This study is a qualitative investigation of caregiver–child interactions, involving 15 autistic children who are in the early stages of language learning. Data consisted of 15-min videos of free-play interactions recorded in a University clinic. We use conversation analysis to examine the sequence organization of proposal episodes, where the caregiver proposes some course of action regarding the child’s play activity. Prior work has used a speech act theoretical framework to identify follow-in directives, which are similar to proposals, but identified at the utterance level rather than at the level of social action. According to conversation analysis, social actions are implemented over multiple interactional turns and produced in collaboration between interaction partners. Our analysis showed that caregivers design their talk in ways that enable autistic children’s participation in interactional turn-taking by forecasting the upcoming proposal. They also socialize children into expectations around turn-taking, by providing an “interaction envelope” around children’s conduct so that it can be construed as completing interactional sequences. Finally, we show how autistic children can display an orientation to turn-taking by timing their interactive moves to occur at transitional moments in the interaction in ways similar to adult conversational turn-taking. Lay abstract In this article we use a qualitative method, conversation analysis, to examine videos of caregivers interacting with their young autistic children who are in the early phases of language learning. Conversation analysis involves preparation of detailed transcripts of video data, which are then analyzed together to understand how interactional moves (e.g. talk, gestures, and physical conduct) are linked with prior and subsequent interactional moves. We analyzed data from 15 participants, and focused on instances when caregivers made a proposal about something the child was playing with. In previous research, similar instances have been referred to as “follow-in directives.” We found that these proposals were embedded in sequences that had a similar structure, and were prefaced with a ‘pre-proposal’; where the caregiver established the child’s interest in a joint activity and signaled the upcoming proposal. The caregiver’s talk was also provided in such a way that there was a clear “slot” for the child’s turn, which made it easy for the child’s actions to become part of an interactional sequence. In addition, proposal sequences were very negotiable—the caregivers do not usually insist that the child follow through on the proposal, only that they produce an action that could be taken as a response. Finally, there were some instances where the child’s turn was very precisely timed to occur right at the end of a caregiver’s proposal; this precise timing could signal the child’s understanding of how interactional turn-taking works. We suggest that this method of examining caregiver–child interactions provides new insights into how interactions proceed, which could be useful for future intervention research.
Teachers’ Politeness Markers in Request in Classroom Interactions
