Front matter

Introduction

Chapters 2 and 3

Chapter 4

************************* FROM CLASS NOTES WRITTEN AROUND 2010 *****************************

1. Miller and the working class mothers of South Baltimore
   1. I ignore a few statements that are actually a counter-factual to what she actually reports:

      The mother's beliefs about language learning are interesting in their own right but also embody valuable insights into language socialization. This is not to say what a mother expressed (to a particular listener on particular occasions) was the sum of what she knew about language learning. Surely, the bulk of that knowledge was tacit, more or less inaccessible to conscious thought

2. and focus instead on what she does report:
   1. specific efforts revealing pragmatic (practical) awareness of what emerges as what must be done given setting and participants
      1. naming sequences with multiple and shifting participants. Some of these are initiated by the mothers, some by children, including the children of focus (pp. 77-99)
      2. speaking appropriate sequences(pp. 99-114)

         errors that reveal practical understanding of what kind of thing to say after one has burped. (p. 100)

      3. playing verbal games (pp. 114-118)
      4. Using correct grammar, pronunciation, and intonation (pp. 118-120)
   2. meta-pragmatic awareness
3. Miller's summary of Schiefflin's work (pp. 120-22) emphasizing differences
4. Note how little this has to do with the classic questions about syntactic development (a la Chomsky/Piaget) but has everything to do about finding out how to use language for action. Note how much of the mother's intructions are based on correction after potential trouble. The mothers do not test the children. They ensure that the child produces the verbal sequence that ought to be produced at this moment. If the child does not make a mistake, the child is let alone -- but of course each statement ratches up the possibility for not saying/doing the right thing. The children may be learning but they are also introduced to ever more complex forms of ignorance for which they will be corrected by an ever expanding circle of friends, peers, strangers, including hostile strangers.
   1. see Miller's comment (p. 98) about "the child's prior mastery of the rules of reciprocal discourse ... including turn-taking" -- which infants seem to be born with! The issue is not whether the child has "mastered" the rules, but whether the child has stopped "screwing around." to the extent that the mother does not have to instruct her further.

      To reveal incompetence, consider how frequently mothers in line carry or otherwise restrain their children. Consider also that once you get into line persons will not therein question that you have rightfully gotten into line unless you start screwing around. Then you get instructed. (Garfinkel 2002: 257)

5. Note also how we cannot quite know (though Miller often speculates about it) what is "learned." All we have is evidence that children participate (including initiate conversations in ways that make sense to their mothers and themselves. Look for example to this case:
   1. Another case: a mother and her four year old daughter discuss literacy matters (from Cory Boyd's dissertation on infant literacy in the supermarket (1993).

Tuesday, January 9, 2007