Kethod / 103
4.3.2 The analysis of adult-child conversational sequences
Once the Conversational Sequences (CSs) had been extracted and copied
into cards, it was necessary to identify which were the features to be
analyzed on the basis of their relevance to the aims of the study. Here
the main problem has been not to fall into the double methodological
error that Stubbs has criticized in educational research using linguistic
data. Although Stubbs refers to studies of classroom interaction, much of
his criticism can be extended to other studies using naturalistic obser-
vation of talk for educational purposes :
I am, then, using the term 'unprincipled’ to refer to studies in
which surface features of language (in use] are picked out at
random and not related to underlying linguistic statements or
descriptions. ...
First: linguistic items are selected, usually with no explicit
justification, from several different levels of language tl.e. lexis,
syntax, semantics, language function, discourse].
Second: these items ... are then often related directly to social-
psychological categories, rather than being first related to the
IiDguistic and Sociolinguistic systems and structures in which
they are terms. (Stubbs,1981:117)
In my study, the second consideration does not seem to apply, as
linguistic features are not taken as evidence of cognitive or social
characteristics of phenomena other than the discourse itself (examples of
wrong inference reported by Stubbs are the use of pronouns said to be
evidence of children’s Intellectual orientation or teachers' style of
social control).
The first seems to apply if one takes a look at the codebook, where
linguistic features like 'function of utterance', 'form of Interrogatives'
and 'complexity of reply' belong to the same list as 'dynamic of
interaction', l.e. a discourse-level consideration. However, as the study is
primarily on discourse patterns, the dynamics of the interaction have a
predominant role, while other features are examined in relation to that.
As an example, the function of utterances has been classified because it
only serves to pin-point particular categories whose Importance for
discourse structure is discussed; similarly, the complexity of reply is