The transcript is a conversation between Rebecca, who is 1 year and 10 months old, and her father. The following transcript shows Rebecca and her father playing a shopping roleplay game. In this game Rebecca is the shop keeper and her father is the shopper. I assume that this shop game that Rebecca and her father are playing is taking place that is familiar to both subjects involved with the transcript. During this conversation between Rebecca and her father it seems to me Rebecca is in the later stages of the "two-word" phase of Jean Aitchison's take of developmental stages .
Rebecca's phonological development skills are more advanced then what theorists like Aldridge believed children Rebecca's age should be. Even though Rebecca shows a wider range of vowels and vowel phrases such as the word "peas" that she repeat throughout the transcript Aldridge's table of sounds shows that she is in a much later stage because she utters the word "the" in the transcript of her and her fathers conversation. Aldridge's stage would put Rebecca at a 7 year old stage but as I stated before Rebecca is only 1 year and 10 months old. This shows that Rebecca development is much father then other children because she can utter the word "there" which most children her age could not. Most of Rebecca's lexis falls into there proper categories as they should. For example, nouns such as "box" "peas","and "shop" show that Rebecca is confident in labeling items that she sees. Another example, is how Rebecca says "come(.)come(.) come" to her father. This signifies that she wants her father to follow her wherever she goes. However, Rebecca's lexical acquisition is still limited as she does not use pronouns to give a clearer meaning to the utterances that she says. But, the theorist named Nelson says that this is common in children in Rebecca's age and stage of development.
Furthermore, when we discuss Rebecca's syntax we can tell that since she is in the "two-word" stage her ability to form sentences is just beginning. However, when Rebecca tries she does successfully do so multiple times. For example, Rebecca stated "in box" and also "find peas." However, she stated "in box(.)think " instead of "in the box(.) I think." By phrasing this sentence like this is shows that she is having some structural issues because of her lack of pronoun usage. It also shows she either lacks understanding or she is just not confident in her answer. The reason why I say this is because she tries to cover up her answer with the usage of a pause "(.)."
Rebecca's father is her linguistic caregiver. The reason I say this is because he starts to ask Rebecca questions since his role in the shopping game is a customer. He asks "is there any orange juice↗." This gives Rebecca more imaginative situations to work with, this also makes her familiar with "two-part" exchanges such as "please could I have some water" "yes." This shows her how to keep the conversation between them going. The father also tries to improve her lexical understanding by recasting certain information. For example, Rebecca stated "in box" but after she stated this the father repeated like "in the box."
All things considered, it is apparent that both the theorists stated and the transaction between Rebecca and her father shows that she is affluent in achieving the language skills needed for adult life. The theories also show that Rebecca, a 1 year and 10 month old, is farther in her language skills then other children her age. Even though we were given an limited amount of the transcript available it still was enough to show some key things in the way both Rebecca and her father interact with each other.
Rebecca's phonological development skills are more advanced then what theorists like Aldridge believed children Rebecca's age should be. Even though Rebecca shows a wider range of vowels and vowel phrases such as the word "peas" that she repeat throughout the transcript Aldridge's table of sounds shows that she is in a much later stage because she utters the word "the" in the transcript of her and her fathers conversation. Aldridge's stage would put Rebecca at a 7 year old stage but as I stated before Rebecca is only 1 year and 10 months old. This shows that Rebecca development is much father then other children because she can utter the word "there" which most children her age could not. Most of Rebecca's lexis falls into there proper categories as they should. For example, nouns such as "box" "peas","and "shop" show that Rebecca is confident in labeling items that she sees. Another example, is how Rebecca says "come(.)come(.) come" to her father. This signifies that she wants her father to follow her wherever she goes. However, Rebecca's lexical acquisition is still limited as she does not use pronouns to give a clearer meaning to the utterances that she says. But, the theorist named Nelson says that this is common in children in Rebecca's age and stage of development.
Furthermore, when we discuss Rebecca's syntax we can tell that since she is in the "two-word" stage her ability to form sentences is just beginning. However, when Rebecca tries she does successfully do so multiple times. For example, Rebecca stated "in box" and also "find peas." However, she stated "in box(.)think " instead of "in the box(.) I think." By phrasing this sentence like this is shows that she is having some structural issues because of her lack of pronoun usage. It also shows she either lacks understanding or she is just not confident in her answer. The reason why I say this is because she tries to cover up her answer with the usage of a pause "(.)."
Rebecca's father is her linguistic caregiver. The reason I say this is because he starts to ask Rebecca questions since his role in the shopping game is a customer. He asks "is there any orange juice↗." This gives Rebecca more imaginative situations to work with, this also makes her familiar with "two-part" exchanges such as "please could I have some water" "yes." This shows her how to keep the conversation between them going. The father also tries to improve her lexical understanding by recasting certain information. For example, Rebecca stated "in box" but after she stated this the father repeated like "in the box."
All things considered, it is apparent that both the theorists stated and the transaction between Rebecca and her father shows that she is affluent in achieving the language skills needed for adult life. The theories also show that Rebecca, a 1 year and 10 month old, is farther in her language skills then other children her age. Even though we were given an limited amount of the transcript available it still was enough to show some key things in the way both Rebecca and her father interact with each other.
Amelia,
ReplyDelete630 words? Come on, this is easily the most fun Paper 4 question. Rebecca is adorable and deserves more than practically the bare minimum. Also, not that it matters much for a blog, you seemed to have used the high graded example candidate response, nearly one to one. For our actual test, we do not have such a luxury so you need to work on being able to come up with point and corresponding theorists by yourself. Then, please remember to proofread to clean up typing or grammar errors.
It was mainly in the introduction paragraph, but you need to back up claims such as "I assume that this shop game... is taking place that is familiar to both subjects..." While another example of incorrect sentence structure, it also is just a claim that you took from the example, without any evidence to prove it. In a paper with such a strong focus on evidence from theorists, you need to also prove how the theory is connected to the text.
Also why did you switch perspective from first person singular and plural in paragraph 3 and 4?
As for what this blog would most likely be graded, you copied a good amount from the example, but not enough to cover all of the things that the mark scheme asks for in a perfect paper. Then because of the other little, but important structural faults, you would most likely get a band 3 of 16 marks. Next time, proof read, make a good plan, and I am certain you will do great.
Amelia,
ReplyDeleteI think you did a good job in hitting your key point, however, you had simple errors that should have been fixed a while back. By saying "I assume..." you are making yourself sound weak. You are writing an analysis, you should know everything, according to the audience. You also had some grammatical errors that can be fixed with a quick proof read. As for your development of your paper, I think you did a good job! You hit some key points, but you also used A level curriculum a little bit when you mentioned theories. I think you did a good job. Overall Band 3