有能力去重疊他人的言談。同時，也提供了教師及父母們一個了解學生或孩子們言談能力的指標。

Overlapping speech is a recurrent feature in adults’ conversation. Like adults, children were found to overlap or interrupt others, even though it has been suggested that children do not overlap others at excessively high frequencies. Actually, it is proposed that children’s overlapping speech will increase when they know what others will say (Ervin-Tripp, 1979; Hsu, 1999). Thus, the focus of this study is to find out children’s developmental stages of making overlapping speech and its relation to the underlying ability to make this kind of speech.
The data needed in this study were collected from thirty-two children with an age range from 4 to 12. They were divided into eight age groups: (1) 4;6 to 5;5 (2) 5;6 to 6;5 (3) 6;6 to 7;5 (4) 7;6 to 8;5 (5) 8;6 to 9;5 (6) 9;6 to 10;5 (7) 10;6 to 11;5 (8) 11;6 to 12;5. All the data collected were recorded and transcribed for analysis. Since the purpose of this study concerns whether age factor will affect children’s uses of overlapping types, one-way ANOVA was applied to test their overlapping utterances.
The results of this study indicate that children’s overlapping speech indeed increases with age and that there is also a developmental difference in their making of different types of overlapping.
With respect to Rapport Overlap, its occurrence was proved to be increasing with age. In addition, there is a developmental difference in children’s preference order for communicative purposes of Rapport Overlap. It appears to be much easier for younger children to anticipate questions or possible completion places of a speech. On the other hand, it is more difficult for them to anticipate potential problem of one speaker’s utterance as well as to place the earliest placement of utterance in order to elaborate on the common topic.
As to children’s producing of Power Interruption, its occurrence appears to decrease with age. It is found that, as children get older, they tend to express anticipatory disagreement, correction, and clarification more frequently. It is because their ability to predict potential divergent opinion of a speaker’s utterance becomes mature with age. However, they rarely elaborated on their disagreement, correction, or clarification by supporting logical evidence. The other finding in children’s Power Interruption is the decreasing tendency in the occurrence of Floor-taking. Younger children tend to take over other’s speaking right more frequently than older children.
With respect to the general development in children’s Rapport Overlap and Power Interruption, I find that children after the age of 7;6 start to generate more Rapport Overlap than Power Interruption. In addition, children from this stage are also found to become more competent in making various types of overlapping. Since children at this age have passed into the concrete operational stage, it can be predicted that children’s developmental differences in the productions of overlapping speech are related to the socio-cognitive development.
With the findings of this study, we may have a better understanding about when and why children produce various types of overlapping speech. Meanwhile, it suggests that teachers and parents should consider the emergence of overlapping speech as children’s growing ability to interactionally construct an on-going conversation, rather than a display of aggression.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHINESE ABSTRACT…………………………………………………………….i
ENGLISH ABSTRACT……………………..……………………………………. ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS……………………………………………………….iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS…………………………………………………………..v
LIST OF FIGURES……………………………………………………………….vii
LIST OF TABLES………………………………………………………………..viii
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
1.1 Rationale……………………………………………………………..1
1.2 Motivation……………………………………………………………2
1.3 Objectives and Hypotheses…………………………………………..3
1.4 Methodology…………………………………………………………4
1.4.1 Subjects………………………………………………………….4
1.4.2 Presentation Procedure………………………………………….4
1.4.3 Data Analysis……………………………………………………5
1.5 Significance………………………………………………………….5
1.6 The Outline of this Thesis……………………………………………6
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Interruption versus Overlap………………………………………8
2.2 Categorization of Overlapping Speech……………………………12
2.3 Review on Children’s Overlapping Behavior……………………….14
2.4 Review on Children’s Developmental Aspects……………………16
2.4.1 Children’s communicative development……………………16
2.4.1.1 Piaget’s approach to communicative development…17
2.4.1.2 Children’s development of coherent dialogue………..18
2.4.2 Children’s socio-cognitive development……………………19
2.4.2.1 Piaget ‘s four stages in socio-cognitive development……20
2.4.2.2 Two important aspects of social-cognitive function……..21
2.5 Conclusion……………………………………………………………23
CHAPTER THREE: CLASSIFICATION OF OVERLAPPING AND ANALYSIS FRAMEWORK
3.1 Differentiation of Interruption and Overlap…………………………….24
3.1.1 Neutral interruption……………………………………………….25
3.1.2 Rapport-loaded versus power-loaded interruption………………..26
3.2 Rapport Overlap………………………………………………………..27
3.3 Power Interruption……………………………………………………37
3.3.1 Argument………………………………………………………….39
3.3.2 Floor-taking……………………………………………………….43
3.4 Summary………………………………………………………………45
CHAPTER FOUR: DATA ANALYSIS
4.1 Introduction……………………………………………………………..47
4.2 Developmental Difference in Children’s Choice of Rapport Overlap
and Power Interruption………………………………………………….49
4.3 On Rapport Overlap…………………………………………………….53
4.4 On Power Interruption………………………………………………….59
4.4.1 Argument versus Floor-taking……………………………………60
4.4.2 The distribution of argument……………………………………..62
4.4.3 Primitive argument versus genuine argument…………………….64
4.5 Summary……………………………………………………………….65
CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION
5.1 Discussion on Rapport Overlap……………………………………….68
5.1.1 A developmental difference in the occurrence of four functions
of Rapport Overlap across age groups……………………………68
5.1.2 Gradual increase of Rapport Overlap…………………………….76
5.2 Discussion on Power Interruption………………………………………78
5.2.1 No developmental difference in children’s uses of three functions of Argument………………………………….…………………………78
5.2.2 More primitive argument than genuine argument………………...79
5.2.3 More Floor-taking than Argument in younger age groups……….80
5.3 Rapport Overlap versus Power Interruption……………………………81
CHAPTER SIX: CONCLUSION
6.1 Summary of this Study………………………………………………….84
6.2 Implications for Education……………………………………………..87
6.3 Suggestions for Further Study………………………………………….89
REFERENCES…………………………………………………………………..91
APPENDIX I…………………………………………………………………….96
APPENDIX II…………………………………………………………………102

REFERENCE
Beattie, Geoffrey, 1983. Talk. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
Berenda, R. W. 1950. The Influence of the Group in the Judgment of Children. New York: Kings’ Crown.
Berndt, T. J. 1979. “Developmental changes in conformity to peer and parents.” Developmental Psychology, 15, 608-616.
Bloom, L., Rocissano, L. and Hood, L. 1976. “Adult-child discourse: developmental interaction between information processing and linguistic knowledge.” Cognitive Psychology, 8, 521-552.
Brown, Penelope & Levinson, Stephen C. 1987. Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Burns, N. & Cavey, L. 1957. “Age differences in empathic ability among children.” Canadian Journal of Psychology, 11, 227-230.
Coates, Jennifer. 1989. “Gossip revisited: Language in all-female groups” In Jennifer Coates & Deborah Cameron (eds) Women in Their Speech Communities. p. 94-122. London and New York: Longman.
Craig, H., & Gallagher, T. 1982. “Gaze and Proximity as nonverbal turn regulators within three-party and two-party conversations.” Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 25 (1), 32-42.
Craig, Holly K., & Washington, Julie A., 1986. “Children’s turn-taking behaviors: social-linguistic interaction.” Journal of Pragmatics, 10, 173-197.
Dickson, W. P. 1974. “The development of interpersonal referential communication skills in young children using an interactional game device.” Dissertation Abstracts International, 35, 3511-A.
Dindia, Kathryn, 1987. “The effects of sex of subject and sex of partner on interruptions.” Human Communication Research 13, 345-371.
Dittman, A. T. 1972. “Developmental factors in conversational behavior.” The Journal of Comunication, 22, 404-423.
Duncan, S. 1972. “Some signals and rules for taking speaking turns in conversation.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 23 (2), 283-292
Edelsky, C. 1981. “Who’s got the floor.” In Deborah Tannen (ed.) Gender and Conversational Interaction. p. 189-227. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ervin-Tripp, S. 1979. “Children’s verbal turn-taking.” In E. Ochs & B. Schieffelin (eds.) Developmental Pragmatics. New York: Academic Press.
Garvey, C. 1977. “Play with language and speech.” In S. Ervin-Tripp and C. Mitchell-Kernan (eds) Child Discourse. New York: Academic Press.
---------1984. Children’s talk. Oxford: Fontana.
Garvey, C., & Berninger, G. 1981. “Timing and Turn-taking in children’s conversations.” Discourse Processes, 4, 27-57.
Gearhart, M. and Newman, D. 1977. “Turn-taking in conversation: mplications for developmental research.” Quarterly Newsletter of the Institute for Comparative Human Development 1(3).
Goffman, Erving. 1971. Relation in Public. New York: Harper and Row.
Goldberg, Julia A. 1990. “Interrupting the discourse on interruptions: An analysis in terms of relationally neutral, power- and rapport-oriented acts.” Journal of Pragmatics, 14, 883-903.
Halliday, M. A. K. 1975. Learning How to Mean. London: Edward Arnold.
Hsu, J. H. 2000. A Study of the Acquisition of Communicative Competence: social appropriateness in interactional speech. Unpublished MSC Research Report.
Jamison, K. 1981. “An analysis of overlapping in children’s speech.” Belfast Working Papers in Language and Linguistics, 5, 122-143.
Jefferson, Gail. 1973. “A case of precision timing in ordinary conversation.” Semiotica, 9, 47-96.
Jefferson, G., & Schegloff, E.A. 1975. “Sketch: some orderly aspects of overlap in natural conversation.” Paper delivered to the 74th Annual Meeting of the American Anthropological Association, San Francisco.
Kennedy, Carol W. and Camden, C. T. 1983. “A new look at interruptions.” Western Journal of Speech Communication, 47(1), 45-58.
Lerner, Gene, H. 1991. “On the syntax of sentences-in-progress.” Language in Society, 20, 441-458.
Levison, Stephen C., 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Makri-Tsilipakou, Marianthi, 1993. “Interruption revisited: Affiliatives vs. disaffiliative intervention.” Journal of Pragmatics, 21, 401-26.
McTear, Michael. 1985. Children’s Conversation. New York: Basil Blackwell.
Murata, Kumiko. 1994. “Intrusive or co-opertive? A cross-cultural study of interruption.” Journal of Pragmatics, 21, 385-400.
Murray, Stephen. O. 1985. “Toward a model of members’ methods for recognizing interruptions.” Language in Society, 14, 31-41.
Ochs, E., & Schiefflein, B. 1979. Developmental Pragmatics. London: Academic Press.
Patterson, C. J. & Kister, M. C.1981. “The development of listener skills for referential communication.” In Dickson W. P. (Ed), Children’s Oral Communication Skills. Academic Press.
Perry, David G. & Bussey, Kay. 1984. Social Development. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Piaget, J. 1959. The Language and Thought of the Child. New York: The Humanities Press Inc.
Pomerantz, A.M. 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.
Sacks, H. 1992. Lectures on Conversation. Oxford: Blackwell.
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., Schegloff, E., & Jefferson, G. 1974. “A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking in conversation.” Language, 50, 696-735.
Selman, R. 1976. “Social-cognitive understanding: A guide to educational and clinical practice.” In T. Lickona (ed) Moral Development and Behavior. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
Tannen, Deborah. 1983. “When is an overlap not an interruption? One component of conversational style.” In Robert J. DiPietro, William Frawley & Alfred Wedel (eds) The First Delaware Symposium on Language Studies. Newark, DE: University of Delaware Press.
---------1994. Gender and Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wang, Xiu-ru.1998. Turn-taking Through Interruption: Syntactic, Pragmatic, and Social Constraints. National Chengchi University. Unpublished M. A. Thesis.
Wode, Henning. 1977. “Four early stages in the development of L1 negation.” Journal of Child Language, 1977, 4, 87-102
Yngve, V. H. 1970. “On getting a word in edgewise.” Papers from the sixth regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society, 1970.
Zimerman, Don & West, Candace. 1975. “Sex roles, interruptions and silences in conversation”. In: B. Thorne and N. Henley (Eds.), Language and Sex: Difference and Dominance. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.