Seedhouse2010
| Seedhouse2010 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Seedhouse2010 |
| Author(s) | Paul Seedhouse |
| Title | How research methodologies influence findings |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, Conversation Analysis, methodology, negative evidence, first language acquisition, corrective feedback |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2010 |
| Language | English |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Novitas-ROYAL (Research on Youth and Language) |
| Volume | 4 |
| Number | 1 |
| Pages | 1-15 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
This paper proposes that different research methodologies, when applied to the same discoursal data, can reach diametrically opposing conclusions. The study re-examines a classic psycholinguistic study (Brown and Hanlon, 1970) which uses discoursal data to support the ‘no negative evidence’ hypothesis. It is argued that the original study searched in the data for superficially identifiable discoursal features, which were then directly indexed to psychological constructs. This methodology was unable to locate examples of corrective feedback or negative evidence which are present in their data. Subsequent researchers came to the flawed conclusion that Brown and Hanlon had proved that parents did not supply corrective feedback or negative evidence to their children. A reanalysis of a small proportion of the original transcripts from a CA perspective finds clear examples of corrective feedback or negative evidence supplied by adults and utilized by children. I also consider how adults respond to ungrammatical utterances by children and why they do so. The study suggests a need for conversation analysts to work together with psycholinguists on discoursal data.
Notes
