University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Lower And Middle Socioeconomic Class Children'S Interpretation Of Stimulus Sentences With Contradictory Message Cues

(USC Thesis Other)

Lower And Middle Socioeconomic Class Children'S Interpretation Of Stimulus Sentences With Contradictory Message Cues

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content INFORMATION TO USERS
This material was produced from a microfilm copy of the original document. While
the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document
have been used, the quality is heavily dependant upon the quality of the original
submitted.
The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand
markings or patterns which may appear on this reproduction.
1.The sign or "target" for pages apparently lacking from the document
photographed is "Missing Page(s)". If it was possible to obtain the mining
page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages.
This may have neceuitatad cutting thru an image and duplicating adjacent
pages to insure you complete continuity.
2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a large round black mark, it
is an indication that the photographer suspected that the copy may have
moved during exposure and thus cause a blurred image. You will find a
good image of the pega in the adjacent frame.
3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., was part of the material being
photographed the photographer followed a definite method in
"sectioning" the material. It is customary to begin photoing at the upper
left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue photoing from left to
right in equal sections with a small overlap. If necessary, sectioning is
continued again - beginning below the first row and continuing on until
complete.
4. The majority of users indicate that the textual content is of greatest value,
however, a somewhat higher quality reproduction could be made from
"photographs" if essential to the understanding of the dissertation. Silver
prints of "photographs" may be ordered at additional charge by writing
the Order Department, giving the catalog number, title, author and
specific pages you wish reproduced.
5. PLEASE NOTE: Some pages may have indistinct print. Filmed as
received.
Xerox University Microfilms
300 North Zoob Road
Ann Arbor, Michigan 40100
I
I
75- 15,551
McELHINEY, Julie Kay, 1936-
LONER AND MIDDLE SOCIOECONOMIC CLASS CHILDREN'S
INTERPRETATION OF STIMULUS SENTENCES WITH
CONTRADICTORY MESSAGE CUES.
University of Southern California, Ph.D., 1975
Speech
Xerox University Microfilms f Ann Arbor, M ichigan 48106
© 1974
JULIE KAY McELHINEY
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
THIS DISSERTATION HAS BEEN MICROFILMED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED.
LOWER AND MIDDLE SOCIOECONOMIC CLASS
CHILDREN'S INTERPRETATION OF STIMULUS SENTENCES
WITH CONTRADICTORY MESSAGE CUES
by
Julie Kay McElhiney
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
(Speech Communication)
January 1975
UNIVERSITY O F SO UTHERN CALIFORNIA
THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY PARK
LOS A NG ELES, CALIFO RN IA S0OO7
This dissertation, written by
under the direction of hex.... Dissertation Com
mittee, and approved by all its members, has
been presented to and accepted by The Graduate
School, in partial fulfillment of requirements of
the degree of
D O C T O R OF P H I L O S O P H Y
Julie...Kay.McEUun£.y.
Dim •
Date
DISSERTATION COMMITTEE
Chmirmmn
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS.................................. iii
LIST OF T A B L E S ......................................... iv
Chapter Page
I. THE PROBLEM.................................... 1
Introduction
Review of the Literature
Statement of the Problem
II. METHODOLOGY.................................... 21
Pretest and Stimulus Selection
Subjects
Design
Procedures
III. RESULTS......................................... 38
Factor I Results
Factor II Results
IV. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS .... 46
Summary
Conclusions
Implications
APPENDIXES
A. Pretest Items.................................. 64
B. Pretest Answer Sheet........................... 66
C. Final Stimulus Items........................... 70
D. Answer Sheet— Actual T e s t .................... 72
REFERENCES................................................ 75
ii
Figure
1.
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
Page
Experimental Design: Contradictory Data . . . 35
iii
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1. Pretest Results of Judges' and Subjects'
Responses to Stimulus Items ................... 29
2. Rotated Factor Matrix ........................... 39
3. Chi Square Analysis of Factor I Stimulus
Items by Socioeconomic Class.................. 40
4. Chi Square Analysis of Factor I Stimulus
Items Showing Prference for Verbal/
Vocal by Class.................................. 41
5. Chi Square Analysis of Factor II Stimulus
Items by Race.................................. 42
6. Chi Square Analysis of Factor I Stimulus Items
Showing Preference for Verbal/Vocal by Race . 43
7. Chi Square Analysis of Factor II Stimulus Items
by Socioeconomic Class......................... 43
8. Chi Square Analysis of Factor II Stimulus Items
Showing Preference for Verbal/Vocal
by Class......................................... 44
9. Chi Square Analysis of Factor II Stimulus Items
by Race......................................... 45
10. Chi Suqare Analysis of Factor II Stimulus Items
Within Each Race................................ 45
iv
CHAPTER I
THE PROBLEM
Introduction
Bernstein has theorized that lower and middle
socioeconomic persons develop, primarily use, and value
restricted and elaborated codes, respectively. One impli
cation of Bernstein's theory is that lower class, restricted
code users depend more heavily on the extraverbal or vocal
dimensions of language for communication, while middle
class, elaborated code users depend more heavily on the ver
bal dimension to communicate.* Although there is some
research related to the differential importance of verbal
as opposed to vocal cues among the lower and middle class,
In language performance there are two gross levels:
(1) verbal, including syntax, phonology, and referential
meaning (segments); and (2) vocal, including suprasegmental
cues such as intonation, stress pattern, length of utter
ance. The suprasegmental features will be referred to as
vocal or extraverbal, referring to those factors other than
verbal that accompany the verbal part of any message (Pike,
1946) .
1
2
to date, this particular aspect of Bernstein’s theory has
not been adequately tested. The purpose of this study was
to make such a test.
This study was felt to be of potential value for
educators, especially, who need to be aware of differential
language behavior in children, since this behavior may well
be reflected in and influence a child's overall educational
performance. The importance of language is acknowledged in
the massive efforts now aimed at early education of the cul
turally deprived. However, as Entwisle (1971) has pointed
out:
Subcultural differences in language (and cognitive)
development are assumed to be important, but documenta
tion of this assumption is surprisingly sparse. . . .
Much of what has been said about educational deficits
and about the role of language of life chances is based
more on intuition than on hard data [p. 125].
The data from this study was aimed at documenting
some of the intuitive assumptions that have been spun from
Bernstein's theory.
Review of the Literature
One of the original contributors to the research
investigating differential usage of language between social
classes was Bernstein. He has theorized that lower and
middle socioeconomic class children differentially value and
3
use alternative features of language code (Bernstein, 1970).
Bernstein's earlier investigations were primarily
concerned with the forms of speech used by particular social
classes in Great Britain. Bernstein (1958) differentiated
between working class and middle class social structures.
Working class members included semiskilled and unskilled
members with limited education, while middle class members
included those with education or certificated training for
a skill. According to Bernstein, each class developed and
used a primary mode of communication.
For lower classes,
. . . if the words used are part of a language which
contains a high proportion of short commands, simple
statements and questions where the symbolism is de
scriptive, tangible, concrete, visual and of a low
order on generality, where the emphasis is on the
emotive rather than the logical implications, it will
be called a public language. Thus if the language
between mother and child is a public one, as it is in
the working classes, then the child will tend to be
come sensitive to the quality and strength of feeling
through nonverbal means of expression, for the personal
qualifications will be made through these means. And
this has many implications for the structuring of ex
perience and relationships with objects [Bernstein,
1958, p. 28].
By contrast, Bernstein described the language of the
middle class as:
The language-use of the middle class is rich in per
sonal, individual qualifications, and its form implies
sets of advanced logical operations; . . . It is im
portant to realize that initially in the middle class
4
child's life it is not the number of words or the
range of vocabulary which is decisive, but the fact
that he or she becomes sensitive to a particular form
of indirect or mediate expression where the subtle ar
rangement of words and connections between sentences
convey feeling. Thus the child at an early age becomes
sensitive to a form of language-use which is relatively
complex and which in turn acts as a dynamic framework
upon his or her perception of objects. This mode of
language-use will be termed formal [Bernstein, 1958,
p. 28].
Thus, in attempting to explain possible reasons for
the working class child's failure in school, Bernstein ar
gued that in school situations a formal language is used,
while the working class child can use and has experienced
only an inappropriate public language. The expressive be
havior and immediacy of response which accompany the use of
this language may again be wrongly interpreted by the
teacher. Bernstein concluded that "this may well lead to a
situation where pupil and teacher disvalue each other's
world and communication becomes a means of asserting dif
ferences [Bernstein, 1958, p. 34]."
In 1962, Bernstein dropped his "formal" and "public"
definitions of language codes in favor of the terms elabo
rated and restricted, respectively. Nonetheless, his de
scriptions of the codes remained relatively unchanged. Com
pare the following account of elaborated code with the pre
viously cited example:
5
The preparation and delivery of relatively explicit
meaning is the major purpose of the code. This does
not necessarily mean that the content will be ab
stract, although this is inherent among the possibili
ties regulated by the code, but that the code will fa
cilitate the verbal transmission and elaboration of the
individual's experience. The code induces, through its
regulation, a sensitivity to the implications of sep
arateness and difference and points to the possibility
inherent in a complex conceptual hierarchy for the
organization of experience [Bernstein, 1961, p. 78].
Bernstein described a restricted code as a more rit
ualistic mode of communication, such as the opening gambits
at a cocktail party, conversations about the weather, or a
mother telling her children a story. Bernstein makes it
clear that the lexicon and organizing structure are more
predictable than in the elaborated code, and that the social
import (as opposed to the "informational content") is ex
tremely important.
Bernstein (1962) noted that the most general condi
tion for the development of a restricted code is a common
set of closely shared identifications self-consciously held
by the members, where immediacy of the relationship is
stressed: "It follows that these social relationships will
be a major source for indicating changes in meaning [p. 78]."
More recently, Bernstein (1970) has distinguished
between a social environment where the function of language
is largely one of social-linkage and an environment where
6
language is used for the transmission of ideas, reasoning,
abstractions, and the like. Children reared in different
environments become distinguished in what they learn about
the use of speech and the purposes for which they use
speech.
Rather than a superficial focus upon the spoken
details of the two codes, Bernstein (1970) emphasizes the
broader conception of the codes as referring to "the trans
mission of the basic or deep-meaning structures of a culture
or subculture [p. 26]." This broader conception links code
with communication context, and distinguishes between uses
of language which can be called context-bound as compared
with less context-bound, or context-free uses of language.
This distinction can be illustrated by two stories con
structed by Hawkins (1969) based upon analyses of speech
samples of middle class and lower (working) class.
Story 1 represents the middle class speech:
Three boys are playing football and one boy kicks
the ball— and it goes through the window— the ball
breaks the window— and the boys are looking at it—
and a man comes out and shouts at them— because they've
broken the window— so they run away— and then that lady
looks out of her window— and she tells the boys off
[p. 129].
Story 2 illustrates lower class speech:
7
They're playing football— and he kicks it and it goes
through there— it breaks the window and they're looking
at it— and he comes out and shouts at them— because
they've broken it— so they run away— and then she
looks out and she tells them off [p. 129].
The first story is free of the context which gen
erated it, and the reader does not have to have the four
pictures which were used as the basis for the story, whereas
the second story is more closely tied to the context, and
the meanings are more implicit. Story 1 takes very little
for granted, while Story 2 takes a great deal for granted,
and can be understood by others only if they have access to
the context which originally generated the speech. Thus,
the concept of context-bound and context-free helps in the
conceptualization of the two codes.
There has been much criticism of Bernstein in the
United States. Most notably, the question is raised whether
entire social classes use and command a given code, or
whether codes vary more with the details of situation.
Among Bernstein's critics are Labov, Cohen, Robins,
and Lewis (1968), who conducted research in New York City
studying dialectical differences among different social
classes. In their research, Labov et al. (1968) selected
speakers from a number of different social strata and stud
ied variations in how they articulated certain sounds.
8
Later, Labov (1970) described how subject's speaking
style shifted in various testing situations. For example,
in one situation, the interviewer was able to elicit only
monosyllabic behavior when in a typical one-on-one inter
view (CR is Black interviewer; Leon is Black child being
interviewed):
CR: You watch— you like to watch television?...Hey
Leon...you like to watch television? (Leon nods)
What's your favorite program?
Leon: Uhhhmmmmm...I look at cartoon.
CR: Well, what's your favorite one? What's your
favorite program?
Leon: Superman.
CR: Yeah? Did you see Superman— ah— yesterday, or
day before yesterday? When's the last time
you saw Superman?
Leon: Sa-aturday...
CR: You rem— you saw it Saturday? What was the
story all about? You remember the story?
Leon: M-m.
CR: You don't remember the story of what— that you
saw of Superman?
Leon: Nope.
CR: You don't remember what happened, huh?
Leon: Mmmm?...Umm...
CR: Hmm?
Leon: Hh?
CR: What's th' other stories that you like to watch?
Leon: Mi-ighty Mouse...
CR: And what else?
Leon: Ummmmmm...ahm... [Labov, 1970, p. 160].
In putting Black subjects at ease in testing situa
tions, Labov changed the interview-feeling into a party at
mosphere by bringing potato chips, having best friends inter
viewed simultaneously, sitting on the floor, and introducing
taboo words. The interview progressed as follows:
CR: Is there anybody who says your momma drink Pee?
Leon: (rapidly and breathlessly) Yee-ah!
Greg: Yupl
Leon: And your father eat doo-doo for breakfas'?
CR: Ohhhl (laughs)
Leon: And they say your father— your father eat doo-
doo for dinner!
Greg: When they sound on me, I say C.B.S.
CR: What that mean?
Leon: Congo booger-snatch! (laughs)
Greg: Congo booger-snatcher! (laughs)
Greg: And sometimes I'll curse with B.B.
CR: What that?
Greg: Black boy! Oh that's a M.B.B.
CR: M.B.B. What that?
Greg: 'Merican Black Boy.
CR: Ohh...
Greg: Anyway, 'Mericans is same like white people,
right?
Leon: And they talk about Allah.
CR: Oh yeah?
Greg: Yeah.
CR: What they say about Allah?
Greg: Allah i— Allah is God, Allah is the only God,
All—
10
Leon: Allah is the son of God.
Greg: But can he make magic?
Leon: Nope.
Greg: I know who can make magic.
CR: Who can?
Leon: The God, the real one.
CR: Who can make magic?
Greg: The son of po (CR: Hm?) I'm sayin' the po'k
chop Godl [Labov, 1970, pp. 160-161],
Labov contends that restricted and elaborated codes
are two minimally different performance styles which are
used depending upon how an individual perceives a communica
tion situation. As indicated above, by creating a comfort
able environment, Labov contends that he elicited elaborated
type code behavior from lower class children. In other
words, Labov contends that he was able to change monosyl
labic Leon into an elaborated code user by changing his
perception of the communicative demands of the specific
situation. Labov further contends that it is these demands
of communicative situation that trigger elaborated or re
stricted code use, not the overall sociological character
of a culture.
However, a closer analysis of Labov's data reveals
no inconsistencies with Bernstein's reasoning. For example,
in re-examining Labov's interviews, it is evident that there
is a dependence on the mutual experience of the speaker-
11
listeners, and the interviews take for granted certain
mutual understanding of terminology. For example, there is
the reference to C.B.S., to the pork chop God, and several
references to "they" with no qualification of who "they"
stands for. These are examples of a restricted code in the
Bernstein sense, because the interview is context-dependent;
Leon and Greg take for granted particularistic meanings and
there is need for implicit meanings by the participants.
The use of pronouns is also one of Bernstein's distinctions,
and thus, under close scrutiny, the samples used in Labov's
explanation tend to be decidedly restricted code. Ver
boseness does not determine code, but context does, and
Bernstein's code distinctions remain valid.
Not only is some of the criticism of Bernstein in
valid, but in addition there is considerable support for his
theory in the United States. Williams and Naremore (1969)
tested Bernstein's theory that modes of language could be
differentiated in terms of language function and social
class. Williams and Naremore examined tapes used in Shuy's
Detroit dialect study, made in 1967, to assess differences
in speech of low and middle socioeconomic children. The
tapes analyzed contained samples of speech of 40 fifth-
and sixth-graders from high and low economic distribution in
12
Detroit. All informants responded to three topics: games
("What kinds of games do you play around here?"); TV ("What
are your favorite TV programs?"); and aspirations ("What do
you want to be when you finish school?"). Social class dif
ferences were found in the proportion of utterances which
went beyond a simple yes-no answer or simple naming, and
utterances in a response, and on verbal indices of specific
grammatical features. The social class differences were
found for the most part when children were talking on the
television topic. Specifically, Williams and Naremore (1969)
state:
Although it is at best a subjective interpretation,
the concentration of status differences in three of
the clause indices on the TV topic seem to be a reflec
tion of the tendency of the H.S. (high status) children
to engage in story telling or narrative while the L.S.
(low status) children tended to itemize instances of
what they had seen or preferred. . . . The language
used by the child in an interview is as much a reflec
tion of his engagement within the constraints of a
communication situation as it is a reflection of his
linguistic capabilities [p. 91].
In the discussion of the results, the authors sup
port Bernstein's research specifically:
Without undue hazard, it seems easy to collate the
foregoing descriptions with the prior work of Bern
stein, Hess, and Shipman, and Schatzman and Strauss.
Bernstein's distinctions between speech which is
context-centered, fragmentary, and implicit in mean
ing, and speech which is topic-centered, elaborated,
and explicit in meaning [p. 96].
13
Assuming the validity of Bernstein's code systems
in the U.S., it is now feasible to explore in more detail
the implication by Bernstein that lower class, restricted
code users value the extraverbal cues in a stimulus mes
sage more than middle class, elaborated code users, but that
middle class elaborated code users favor verbal cues more
than lower class restricted code users.
Bernstein has been explicit in explaining the dif
ferential use of the extraverbal cues in his codes, and
explaining the saliency of extraverbal cues in restricted
code users. He states:
. . . in the pure form of the restricted code, indi
vidual intent can be signalled only through the non
verbal components of the situation, i.e., intonation,
stress, expressive features, etc. . . . verbal plan
ning will tend to be reduced and the nonverbal com
ponent (expressive features) will be a major source
for indicating changes in meaning [1962, pp. 77-78].
Bernstein has characterized the restricted code as
one in which the meaning of messages is transmitted pri
marily through extraverbal channels. Since the code's pri
mary purpose is to promote solidarity and to ease tensions,
the restricted code is used where the social relation is
based on shared identifications and affiliations. Further,
restricted code reinforces "the form of the social rela
tions rather than explicit meanings and intentions of the
14
speakers. Orientation is less toward the verbal and more
toward the extraverbal channel of speech [Bernstein, 1970,
p. 220]."
In comparing elaborated and restricted code users'
differential use of the extraverbal, Bernstein explains:
In the case of restricted codes, to varying degrees
it is the extraverbal channels which become objects
of special perceptual activity. It is important to'
point out that restricted code users are not non
verbal, only that the speech is of a different order
from that controlled by an elaborated code. If an
elaborated code creates the possibility for the trans
mission of individual symbols, then a restricted code
creates the possibility of communalized symbols [1970,
p. 33].
Bernstein has made one further distinction in dis
cussing the differential saliency of verbal and vocal cues
in elaborated and restricted codes:
Children limited to a restricted code learn a code
where the extraverbal (voice, gesture, facial expres
sion, etc.) tends to become a major channel for the
qualification and elaboration of individual experi
ence. This does not mean that such children's speech
output is relatively reduced. The verbal planning of
the speech relative to an elaborated code involves a
relatively low order and a rigidity of syntactic or
ganization. In the case of an elaborated code, the
orientation is toward the verbal channel, for this
channel will carry the elaboration of the speaker's
intentions [1970, p. 36].
Although researchers have found support for Bern
stein's elaborated and restricted classification system
(Williams & Naremore, 1969), the extraverbal has been tested
15
less systematically as a means of verifying the code systems.
Two studies bear directly on the differential mes
sage cue problem. One study directed toward examining the
extraverbal, specifically intonation, was conducted by
2
Zigler and Kanzer (1962). They hypothesized that the low
socioeconomic class child should have more responsiveness
to a verbal message transmitted with "social reinforcers"
than to messages without "social reinforcers." "Social
reinforcers" included "correctness reinforcers," specifi
cally "right" and "correct," while the praise reinforcers
included "fine," and "good." The "social reinforcers" were
given verbally with tone and with no (or minimal) tone, with
no attempt to control intonation patterns. The results of
the study showed that the "correctness reinforcers" were
more effective with middle socioeconomic class children and
the "praise reinforcers" were more effective with low
Intonation may be explained as fluctuation in pitch
occurring in sentences of all languages. In English, there
are four relative but significant levels (pitch phonemes)
which serve as the basic building blocks for intonation con
tours. These four levels can be labeled extra-high, high,
mid, and low, respectively, and may be numbered from one to
four with four referring to low (Pike, 1946). The distance
between the four levels of English is not mathematically
fixed, uniform, or predictable, and it varies from indivi
dual to individual. It is the differences in pitch and con
tours (i.e., intonation) that may influence the interpreta
tion of verbal messages.
socioeconomic class children.
However, there are some procedural problems with the
study that tend to make the results equivocal. The failure
to control the gestural, facial, and tonal channels of com
munication while the verbal reinforcer was being emitted
might well have contributed to the differences found for the
verbal aspect. In other words, if low socioeconomic class
children are less responsive to the verbal content channel
and respond more to the intonation accompanying the message
(as Bernstein suggests), then the responses may be toward
the "praise" reinforcers because they carry more intonation,
rather than because of the verbal content of the message,
but this is not clarified. Thus, the differences found by
Zigler and Kanzer for the different kinds of verbal rein
forcers can possibly be attributed to a confounding of ef
fects of nonverbal components with praise or correctness.
One other study is relevant to the present research.
Brooks, Brandt, and Wiener (1969) noted that "the restricted
code of low socioeconomic children is characterized as one
in which the meaning of a message is transmitted essentially
through variations in extraverbal signals [e.g., intonation,
pitch, speech rhythm, etc.][p. 454]." If this were so, they
argued that low socioeconomic class children should be more
17
responsive to a message with added extraverbal information
than to the same message without the extraverbal information.
To test the hypothesis that children from low socio
economic backgrounds have a more highly developed "expres
sive" pattern of communication,- including specifically
tonal features, Brooks et al. (1969) designed a space game
in which 40 low class and 40 middle class children were used
as subjects. The children placed marbles in holes of a
marble box after left- and right-side preferences were es
tablished. The children were then given reinforcement for
placing marbles in the non-preferred hole. The reinforce
ment was "good" and "fine" for half of the subjects, and
"right" and "correct" for the other half. Half of the sub
jects in each of these reinforcement groups heard the mes
sage with a "positive" tone, the other half heard it with a
"neutral" (i.e., minimally inflected, nonexpressive) tone.
The results showed that the low socioeconomic children re
sponded significantly more to verbal reinforcers which in
cluded inflection than they did to these same verbal rein
forcers presented without the inflection. The middle class
children showed no such effect and responded similarly to
both conditions— with and without vocal inflection.
This evidence is consistent with Bernstein's notion
18
that lower socioeconomic children do tend to place more em
phasis on extraverbal factors within a message than do mid
dle class persons. In addition, the study by Brooks et al.
(1969) is significant because it is concerned with extra
verbal cues as well as verbal messages as interpreted by
middle and lower socioeconomic children. Although both ver
bal and extraverbal had been previously discussed by re
searchers, the extraverbal had been ignored as a way of
verifying Bernstein's code systems.
The above two studies suggest that low and middle
socioeconomic class children differentially use and experi
ence verbal and vocal dimensions of language. However,
there is still no conclusive research that direcly supports
Bernstein's theory that restricted code users are more
extraverbally orientated than middle class code users. Al
though the studies conducted by Zigler and Kanzer, and
Brooks et al. illustrate differential use of extraverbal
cues by middle and lower class children, they do not unam
biguously test Bernstein's theory, because the subject does
not have to choose between competing stimuli (verbal versus
extraverbal), and is not showing preference for one over the
other (e.g., the subjects in the Zigler and Kanzer study
chose between "that's right," spoken without any inflection,
19
and "that's good," spoken more enthusiastically and with
intended inflection). As long as verbal and vocal cues are
complementary, the differential effect of such cues across
social classes cannot be unequivocally tested. Thus, in
order to test the validity of Bernstein's theory more di
rectly, the subject should have to choose between the com
peting stimuli within a message to determine which, in fact,
takes precedence. When there is a discrepancy between vocal
and verbal cues within a message, these competing stimuli
may influence the interpretation of the message, depending
on the listener's background and experience within his
socioeconomic class or cultural subgroup.
One way to directly examine the issue is to use con
tradictory stimuli within a message, and then examine which
has more influence on the subject. If, as Bernstein pro
poses, the lower class children value and use extraverbal
cues more than middle class children, then the interpretive
behavior of lower class children ought to follow the extra
verbal cues more than that of the middle class children,
while the middle class children would tend to be more in
fluenced by the verbal message. Research is needed to
answer these questions in order that the the linkage between
social structures and language behavior can be better under
20
stood. This study was proposed to examine that linkage.
Statement of the Problem
It was the intention of this research to investigate
the interpretation of contradictory stimulus sentences
(vocal versus verbal message cues) by lower and middle class
subjects. Because of still unanswered questions related to
the extraverbal channel and its usage by differing social
classes, a methodological procedure was developed which
would directly examine Bernstein's reasoning. If, according
to Bernstein, lower class children tend to be more influ
enced by verbal cues in a message than lower class children,
then the following hypothesis is proposed:
H^: Lower socioeconomic class children will be
more influenced by vocal message cues in contradictory stim
ulus sentences than will middle socioeconomic class chil
dren; conversely, middle class children will be more influ
enced by verbal message cues in contradictory stimulus sen
tences than will lower socioeconomic class children.
CHAPTER II
METHODOLOGY
This chapter includes the following methodological
information: pretest and selection of stimulus materials,
subjects, design, and procedures.
Pretest and Stimulus Selection
The decision to use intonation as the extraverbal
channel in this study was based on two factors: (1) it has
been established as an important facet of the extraverbal
world, as noted earlier; and (2) it is a workable, con
trollable factor.
In order to establish a testing instrument that
would reliably test children's responses to messages with
contradictory cues, a pretest was designed to select items
found to be highly reliable in determining whether a child
is more verbally oriented or extraverbally oriented— the
assumption being that if the child were more verbally
oriented, he would, according to Bernstein, be an elaborated
code user, and if more extraverbally oriented he would be
21
22
classified as a restricted code user.
The pretest consisted of 22 statements, which were
selected for recording on an audio tape recorder (Hitachi,
Model TRQ340). These statements were chosen with the aid of
three seventh- and eighth-grade children, and a junior high
school teacher. Of the 22 statements, 11 were selected as
being positive in the verbal content of the message, and 11
were negative (an example of a positive statement is "Mrs.
Jones is the nicest teacher in the school"? a negative,
"That was the worst movie I ever saw"). Of the total 22
statements, 14 were recorded with noncongruent or contra
dictory cues; 7 of these were positive statements with nega
tive intonation cues, and 7 were negative statements read
with positive or conflicting intonatin cues (e.g., 7 state
ments = + verbal/- vocal; 7 statements = - verbal/+ vocal).
The remaining eight statements were considered com
plementary stimuli, that is, the intonation pattern rein
forced the verbal content. These eight statements were
further broken down into four positive statements read with
positive intonation, and four negative statements read with
negative intonation reinforcement. The rationale for includ
ing complementary items was twofold: (1) as filler items,
so that not all messages would be contradictory for the sub-
23
jects, and (2) to serve as a control factor in determining
whether there were any overall contradictions comparing
socioeconomic levels, in responding to items that were in
tentionally reinforcing and complementary.
The 22 stimulus items were recorded on audio tape
equipment so that the subjects were exposed to two message
cues only— verbal and vocal— and, for control purposes, all
other extra- and nonverbal factors were eliminated from the
study.
The voice on the tape was chosen for the following
reasons: (1) a male voice was favored over a female voice
because the experimenter, being female, did not want actual
subjects in any way to associate the voice on the tape with
the experimenter; (2) the person recording the voice is well
trained in oral reading and other forms of public speaking,
and is considered by his colleagues in speech communication
to have an expressive, pleasant, understandable voice.
After several practice sessions of reading the 22 selected
statements, the recording was completed. Between each of
the items was a 20-second pause, to allow consistent time
between each item for the subjects to answer a question on
an answer sheet about each statement just heard.
The next step was to determine which of the 22
24
items would be the "best" potential stimulus items. To do
this, a panel of trained experts was used, and the stimulus
items were given to a group of children in a pretest.
The panel of trained experts consisted of five pro
fessors in the Department of Speech Communication at Cali
fornia State University at Long Beach. Each of the five
judges had particular training in various aspects of voice
and performance and has taught or is currently teaching stu
dents in such courses as Oral Interpretation, Advanced Oral
Interpretation, Readers Theatre, and Voice and Articulation.
The judges reaffirmed the sentences as being positive or
negative in content by reading the list of sentences and
marking each sentence with "P" for positive, "N" for nega
tive content. They were then asked to evaluate the 22 items
and to mark on an answer sheet one of five answers they felt
most appropriate in analyzing whether the intonation of the
voice on the tape reinforced (complemented) or contradicted
the verbal content in each item. The five possible choices
were labeled "very complementary," "slightly complementary,"
"difficult to judge," "slightly contradictory," or "very
contradictory.
The next task was to determine which of the 22 items
(according to the trained experts) would be the "best"
25
potential stimulus items, with best being defined on two
levels: (1) those items upon which they had most agreement
as being reinforcing would help determine the complementary
items; and (2) the items best as potential contradictory
items would be defined as those on which the trained experts
had the greatest agreement that contradictions did exist.
Since one main concern of the study was in securing truly
contradictory items, there were two sets of criteria used to
evaluate the items:
1. Items on which there was the greatest agree
ment by the five experts that there were con
flicting cues would be considered the best items.
2. Only those items on which judges confined their
response to one of three choices ("difficult to
judge," "slightly contradictory," or "very con
tradictory") would be considered.
It was assumed that if the judges heard reinforcement in the
item, the contradiction was absent or too weak.
To determine those items on which greatest agree
ment existed in regard to conflicting cues, the following
scoring was administered. An answer of "difficult to judge”
received 3 points, "slightly contradictory" received 4
points, and "very contradictory" received 5 points. Using
26
these numbers, that would mean that the minimum score avail
able would be 15 and the maximum score available would be 25.
The actual range of scores was from 17 to 24 on the contra
dictory items. The cut-off point was 17, so that any item
scoring 17 points or lower was considered too weak in con
tradiction to be of use, and was dropped as a potential item.
Having thus established by the judges' scores that
there were contradictory sentences, the concern was the pos
sibility that they were perhaps too contradictory, and
everyone might detect the obviousness of the intonation pat
tern and be swayed by the extraverbal factor, regardless of
socioeconomic level, cultural background, or other factors.
In order to eliminate the possibility of overly
obvious contradiction in stimulus items, a group of 9
seventh- and eighth-grade students listened to the state
ments on the tape and responded to each on a semantic differ
ential-type item (see Appendix B). This semantic differen
tial-type item is such that if the results are dichotomized,
it can be determined whether the subject is responding to
the verbal or the extraverbal. In this case, in dealing
with untrained students of the age group to be used in the
actual test, if all subjects chose the verbal response, the
verbal cues could be considered too strong in comparison
27
to the extraverbal. On the other hand, if the subjects
picked up too strongly on the extraverbal and none on the
verbal, it could be argued that the extraverbal was too
strong in comparison to the verbal. Only on those items on
which there was the greatest ambiguity of response (i.e.,
items on which some responded to the verbal and some to the
extraverbal) could it be considered that the comparable
strength of the competing cues was fairly even.
Thus, the trained judges helped determine that there
were conflicting cues present, and the untrained students
were employed to determine the relative strength of the
conflicting cues.
An index was developed to determine relative
strength of cues. This was done by dividing the responses
that indicated choice of extraverbal cues by the total num
ber of responses, and the assumption was that the closer
that number was to .50 (or half), the better the item. This
can be written as: ambiguity = ^ - .50.
Thus, the smaller the score, the more ambiguity was
determined as being present in the item, and the more favor
able to be used, while a larger score indicated less am
biguity and the item would be less favorable as a stimulus
item.
28
By this criteria, the best score, or closest number
to .500 is a difference score of .056, which would mean the
greatest ambiguity; a difference score of .167 would be the
second level of greatest ambiguity; a difference score of
.278 would be the third level and less ambiguity, and the
fourth level, or .389, would mean relatively little ambi
guity within the item.
Using this index on the responses by the pretest
subjects, items having the greatest amount of ambiguity were
examined and compared with those items chosen previously by
the judges as being most contradictory. The result was nine
items that the judges agreed did have contradictory cues,
and the subjects showed ambiguity about which cue they
picked up on, so that these nine items were considered the
"best" items of the possible fourteen contradictory ones
initially considered. The results of scoring by the judges
and pretest subjects appear in Table 1.
In regard to the complementary items, the task was
much simpler. The items that had been designated by the
trained judges as having the extraverbal complement the ver
bal were kept; i.e., those items they agreed most strongly
as being "very reinforcing" on the answer sheet. There was
also consideration of the untrained subjects' responses,
TABLE 1
Pretest Results of Judges' and Subjects' Responses to Stimulus Items
Item
No.
Verbal
Cues
(+ or -)
Vocal
Cues
(+ or -)
Judges' Rating
of
Verbal Content
(+ or -)
Judges' Scores
on Contradictory
Items
Subjects’
Responses on
Contradictory
I terns,
Dichotomized
Subject's
Ambiguity Levels
(I/T - .50)
1 + + + 9V
2
- - - 7V, 21
3
-
+
-
20 5V, 41 .167
4 + - + 19 6V, 31 .167
5
-
+
-
18 6V, 31 .167
6 + ♦ + 9V
7 +
- + 21 6V, 31 .167
8 +
-
+ 21 6V, 31 .167
9
- - - 9V
10 +
-
+ 19 7V, 21 .278
11
-
+
-
17 3V, 61 .056
12
-
+
-
21 6V, 31 .167
13
- - - 9V
14 + + + 8V, 11
15 + - + 19 7V, 21 .278
16
-
+
-
24 6V, 31 .167
17 + +
4 *
6V, 31
18
-
+
-
17 6V, 31 .167
19 +
- + 19 5V, 41 .167
20
- - - 9V
21
- + -
17 4V, 51 .167
22 + - + 18 6V, 31 .167
+ * * positive; - * negative; V * * verbal; I - Intonation, vocal
30
and those items were considered which showed verbal choices
most strongly; i.e., items showing greatest agreement be
tween verbal and vocal.
The final pretest examination revealed that the
"best" items, as a result of scoring by trained experts as
well as untrained subjects, were six complementary items, of
which three were positive with positive intonation rein
forcement, three were negative with negative intonation, and
nine contradictory sentences of which five were positive in
verbal content and negative in intonation, and four with
negative content and positive intonation.
These 15 items were then randomized and the original
taped items were transferred to another tape by a trained
lab technician, so that the new tape now contained the de
sired 15 stimulus items from the original tape (see Appendix
C for the 15 sentences used).
Subjects
Of the 80 subjects used in the study, 50 were from
King Junior High School in Los Angeles and 30 were from
Hughes Junior High School in Long Beach. Of these 80 sub
jects, 40 were from the middle socioeconomic class and 40
were from the lower socioeconomic class; these were further
broken down into 20 middle socioeconomic Black subjects and
31
20 lower socioeconomic Black subjects.^- There were also 20
middle white and 20 lower white subjects. All 80 subjects
were in either the seventh or eighth grade, and ages were
from 12 to 14 years. This age group was chosen because of
the nature of the test, requiring both attention span and
reading ability.
The schools chosen are both considered racially
mixed schools, with King having its population distributed
among Oriental, Mexican-American, Black, and white children.
The school is rather unique in that it draws from upper,
middle, and lower socioeconomic levels. It is located
geographically within the Los Angeles school system, and the
overall economic level is below the 50 percent mean level of
all the Los Angeles schools. It is, however, in the upper
part of the lower half of the school system. It is geo
graphically located on the fringes of the inner city area,
but is surrounded by a rather exclusive, high socioeconomic
social area.
^There was not sufficient data to hypothesize about
differences between Black and white subjects. However,
there was a subject breakdown into Black and white as a sup
plementary question, and this was analyzed in a supplemen
tary analysis. Black and white subjects were used to deter
mine if race was a significant factor in itself and when
examined in relationship to the socioeconomic factors.
32
Hughes Junior High School in Long Beach is also
situated in an area that contains the extremes in socio
economic levels. The integration of Hughes is rather re
cent, and the school is still predominantly white, with
Blacks representing about 20 percent of the total popula
tion.
The selection of subjects from both schools was very
dependent on the cooperation of the school. At King, the
subjects were from three different classes, with three
teachers (two of whom were also counselors at the school)
providing the socioeconomic data necessary to classify the
subjects as low or middle class. At King, the three teach
ers knew the students well, and were familiar with their
backgrounds and pertinent data, some that is not generally
available to the public. The criteria used to determine
socioeconomic level were based on (1) participation in the
National School Lunch Program, (2) geographic location of
home, and (3) parents' occupations. The National Lunch Pro
gram is available only to students whose family income is
below the standard set by the U.S. Department of Agriculture*
and students eligible had applied for free lunches at school.
Those students who qualified for free lunches were catego
rized as low socioeconomic, both at Hughes and at King.
33
At Hughes, two counselors (along with the principal)
helped determine the socioeconomic level of the subjects,
again gathering necessary data from school files, and bas
ing the decision about socioeconomic status of the subjects
on written and personal knowledge about the students. All
decisions about subjects were based on many hours of gather
ing pertinent data from files by school counselors, who are
most qualified to make the categorizations, since they are
most familiar with family backgrounds and other pertinent
data.
Design
The statistical design included two primary inde
pendent variables: socioeconomic class and stimulus message
cue. Socioeconomic class included low and middle, and stim
ulus message cue included verbal and vocal. The aforemen
tioned race variable (Black, white) was considered only in
the supplementary analysis.
The dependent variables were (1) the number of sub
jects responding on the verbal half of the response con
tinuum, and (2) the number of subjects responding on the
vocal half of the response continuum.
Scoring procedures were as follows: The subject had
four choices for each stimulus item, each representing
34
varying degrees of verbal or vocal agreement with the item.
For example, in answer to the question, "How bad was the
movie?" the possible answers were "very bad," "bad," "a lit
tle bad," and "not bad." (See Appendix D for the complete
answer sheet used in testing.) Each of the answers was
assigned a number, with 1 always representing "not bad,"
"not good," "not fast," etc., and in all items represented
the respondent choosing the vocal over the verbal cue. The
next possible answer was "a little bad," "a little fast,"
"a little good," etc., also showing more agreement with the
vocal cue than the verbal and assigned a 2 in scoring. The
next answer ("fast," "cute," "nice," etc.) indicated verbal
agreement, and received a 3 in scoring. A 4 represented
even stronger verbal agreement, and included "very" with the
adjectives (i.e., "very fast," "very cute," "very nice,"
etc.). Thus, in tabulating scores, lower scores meant more
agreement with vocal cues, and higher scores represented
2
more agreement with the verbal cues.
2
Although subjects responded on an interval-type
continuum measure, for purposes of analyses, response data
were dichotomized into the relative frequency of verbal as
opposed to vocal responses. The criteria in each case was
whether a given response was on the vocal or verbal half of
the continuum.
35
3
The experimental design is presented in Figure 1.
The predicted interaction expected can be expressed as:
Lower socioeconomic Middle socioeconomic
children— vocal cues children— vocal cues
and
Middle socioeconomic Lower socioeconomic
children— verbal cues children— verbal cues
Stimulus Message Cue
Social Class
Low Middle
Verbal
Vocal
Fig. 1. Experimental Design: Contradictory Data
3
Data for analysis were the frequency of subject
response behavior on the vocal and verbal halves of the re
sponse continuum. The hypotheses were tested with the chi
square statistic (formulas from Winer, 1962, Chapter 2).
Procedures
Children at King Junior High School were tested in
one class day, during three consecutive class periods. The
tests were conducted in a small conference room in the
school, with 10 to 12 subjects being tested in one session.
All students from three classes were given the tests, in
cluding many Oriental and Mexican-American students, so that
all students would feel equally involved. Only white and
Black subjects' answer sheets were kept, and the counselors
provided the necessary socioeconomic data to evaluate which
socioeconomic level each subject could be assigned to.
Each group of subjects was given the instructions by the
experimenter, who explained that the test was a non-graded
listening test, to compare how various junior high school
students listened to messages they would hear on tape. It
was strongly emphasized that there was no right or wrong
answer, just what they heard, and all instructions were
explained in the same way, using the same terminology. The
first item on the tape was then played as a sample item, to
insure that all subjects understood the test. The test
took 15 minutes total, making it possible to test three
classes of 30 students within three class periods. From
this total of 90 students, there were 50 that were racially
37
and socioeconomically qualified as subjects; these answer
sheets were retained.
The remaining 30 subjects were tested during a 2-day
period. This school required that a permission letter be
sent home, signed, and returned to the school before testing
was allowed. The subjects were from two Physical Education
classes, and were sent to a special classroom for the test
ing, 10 subjects at a time. The procedure at Hughes Junior
High School was a replication of that at King— subjects were
given the same instructions, listened to the same tape, and
answered identical answer sheets. The testing was divided
between the two schools because of the involved process of
correctly classifying the socioeconomic level of each sub
ject, which required much time, effort, and cooperation of
the counselors from each school.
Upon completion of the tests, the subjects were
thanked and dismissed back to regular classrooms.
CHAPTER III
RESULTS
The results of the statistical analyses for this
investigation are reported in this chapter. This includes
findings related to the hypothesized relationship between
differential salience of contradictory vocal and verbal
cues in middle and lower class children.
It was expected that lower class socioeconomic
class subjects would interpret contradictory stimulus sen
tences from vocal intonational cues significantly more often
than would their middle class counterparts, and conversely
it was expected that middle class subjects would interpret
contradictory sentences from verbal cues significantly more
often than their lower class counterparts. The hypothesis
was expressed in the following manner:
Lower socioeconomic class Middle socioeconomic class
children, vocal cues children, vocal cues
and
Middle socioeconomic class Lower socioeconomic class
children, verbal cues children, verbal cues
38
39
There was a breakdown of subjects into Black and
white as a supplementary question, and the results of this
racial analysis are also reported.
Since the possibility existed that different aspects
of "contradictoriness" permeated the nine contradictory
stimulus sentences, a factor analysis was conducted prior
to any hypothesis testing to assess empirically this pos
sibility. The results of the factor analysis are shown in
Table 2.
As shown in Table 2, Items 2, 5, 8, 9, 13, and 14
were the dominant items comprising Factor I, while Items 4
and 12 were dominant items comprising Factor II. Question 7
did not load highly on either factor and was removed from
TABLE 2
Rotated Factor Matrix
Question No. Factor I Factor II
2 0.76 0.25
4 0.38 0.63
5 0.75 0.17
7 0.62 0.53
8 0.74 0.34
9 0.66 0.08
12 0.07 0.89
13 0.71 0.46
14 0.67 0.20
Note: Significant loadings = > .60 and < .50.
40
further analyses. Subsequent hypothesis testing was con
ducted on each of the two factors.
Factor I Results
Primary Results
Table 3 depicts the chi square analysis of items in
Factor I, showing response by class to verbal and vocal
stimulus items. Comparing across social classes, results
show middle class subjects did not differ from lower class
in preference for verbal over vocal cues.
In comparing within social classes, both middle and
lower classes showed a significant preference for verbal
items over vocal. Results are depicted in Table 4.
TABLE 3
Chi Square Analysis of Factor I Stimulus
Items by Socioeconomic Class
Preference Middle Class Lower Class Frequency
28 28 Observed
Verbal
28 28 Expected
Vocal
12 12 Observed
12 12 Expected
X2 = 0.059 (X2 required a - .05 = 3.841)
41
TABLE 4
Chi Square Analysis of Factor I Stimulus Items
Showing Preference for Verbal/Vocal by Class
Preference Middle Class Lower Class Frequency
28 28 Observed
Verbal
20 20 Expected
12 12 Observed
Vocal
20 20 Expected
2 2
X = 12.8 (X required a = .05 = 3.841)
Secondary Results
A chi square was also run on the items by race, with
40 subjects being Black and 40 white. This supplementary
analysis on Factor I showed that a significantly greater
number of whites demonstrated a preference for verbal cues
than did Blacks (i.e., 35 out of 40 whites as compared with
21 out of 40 Blacks). Results are presented in Table 5.
While Table 5 indicates that Blacks differ from
whites in preference of verbal over vocal cues, an addi
tional chi square was performed to determine whether Black
or white preference of verbal over vocal was significant
from chance expectation (i.e., chance expectation that 20
Blacks show verbal and 20 Blacks show vocal preference, and
20 whites show verbal and 20 whites show vocal preference).
42
TABLE 5
Chi Square Analysis of Factor II Stimulus Items by Race
Preference Black White Frequency
21 35 Observed
Verbal
28 28 Expected
19 5 Observed
Vocal
12 12 Expected
X2 = 10.059 (X2 required a = .05 = 3.841)
The results of this additional chi square analysis are pre
sented in Table 6. A significant chi square of 22.6 was
found. An examination of the observed frequency in Table 6
seems to indicate that the significant chi square was the
result of the white subject population alone (35 versus 5
for whites to 21 versus 19 for Blacks).
Factor II Results
Primary Results
An analysis of Factor II items was computed with the
results depicted in Table 7. This analysis shows that there
was no significance between middle class and lower class in
preference for verbal over vocal cues.
In comparing within social classes, both middle and
43
TABLE 6
Chi Square Analysis of Factor I Stimulus Items
Showing Preference for Verbal/Vocal by Race
Preference Black White Frequency
21 35 Observed
Verbal
20 20 Expected
19 5 Observed
Vocal
20 20 Expected
X2 = 22.6 (X2 required a = .05 = 3.
TABLE 7
841.
Chi Square Analysis of Factor
by Socioeconomic
II Stimulus
Class
Items
Preference Middle Class Lower Class Frequency
29 36 Observed
Verbal
32.5 32.5 Expected
11 4 Observed
Vocal
7.5 7.5 Expected
X2 = 2.95 (X2 required a = .05 = 3.841)
44
lower classes showed a significant preference for verbal
items over vocal. Results are depicted in Table 8.
TABLE 8
Chi Square Analysis of Factor II Stimulus Items
Showing Preference for Verbal/Vocal by Class
Preference Middle Class Lower Class Frequency
29 36 Observed
Verbal
20 20 Expected
11 4 Observed
Vocal
20 20 Expected
2 2
X = 33.7 (X required a = .05 = 3.841)
Secondary Results
A chi square analysis was also run on the Factor II
items by race. Results showed that white subjects did not
differ significantly from Black sugjects in preference for
verbal or vocal cues. Results are depicted in Table 9.
An additional chi square was performed on Factor II
within each race to determine whether Black or white prefer
ence for verbal over vocal was significant from chance ex
pectation. The results show a significant chi square of 31.3,
demonstrating that both Black and white subjects showed a sig
nificant preference for verbal over vocal cues (Table 10).
45
TABLE 9
Chi Square Analysis of Factor II
Stimulus Items by Race
Preference Black White Frequency
33 32 Observed
Verbal
32.5 32.5 Expected
7 8 Observed
Vocal
7.5 7.5 Expected
X2 = 0.0
TABLE 10
Chi Square Analysis of Factor II Stimulus Items
Within Each Race
Preference Black White Frequency
33 32 Observed
Verbal
20 20 Expected
7 8 Observed
Vocal
20 20 Expected
X2 = 31.3 (X2 required a = .05 = 3.841)
CHAPTER IV
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS
Summary
This study compared the response behavior of low and
middle socioeconomic class children to stimulus messages
with contradictory cues. Extending the research of Bern
stein and others, it was hypothesized that lower class, re
stricted code users would use extraverbal cues to interpret
contradictory sentences more often than middle class, elab
orated code users, and that middle class code users would
use verbal cues more often than lower class code users in
interpreting such sentences.
The study was designed to offer a methodological
alternative to examine differences in social class responses
to discrepant cues within a message. Of the 80 seventh- and
eighth-grade children used, 40 were middle and 40 were lower
socioeconomic class. Subjects were further subdivided by
race, with 40 being Black and 40 white, to study any pos
sible racial effects as a secondary question. The subjects
46
47
were given a series of 15 taped messages to listen to, 9 of
which were contradictory. Subjects had four choices in re
sponding to a question related to each taped message; two
answers indicated vocal preference and two indicated verbal
preference. The interval continuum measure was further
collapsed into a dichotomized scale; answers were scored as
being either verbal or vocal. The data were analyzed by
factor analysis to determine type of contradiction subjects
were responding to, and chi square analyses of the two fac
tors were performed to determine verbal or vocal preference
by class, and secondarily by race.
Contrary to expectations, there was no significant
difference between middle and low class on contradictory
stimulus items. However, in a secondary analysis by race,
there were significant differences between Black and white
responses on the contradictory stimulus items; white chil
dren responded significantly more often to verbal cues than
did Black children, and Black children responded signifi
cantly more often to vocal cues than did white children.
Conclusions
Socioeconomic Effect
There are four plausible explanations why the ex
pected difference between low and middle socioeconomic class
48
responses was not found in this study.
First, the class differences suggested originally by
Bernstein (1962) and supported by Williams and Naremore
(1969) suggested that lower and middle class children dif
ferentially value and use alternative features of language
code. However, subjects were studied in encoding situations
and researchers examined language as exhibited by speakers
in a communicative situation, rather than on strictly an
interpretative level. For example, Williams and Naremore
examined speech samples of children, rather than studying
comprehension tasks in response behavior, as did the present
study. Thus, even though it might be expected that encoding
and comprehension would be similar, this was not found to
hold true. So that even though lower class children may
show differences in comparison to middle class children in
usage of extraverbal cues on a performance level, these dif
ferences may not be significant on a decoding level.
A second explanation as to why low and middle class
children did not show significant differences is that into
nation was perhaps too isolated a variable in this study.
Perhaps in connection with facial expression and gestures,
intonation might influence interpretation of a message more
than when isolated in a decoding situation. Intonation has
49
been used as the only extraverbal variable; the study of
Brooks et al. (1969) presented a strong case for isolating
intonation. The researchers had a group of middle and lower
class children play learning games in which the reward for
learning was praise in two forms; with the objective words
("right" or "correct") and affective words ("good" or
"fine"), spoken sometimes positively and sometimes neutrally.
In this case, intonation, as an isolated variable, had a
dramatic effect on the learning rate of the lower class
children, which would argue for its use without accompanying
extraverbal and non-verbal factors. However, the children
in the study were being directly reinforced for a perfor
mance task, and thus intonation was more salient in this
study than in the present study, where subjects heard iso
lated messages that were not directly pertinent and relevant
to them.
A third explanation is suggested as a reason for not
finding the expected differences; one suggested by counse
lors of the studied schools. Both schools studied contained
wide ranges of socioeconomic levels, and it was noted that
white children tend to mix socially, in school and out, with
other white children, regardless of socioeconomic level. In
other words, because of the unique geographic location of
50
the two particular schools in the study, which drew children
from wide and varied neighborhoods, there was not the socio
economic distinctness that one might find in another school
that tended to draw children from more homogeneous socio
economic levels. A school in a poverty area might show more
distinct differences, for example, when compared with a more
strictly middle class area school. The socioeconomic dis
tinctions seemed less finely drawn in the schools in the
present study, and perhaps exposure over an 8-year period to
a more varied peer group would tend to dilute the linguistic
distinctions that were earlier suggested by researchers.
There is a fourth possible explanation for the con
clusion that both socioeconomic levels selected verbal over
vocal cues, suggested by Labov's (1968, 1970) research. The
explanation lies in the perception that the subjects had of
the testing situation. Since testing was done in the school
classroom, suggesting typical school situations, the sub
jects could have perceived this as a school situation and
responded according to what they assumed was expected of
them. In this case, the assumption is that they perceived
the situation as requiring more attention to the verbal por
tion of the message, and because of the situation seemed to
value verbal over vocal. Labov found subjects changed cer-
51
tain features of a dialect as they found themselves in for
mal and informal speaking situations; subjects in the lower
class perceived a formal situation, possibly, and shifted
perception of the message so that more than usual emphasis
was placed on the verbal aspect of the message. Thus, lower
class children in the study may have responded according to
their perception of what the given situation demanded.
Secondary Findings
Although a race effect was not hypothesized in this
study, subjects were divided into Black and white and pos
sible race effects were examined. Although there is cur
rently insufficient evidence to support the question of
whether Bernstein's restricted code is primarily an overall
lower class phenomenon or a lower class Black phenomenon,
the possibility was explored.
It was found that Black children were significantly
more responsive to intonation cues in the contradictory mes
sages than were white children. There is some recent re
search by Baratz (1970) and Winkler (1973) that tends to
support the idea that there might be certain extraverbal dif
ferences between Black (dialect) and white (Standard English)
speakers.
52
Baratz (1970) conducted research that was concerned
with a Black child's performance of Standard English, when
his primary language experience was with Black dialect. The
experiment involved Black and white subjects, from third and
fifth grades. Subjects were given a sentence repetition
test in which subjects repeated 30 sentences; 15 in Standard
English and 15 in Negro nonstandard. As predicted, results
showed that whites were superior to Blacks in repeating
Standard English sentences, but Blacks were superior to
whites in repeating nonstandard Black sentences. Baratz
(1970) concluded that user performance varied as a function
of dialect in sentence encoding behavior. Although Baratz
was primarily concerned with syntactic differences between
Black and Standard English, it is not unreasonable to as
sume that there might also be certain extraverbal differ
ences evident between dialect and nondialect speakers. If
so, these might be evident in decoding behavior as well as
encoding behavior.
There is further and more recent evidence that sug
gests that there may be racial differences in extraverbal
behavior, specifically intonation, conducted by Winkler
(1973).
53
Winkler (1973) compared intonation patterns of Black
English-speaking subjects (which he classified loosely as
lower class because of inner city geographic residential
area), with Standard English-speaking white subjects (clas
sified loosely as middle and upper class because of geo
graphic residency). The study compared intonation patterns
of speech samples gathered from junior high school students
in reading situations and free discourse. Winkler had sub
jects read a script and also interact spontaneously, and the
intonation patterns were recorded and reduced to fundamental
frequency pitch patterns by a computer pitch extraction rou
tine. The results showed that pitch patterns were different
for Black English subjects as compared with Standard English
patterns, for all sentence types and situations including
general question. Most importantly, the comparisons
showed that when isolated portions of the intonation pat
tern, such as initial or terminal contours were considered,-
differences existed. "Black English users did use more
level and rising terminal intonation contours than Standard
English speakers [Winkler, 1973, p. 132]." (Italics mine.)
From Winkler's systematic examination of intonation
patterns, there are differences evident between Black
speakers and Standard English speakers, and Winkler even
54
speculates that "intonation seems to be more 'communica
tively salient' in Black English than in Standard English
[Winkler, 1973, p. 128]."
There is another explanation for the racial effect
found in the study. It is almost a commonplace that Black
dialect remains a subcultural form of identity for its
users. Labov (1970) has suggested that dialect differences
are maintained not out of isolation and ignorance but be
cause of "the need for self identification with particular
sub-groups in the social complex [p. 450]." This suggests
the possibility that Black dialect, and along with it, cer
tain intonation usage, remains a form of identity, and fur-
there symbolizes a unique form of social relationship among
Blacks. In other words, in cases such as the schools stud
ied, where Black subjects were both Standard English users
and Black English speakers, it is by choice and when with
other Blacks that dialect becomes an "in-group" type of com
munication, and one way for the Black culture to retain its
identity. As Olim (1970) has suggested,
The growth of Black Power and racial separatism in
America is, I believe, symptomatic of the unwilling
ness of the disadvantaged Black to give up his (ad
mittedly tenuous) grip on what little identity and
community he has in exchange for the alienated deper
sonalization of the white society [p. 225].
55
This suggestion that retention of Black English by
Blacks, regardless of socioeconomic level, was strongly re
iterated by the counselors of the two schools studied.
There was agreement among the four particular counselors
(two Black, two white) that using Black dialect is a social
and cultural identity factor, and is prevalent and very much
in evidence in both schools. It seems plausible, that be
cause of constant usage, there would be more sensitivity to
those aspects of communication that are more salient and
more emphasized. In other words, it is not implausible to
expect that, overall, Blacks would be more attuned to inton
ation in messages that were supposedly equal in competing
strength between vocal and verbal cues.
It was also pointed out by the counselors that Black
children in both schools tested tend to stick more to their
neighborhood groups, and tend to cluster more within their
socioeconomic groups during and after school, more so than
do white children. This was especially true of the lower
class subjects in one school, where it was observed by the
counselors that the Black children within this group tended
to remain very homogeneous in classes, in school, and after
school. This would also help to explain the racial signifi
cance that appeared in the positive complementary items of
56
the test. Lower class Blacks scored significantly lower
than middle class Blacks or lower or middle class white sub
jects on the three positive complementary statements (i.e.,
chose the vocal over the verbal). The statements under
consideration were intended to be reinforcing statements,
with vocal cues reinforcing the verbal message. The results
showed that lower class Blacks did not interpret the vocal
as being reinforcing, but rather interpreted the vocal cues
as being ironic or facetious. For example, a positive state
ment such as "Mrs. Jones is the nicest teacher in the
school," said with positive intonation, could have been de
coded as being overly exaggerated, and thus subjects in the
low Black category chose the answer "not nice,” or "a little
nice." It is plausible, however, when considering Winkler's
(1973) study of differential use of intonation. Lower class
Black children tend to be even more homogeneous than middle
class Black children, and to use dialect to a greater extent
both among themselves and in school situations. Thus, they
showed greater sensitivity toward intonation than their mid
dle class counterparts, and even pointed out that statements
can be misinterpreted in some instances. In this case,
statements that were intended to be positive were decoded as
negative, which has interesting implications.
57
Implications
Theoretic Implications
The findings of the study demonstrate some inter
esting implications in considering socioeconomic status and
race. The fact that there were no significant class effects
tends to support differences in extraverbal usage as a sub
cultural issue rather than a socioeconomic one. This study
did tend to verify that persons using Black English are more
attuned to intonation, at least in a decoding task.
The lack of verification of socioeconomic differ
ences in the decoding of contradictory messages suggests
that there may be differences in the encoding and decoding
behavior of language users, and this relationship needs to
be examined further. From Labov's (1970) research, there is
also reason to believe that as a child perceives a situatiorv
he will adjust his communication behavior accordingly. In
other words, he will encode and decode in the light of the
demands of the specific situation he finds himself in. In
the present study, the lower class children may have felt
the demands of the testing situation required more attention
to the verbal cues, and their responses may have reflected
an atypical amount of attention because of the situational
demands.
58
Methodological Implications
Intonation, although controllable, may be too iso
lated when studied without other accompanying nonverbal fac
tors, and perhaps has more value as a research item when
studied in conjunction with such factors as facial expres
sion, etc. Although it has been used rather successfully in
previous studies, it was used in learning situatins where
intonation served as motivational or reward-type incentive
(Brooks et al., 1969; Zigler & Kanzer, 1962). Intonation as
a research variable did seem to prove to be an important and
integral part of Black children's decoding system, and re
mains a worthwhile subject for studying, both in conjunction
with other extraverbal and nonverbal channels, and as it re
lates to the verbal portion.
Black and white subjects were tested together in
school situations, under identical testing conditions, and
were not required to "perform" other than mark answers on
a paper, so that the testing situation seems to have merit
in this study. However, the tests were conducted in class
rooms, during school, and may have constituted a testing
situation to some subjects. It might be worthwhile to test
subjects under more informal conditions, as Labov did, and
perhaps compare results of subjects in varying testing con-
59
ditions to further determine what function and effect the
perceived situation may have on testing results.
It might be worthwhile to test subjects' responses
to messages spoken in both Standard English and Black English
dialect, comparing results. Since Winkler has pointed out
differences in intonation patterns in Standard English as
compared with Black English, it would be worthwhile to test
subjects' decoding behavior to messages with varying intona
tion patterns.
Since subjects responded solely in a decoding situ
ation in this study, there might be value in having subjects
engage in both decoding and encoding behavior, so that dif
ferences and similarities between social class and race
could be noted on both levels.
In examining possible reasons for subjects' percep
tion of items as having various forms of contradictions,
there does not seem to be any apparent reason for the clus
tering of items into the two factor categories. Factor I
contained items with both rising and falling intonation pat
terns (Items 2, 5, and 9 were falling patterns, while the
remaining items were rising intonation patterns: Items 8,
13, and 14). Factor II items both had rising inflection
patterns. In analyzing sentence content, there does not
60
seem to be any obvious or plausible explanation for the
analysis into two factors, other than that the items in
Factor II both refer to statements about movies, which may
in some way account for their similarity in type of contra
diction interpreted by subjects. No other similarities in
the factors could be detected, either in content or type of
intonation pattern. If nothing else, when studying response
behavior across social classes, no assumption of homogeneity
of perceptions should be made. Factor analysis procedures
should be used prior to the research question.
Educational Implications
If children of varying socioeconomic levels or
racial groups do respond differentially to extraverbal fac
tors, particularly vocal factors, this could have interest
ing applications for teachers in elementary education.
There seems to be an obvious need for teachers to be ex
plicitly trained to be aware of, and to use, the forms of
praise (nonverbal or verbal) that would be likely to have
the greatest effect on their particular students. There is
also an obvious need to know more about the development and
differential usage of extraverbal communication behavior,
which plays a major role in our everyday lives and which
61
may fit critically within the educational process of learn
ing to communicate.
A P P E N D I X E S
62
APPENDIX A
PRETEST ITEMS
63
APPENDIX A
PRETEST ITEMS
1. Sue is smarter than anyone in the class.
2. Don is the slowest guy on the team.
3. That was the worst movie I ever saw.
4. Johnny runs faster than anyone.
5. Willie is the meanest kid on the block.
6. Mrs. Jones is the nicest teacher in the school.
7. That basketball game was the most exciting I ever
went to.
8. That's the prettiest dress I've ever seen.
9. That apple is rotten.
10. That test was the easiest test I've ever taken.
11. The umpire called John out at first base.
12. She was really sick.
13. He got a bad grade on the test.
14. His car goes faster than all the other cars.
15. That orange is the sweetest orange I ever tasted.
16. Sally is too busy to go to the movies.
17. That was the funniest joke I ever heard.
18. That dog is the dumbest dog I ever saw.
19. That book is the best book I ever read.
20. She's the ugliest girl in the school.
21. Mary said Bill hit her hard on the head.
22. Jan is the cutest girl in the school.
64
APPENDIX B
PRETEST ANSWER SHEET
65
APPENDIX B
PRETEST ANSWER SHEET
1. How smart do you think Sue is?
2.
very smart smart
How slow do you think Don
a little smart
is?
not smart
3.
not slow a little slow
How bad was the movie?
slow very slow
4.
very bad bad
How fast does Johnny run?
a little bad not bad
5.
not fast a little fast
How mean is Willie?
fast very fast
6.
very mean mean
How nice do you think Mrs.
a little mean
Jones is?
not mean
7.
not nice a little nice
How exciting was the game?
nice very nice
8.
very exciting exciting a
How pretty is the dress?
little exciting not exciting
not pretty a little pretty pretty very pretty
67
9. How easy do you think the test was?
10.
very easy easy
Do you think John was out?
a little easy not easy
11.
very out out
How sick is she?
maybe safe safe
12.
very sick sick
How bad was the grade?
a little sick not sick
13.
very bad bad
How fast does his car go?
a little bad not bad
14.
not fast a little fast
How sweet is the orange?
fast very fast
15.
very sweet sweet
How busy do you think Sally
a little sweet
is?
not sweet
16.
very busy busy
How funny do you think the
a little busy
joke was?
not busy
17.
not funny a little funny
How dumb is the dog?
funny very funny
very dumb dumb a little dumb not dumb
18. How good do you think the book is?
very good good a little good not good
68
19. How ugly is she?
not ugly a little ugly ugly very ugly
20. How hard did Bill hit Mary?
very hard hard a little hard not hard
21. How cute is Jan?
not cute a little cute cute very cute
22. How rotten is the apple?
very rotten rotten a little rotten not rotten
APPENDIX C
FINAL STIMULUS ITEMS
69
APPENDIX C
FINAL STIMULUS ITEMS
Verbal Vocal
+ + 1. Sue is smarter than anyone in the class.
+ - 2. That basketball game was the most ex
citing I ever went to.
+ + 3. Mrs. Jones is the nicest teacher in the
school.
+ 4. That was the worst movie I ever saw.
+ - 5. That book is the best book I ever read.
6. He got a bad grade on the test.
+ - 7. Johnny runs faster than anyone.
+ - 8. Jan is the cutest girl in the school.
+ - 9. That's the prettiest dress I've ever
seen.
10. She's the ugliest girl in the school.
+ + 11. His car goes faster than all the other
cars.
+ 12. Sally is too busy to go to the movies.
+ 13. Willie is the meanest kid on the block.
+ 14. She was really sick.
15. That apple is rotten.
70
APPENDIX D
ANSWER SHEET— ACTUAL TEST
71
APPENDIX D
ANSWER SHEET— ACTUAL TEST
1. How smart do you think Sue is?
+ + i
1 very smart smart a little smart not smart
2. How exciting was the game?
^ very exciting I exciting ^a little exciting! not exciting
3. How nice do you think Mrs. Jones is?
+ + I ------: ---1 ---: ----: --1 ---- : -----1 --------
not nice 1 a little nice nice 1 very nice
4. How bad was the movie?
- + i
very bad bad a little bad not bad
5. How good do you think the book is?
+
very good good a little good not good
How bad was the grade?
^ not bad ^ a little bad ^ bad ^ very bad
7. How fast does Johnny run?
+ - i
very fast fast a little fast 1 not fast
8. How cute is Jan?
+ - i
not cute a little cute cute very cute
72
73
9. How pretty do you think the dress is?
+ - .
+
1 not pretty 1 a little pretty-^ - pretty
10. How ugly is she?
h
very pretty
not ugly 1 a little ugly ugly
11. How fast does his car go?
+ + i
+
very ugly
very fast fast a little fast
12. How busy do you think Sally is?
- + i i i
not fast
1 very busy busy
13. How mean is Willie?
- + i i
a little busy not busy
very mean
14. How sick is she?
mean a little mean not mean
not sick 1 a little sick
15. How rotten is the apple?
sick very sick
very rotten rotten a little rotten not rotten
RE F E R E N C E S
74
REFERENCES
Baratz, J. C. Teaching reading in an urban Negro school
system. In F. Williams (Ed.), Lanugage and poverty:
Perspectives on a theme. Chicago: Markham Pub
lishing Co., 1970.
Bernstein, B. Some sociological determinants of perception.
British Journal of Sociology, 1958, 9_, 159-174.
Bernstein, B. A public language: Some sociological impli
cations of a linguistic form. British Journal of
Sociology, 1959, lj), 311-326.
Bernstein, B. Language and social class. British Journal
of Sociology, 1960, ljL, 271-276.
Bernstein, B. Social class, linguistic codes and grammati
cal elements. Language and Speech, 1962, 5>, 221-240.
Bernstein, B. A sociolinguistic approach to social learning.
In J. Gould (Ed.), Penguin survey of the social
sciences. Baltimore: Penguin, 1965.
Bernstein, B. A sociolinguistic approach to socialization:
With some reference to educability. In F. Williams
(Ed.), Language and poverty: Perspectives on a
theme. Chicago: Markham Publishing Co., 1970.
Bernstein, B. Class, codes and control. London: Rout-
ledge & Kegan Paul, 1971.
Birdwhistell, R. L. Kinesic level of the investigation of
emotions. In P. Knapp (Ed.), Expression of the
emotions of man. New York: International Univer
sities Press, 1963.
75
76
Brooks, R., Brandt, L., & Wiener, M. Differential response
to two communication channels: Socioeconomic class
differences in response to verbal reinforcers com
municated with and without tonal inflection. Child
Development, 1969, 40^, 453-570.
Entwisle, D. Semantic systems of children: Some assess
ments of social class and ethnic differences. In
F. Williams (Ed.), Language and poverty: Perspec
tives on a theme. Chicago: Markham Publishing Co.,
1970.
Hawkins, P. R. Social class, the nominal group and ref
erence. Language and Speech, 1969, 12^, 125-135.
Hayes, W. L. Statistics for psychologists. New York:
Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1963.
Hess, R. D., & Shipman, V. Early experience and the
socialization of cognitive modes in children. Child
Development, 1965, 3_6, 377-388.
Hess, R. D., Shipman, V., Bear, R., & Brophy, J. The cog
nitive environments of urban preschool children.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1968.
Kirk, R. E. Experimental design: Procedures for the be
havioral sciences. Monterey, California: Brooks/
Cole, 1968.
Labov, W., Cohen, P., Robins, C., & Lewis, J. A study of
the nonstandard English of Negro and Puerto Rican
speakers in New York City. Vol. I, Final Report,
Cooperative Research Project No. 3288, U. S. Office
of Education, 1968. (Mimeographed.)
Labov, W. The logic of non-standard English. In F. Wil
liams (Ed.), Language and poverty: Perspectives on
a theme. Chicago: Markham Publishing Co., 1970.
Olim, E. Maternal lnguage styles and cognitive development
of children. In F. Williams (Ed.), Language and
poverty: Perspectives on a theme. Chicago: Mark
ham Publishing Co., 1970.
77
01 im, E., Hess, R. D., & Shipman, V. Role of mothers' lan
guage styles in mediating their preschool children's
cognitive development. The School Review, 1967, 75,
414-424.
Osser, H. Biological and social factors in language devel
opment. In F. Williams (Ed.), Language and poverty:
Perspectives on a theme. Chicago: Markham Publish
ing Co., 1970.
Pike, K. L. The intonation of American English. Ann
Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1946.
Williams, F. Acquisition and performance of communication
behaviors. In L. Barker and R. Kibler (Eds.),
Speech communication behavior. Englewood Cliffs,
New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1971.
Williams, F., & Naremore, R. C. On the functional analysis
of social class differences in modes of speech.
Speech Monographs, 1969, 36_, 77-102.
Winer, B. Statistical principles in experimental design.
New York: McGraw-Hill, 1962.
Winkler, H. A study of the intonation patterns of Black and
standard English speaking children in formal and
informal situations. Unpublished doctoral disserta
tion, University of Southern California, 1973.
Wiener, M., & Mehrabian, A. Language within language:
Immediacy3 a channel in verbal communication. New
York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1968.
Zigler, E., & Kanzer, P. The effectiveness of two classes
of reinforcers on the performance of middle-class
and lower-class children. Journal of Personality,
1962, 30, 157-163.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

An experimental investigation into the effects of interviewer race, status, and subjects' social classification on opinionnaire responses of black interviewees

PDF

An experimental investigation of the effects of preferred sensory modality, mode of presentation, and level of difficulty upon the comprehension and aesthetic appreciation of literature

PDF

Strain Toward Stability Theory: Effects Of Encountered Environmental Changes Upon Individuals' Cognitive Abilities To Anticipate Changes Forewarned By A Written Communication

PDF

Methodological Strategies In A Field Experiment: The Effects Of Message Type And Locus-Of-Control On The Subsequent Behavior Of Participants In Abehavior Modification Weight-Control Program

PDF

An experimental study of the effect of selective electromechanical compression of pauses and voiced sounds on comprehension by college students

PDF

Contemporary campaign communication: a case study of a Nevada state senate race

PDF

Development Of The Cognitive, Affective, And Behavioral Dimensions Of Linguistic Attitudes Within A Homogeneous Speech Community

PDF

Attitude Change As A Function Of Ego-Involvement And Message Discrepancy: An Empirical Test Of Competing Theoretic Statements

PDF

An Experimental Analysis Of The Effects Of Message Type, Degree Of Interpersonal Similarity, And Type Of Interpersonal Similarity On Attitude Change And Ratings Of Source Credibility

PDF

An Empirical Investigation Of The Influence Of Dogmatism, Ego-Involvement, And Issue Position On Speech Ratings

PDF

A study of the intonation patterns of black and Standard English speaking children in formal and informal situations

PDF

The Middle Eastern oil exporting countries: Absorptive capacity, market sharing, and investment strategies

PDF

Oral Interpretation Of Literature In The Los Angeles Community Colleges: A Proposed Program To Meet The Needs Of Black Students

PDF

An Experimental Investigation Of The Effects Of Ego-Involved Attitudes On The Desire To Affiliate With Others Following The Receipt Of Anxiety-Arousing And Nonanxiety-Arousing Discrepant Messages

PDF

An Experimental Investigation Of Audience Self-Perceptions Of Message Comprehension, Measured Audience Message Comprehension, And Audience Nonverbal Feedback Of Message Comprehension During Messa...

PDF

A behavioral comparison of the nonverbal and verbal communication of distressed and nondistressed marital couples

PDF

Communication rules and perceived outcomes within and between domestic culture groups: A comparison of intracultural and intercultural conversations among acquaintances

PDF

An empirical investigation of the communicative rules which should guide the use of deceptive messages within non-interpersonal and interpersonal relationships

PDF

Auditory Verbal And Visual Manual Sign Decoding Of Verbal And Nonverbal Autistic Children: A Study Of Cross-Modality Versus Within-Modality Processing

PDF

Explicitness And Effort Factors Of Commitment As Determinants Of Attitudechange In A Counterattitudinal Communication Paradigm

Asset Metadata

Creator Mcelhiney, Julie Kay (author)

Core Title Lower And Middle Socioeconomic Class Children'S Interpretation Of Stimulus Sentences With Contradictory Message Cues

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Speech Communication

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag OAI-PMH Harvest,Speech Communication

Language English

Advisor Frentz, Thomas S. (committee chair), Bodaken, Edward M. (committee member), Springer, James S. (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c20-533751

Unique identifier UC11226159

Identifier 7515551.pdf (filename),usctheses-c20-533751 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 7515551.pdf

Dmrecord 533751

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Mcelhiney, Julie Kay

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA