communicating shared meaning in social pretend play

Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 7, 501 -516 (1992)

Communicating Shared Meaning in Social Pretend Play

Jo Ann M. Farver

University of Southern California

This research examined young children's use of communicative strategies to structure and create shared meaning in social pretend play. Forty children, aged 2, 3, 4, and 5 years old (five pairs per age group) were observed and audiotape recorded in same-age and same-sex dyads while playing with a fantasy toy. Transcribed play dialogues were examined for episode length, seven communicative strategies, and social pretend play complexity. Results suggested a developmental progression in children's ability to use the seven communicative strategies to structure social pretend play and to facilitate shared meaning. Two-year-olds relied on calls for attention and repetitions to suggest play topics, attract attention, and draw their partners into simple social pretend play sequences. Three-year-olds were able to coordinate pretense using paralinguistic cues and semantic ties. Four- and 5-year-olds relied on descriptions of action, semantic ties, and tags to develop long bouts of complex pretend play. The creation of shared mean- ing appears to be a dynamic process. Young children construct shared meaning spontaneously during interactive play from the shared knowledge about everyday activities they bring to the play setting and by responding to, and building on, their partner's ideas and actions as the play unfolds.

The purpose of this research was to investigate developmental trends in young children's use of communicative strategies to structure and create shared meaning in spontaneous social pretend play. According to Nelson (1985, p. 3), "when children begin talking they enter into a system of shared meanings. They learn that words evoke in others a conceptual representa- tion that, ideally, matches the one they intend to express." The ability to convey meaning through a system of shared concepts develops during early childhood as children build a knowledge of language structures and inter- nalize the conventional meanings of words.

Gratitude is expressed to the U.C.L.A. Child Care Center. Correspondence and requests for reprints should be sent to Jo Ann Farver, Department of

Psychology, SGM 501, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089-1061.

• Received June 11, 1991; Revision received January 9, 1992; Accepted January 21, 1992.

501

502 Farver

Social pretend play presents a special communicative context within which meaning is often interpreted and expressed differently from conven- tional representations. A child who insists that the piece of paper she holds is a "ticket for the train that's coming" knows in reality that its just a piece of paper and the wagon her partner is pulling isn't really a train. However, at that moment, objects and actions can be whatever the child imagines.

Developmental theorists suggest that young children begin to use their emerging language skills to coordinate their imaginative constructions with a partner by linking their expanding social knowledge with features of the interactive play experience through conversation (Corsaro, 1983, 1986; Corsaro & Tomlinson, 1979; G6ncii & Kessel, 1984; Nelson & Seidman, 1984; Sachs, Goldman, & Chaille, 1984, 1985; Seidman, 1983). Recent studies have demonstrated that social pretend play emerges with children's increas- ing abilities to plan themes and a peer's involvement in them, and to share symbolic concepts and communicate them to their partners (Brenner & Mueller, 1982; Fein, 1979; Fein, Moorin, & Enslein, 1982; Howes, 1985).

As early as 18 months, children succeed in sharing the meaning of pretend activities with objects (Brenner & Mueller, 1982; Howes, 1985; Howes & Unger, 1989; Howes, Unger, & Seidner, 1989; Musatti & Panni, 1981). At 30 months, toddlers engage in rudimentary pretend play by employing estab- lished play routines and objects that provide a common focus for their play (Garvey, 1982; Howes & Unger, 1992; Mueller & Brenner, 1977; Sachs et al., 1984).

By 36 months, children begin to master the basic elements of social pre- tend play (Howes et al., 1992). They are able to enact social roles (Forys & McCune-Nicolich, 1984; Garvey & Brendt, 1977; Howes et al., 1989; Rubin, 1980; Sachs, 1980) and superimpose story lines or scripts upon their activi- ties (Forys & McCune-Nicolich, 1984; Garvey & Brendt, 1977; Schwartzman, 1976). From age 4, social pretend play becomes increasingly complex wherein children negotiate and enact roles and scripts. Children use meta- communication to establish and maintain play sequences, and each partner interactively contributes to the unfolding pretense (Doyle & Connolly, 1989; Garvey, 1990; Giffin, 1984; GiSncti, 1987; Gtincii & Kessel, 1984; Nelson & Seidman, 1984; Pellegrini, 1985; Sachs et al., 1984).

Although many studies have documented the emergence and develop- ment of social pretend play, it is unclear how children begin to understand, share, and integrate each other's imaginative constructions. Garvey (1991) suggested that the message that "this is play" may be one of the first com- municative messages to appear in young children. Similarly, Bateson (1971) maintained that children create shared understanding through the exchange of metacommunicative signals conveying the message, "This is play." These signals, Giffin (1984) observed, are verbal statements or actions that explain how messages about pretend play should be interpreted. Therefore, to initiate and sustain social pretend play partners must keep each other in-

Shared Meaning in Pretend Play 503

formed about the change from nonplay to play while continuing to make their play actions mutually intelligible.

In her research, Garvey (1974, 1977, 1982, 1984, 1990; Garvey & Brendt, 1977) noted that much of children's talk is directed to creating, clarifying, maintaining, and negotiating the social pretend experience. For example, pretenders must somehow attract their partner's interest, establish a com- mon frame of reference by naming or inventing objects and assigning roles, and then collaboratively construct a joint line of action and discourse. Con- sequently, during the course of play children must carefully monitor the in- teraction and consistently acknowledge and expand the contributions of their interactive partners.

Analyses of children's play dialogues suggest that children rely on partic- ular communicative strategies during interactive play to make their actions and ideas intelligible and thus potentially shareable with a partner (Cook- Gumperz & Corsaro, 1977; Corsaro, 1986; Corsaro & Tomlinson, 1979; GOncti & Kessel, 1984; Nelson & Seidman, 1984; Seidman, 1983). Fein and Schwartz (1986) proposed that pretend play sequences may be shared prior to their execution through discussion and negotiation of the roles to be enacted and the activities to take place.

In their investigation of 3- and 4-year-olds' pretend play dialogues, G/Sncti and Kessel (1984) reported a developmental trend toward greater conversa- tional continuity and coherence. Children moved in and out of play episodes with few explicit initiations and negotiations. However, statements about roles, objects, or transformations were frequent.

Based on the results of the microsociolinguistic analysis of preschoolers' play dialogues, Corsaro (1983; Cook-Gumperz & Corsaro, 1977; Corsaro & Tomlinson, 1979) argued that because pretend play is spontaneous and novel, children cannot rely on conventionalized expectations. Instead, chil- dren must use specific communicative strategies to keep their partners in- formed about the emergent meaning of their play sequences. Such strategies include paralinguistic cues that signify pretense, repetition to structure interaction, and semantic tying to expand on a partner's contribution.

Although the studies just reviewed have clearly documented children's communicative abilities in play, it is unclear how such communication develops with age. Developmental differences in the type of communicative strategies children use to structure play as they become older, more experi- enced players and how they fit those messages into sequenced episodes to coordinate complex social pretend play has not been explored. Therefore, the current study examined the social pretend play dialogues of 2-, 3-, 4-, and 5-year-old children to understand how the use of communicative strate- gies develops with age, and to examine how these strategies are related to children's social pretend play experiences. More specifically, how do chil- dren of different ages use communicative strategies to establish, structure, and sustain social pretend play?

504 Farver

METHOD

Subjects Forty children, aged 2 (M= 24.5 months), 3 (M= 39 months), 4 (M= 50.5 months), and 5 (M= 60.8 months) years old, five pairs per age group, par- ticipated in this research. The sample was homogeneous. The subjects came from intact, white, middle-class families. All children regularly attended full-time day care and were well acquainted prior to the research. Familiar, friendly children were paired by age and sex by day care staff at the outset of the study.

Procedures Children were observed and audiotape recorded for 20 min in same-sex and same-age dyads while playing with a fantasy toy. The observer sat quietly nearby recording contextual behavior that was later keyed to the tape footage in the transcribed sequences. The play sessions were conducted in an area of the day-care center equally familiar to all age groups. The Fisher- Price camping set--a 15-piece toy designed to stimulate fantasy play--was placed on a low table and the children were asked to play with it.

Coding of Play Dialogues Transcriptions of children's play dialogues were prepared from the audio- tape recordings by the author and an assistant. The transcriptions were seg- mented into play episodes. An episode was defined as an interactive sequence occurring between two children containing three or more exchanges of con- tinuous discourse with a shared theme or topic. An episode began when either child verbalized about an object, action, activity, or feeling state, and terminated when the partner failed to address the topic of the preceeding turn, either partner's attention was directed away from the play activity for longer than 30 s, or either child physically moved away from the play activity.

All episodes containing pretend play were isolated. Pretend play was defined as instances where " the child transforms activities from their real objective and objects from their real counterparts" (McCune-Nicolich, 1981, p. 786).

One hundred pretend play episodes, (25 for each age group; 5 episodes per dyad) were randomly selected and were examined for duration, seven communicative strategies, and pretend play form.

Measures

Duration of the Episode. Duration was coded for the number of con- versational turns within an episode. A turn was defiend as all of one part- ner's utterances before the partner took the floor (McLoyd, 1980). A short episode contained a minimum of 6 turns, a medium episode contained 7 to 12, and a long episode contained more than 15.

Shared Meaning in Pretend Play 505

Communicative Strategies. Seven communicative strategies identified by Corsaro (1986) were considered. Strategies were scored for the number of times each occurred during a specific turn at talk within each episode.

1. Parafinguistic cues: Changes in intonation and pitch to mark fantasy and the animation of objects. For example, the "vr room v room" sounds of toy car engines; "nyam nyam" sound of pretend eating and the use of high or low voices to mark role enactment.

2. Descriptions of action: Declarative statements accompanying ongoing activity or describing past or future action. For example, A says, " I ' m going into the forest ," as she moves the jeep to the corner of the table.

3. Repetitions: Repeating partner 's prior utterance(s). 4. Semantic tying: Adding new semantic elements to partner's previous

contribution. For example, A says, "I ts raining. Gonna rain." B replies, "Rain! Its gonna be a rainstorm."

5. Calls for attention: Utterances used to gain partner 's attention. These include the partner's name, "Hey! . . . . L o o k ! "

6. Directives: Declaratives used to control partner 's action, for example, "DO this! . . . . YOU put the man on the motorcycle! . . . . NO that won't work!" Directives also may occur within pretend scripts or role play, for example, a " m o t h e r " character says to the " b a b y , " "You drink all your milk or you're going to sleep!"

7. Tags: Verbal devices placed at the end of a conversational turn to elicit a response or acknowledgment. These include: "We're playing camping, right? . . . . I'll put this here, 'k?"

Social Pretend Play Complexity. Each pretend play episode was coded once for the most complex form of social pretend play displayed by the dyads using a scale adopted from Howes and Unger (1992). Howes's (1985; Howes & Farver, 1987; Howes et al., 1989) research indicates that the following three social pretend play forms represent increased complexity in social pretend play from simple social to cooperative:

1. Simple social pretend play was coded if children engaged in social play and both children performed pretend acts. The acts may have been tem- porally related or have involved similar toys but there was no script. A script was defined as an organized, multievent play sequence in which two children arranged pretend acts into a meaningful sequence (Nelson & Seidman, 1984).

2. Associative social pretend play was coded if the children engaged in social play and there was a script, but no complementary pretend roles. Complementary pretend roles are defined as roles related to each other, for example, driver-passenger.

506 Farver

. Cooperative pretend play was coded if the children engaged in social play, there was a script, and complementary pretend roles. Roles did not have to be explicitly named but the role must have been clear from the action. For example, A drives the jeep, B rides in back and asks, "When are we gonna get to the camping place?" (driver and passenger).

Intercoder Reliability Reliability was established between the author and an assistant, who was blind to the research objectives and the children's ages, using 20 (5 from each age group), randomly chosen, interactive pretend play episodes that were not part of the data base for the current study. Cohen's kappa values for agreement on identifying the episodes, coding their duration and pre- tend play complexity, and scoring of the communicative strategies ranged from .84 to .97. Similar reliability checks were performed midway and at the end of the coding procedure using additional randomly selected episodes. These values ranged from .95 to .98.

RES UL TS

Episode Duration by Age Chi-square analysis was used to examine the relationship of episode length to age. Two- and 3-year-olds had short play episodes whereas 4- and 5-year- olds had long episodes, x2(6, N= 100)= 19.49, p < .003.

Use of Communicative Strategies by Age Univariate analyses of variance (ANOVAs) were used to compare the fre- quency of children's use of the seven strategies across the four age groups. These results appear in Table 1. There were significant univariate effects for age and paralinguistic cues, F(3, 96)=6.08, p<.0008; describe action, F(3, 96)=8.01, p<.0001; repetition, F(3, 96)=12.53, p<.0001; semantic ties, F(3, 96) = 10.17, p < .0001; call for attention, F(3, 96) = 5.20, p < .002; and tags, F(3, 96) = 21.28, p < .0001. The use of directives was not significant.

Scheffe tests used to compare the age groups showed that 2-year-olds used repetitions more often than all other age groups. Three-year-olds used paralinguistic cues more often than 4- and 5-year-olds. Two- and 3-year- olds used more calls for attention than 5-year-olds. Three, 4-, and 5-year- olds used more semantic ties than 2-year-olds. Four- and 5-year-olds used more descriptions of action and tags than 2- and 3-year-olds. All groups used directives.

Frequency of Communicative Strategies by Social Pretend Play Form The relationship between children's use of conversational strategies and the dyads' resulting social pretend play form was examined using univariate

Shared Meaning in Pretend Play

Table 1. Use of Communicat ive Strategies by Age

507

Age 2 Age 3 Age 4 Age 5 Strategies M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) F for Age Scheffe

Cues 4.00 (3.06) 5.40 (4.48) 1.96 (2.89) 2.12 (2.52) 6.08** 3>4,5 Describe 4 > 2

Action 5.12 (3.00) 6.84 (4.80) 9.44 (6.26) 10.08 (3.43) 8.01"* 5>2,3 Repetition 3.84 (2.76) 1.40 (1.60) 1.56 (2.56) .52 (.82) 12.53"* 2>5,3 Semantic

Tie .04 (.20) 1.76 (2.93) 2.68 (1.60) 2.12 (1.23) 10.17"* 3,4,5 Call for

Attention 2.36 (1.49) 2.12 (1.42) 2.00 (1.78) .88 (.97) 5.20* 3,2>5 Direct 4.28 (3.48) 4.76 (4.17) 4.20 (4.23) 2.76 (3.64) 1.22 n.s. Tags .00 (.00) 1.40 (1.77) 3.00 (1.60) 2.86 (1.80) 21.28'* 5,4>1

* p< .01 . ** p<.001 .

Table 2. Frequency of Communicat ive Strategies by Social Pretend Play Form

Pretend Play Form

Simple Soc. Associative Cooperative F for Strategies M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) Play Form Scheffe

Cues 3.40 (3.06) 4.00 Describe

Action 6.02 (4.00) 8.32 Repetition 2.88 (2.60) 1.14 Semantic

Tie .69 (I.17) 2.28 Call for

Attention 2.10 (1.44) 1.96 Directive 4.69 (3.80) 4.82 Tags .80 (1.51) 2.03

4.63) 3.73 (3.08) 0.40 n.s.

5.32) 10.70 (4.86) 8.85** 3 > 1 1.48) 1.00 (1.98) 8.57** I > 3

2.76) 2.40 (I.58) 9.65** 3 > 1

1.46) 1.37 (1.67) 2.16 n.s. 4.76) 2.06 (2.24) 5.40** 2>3 1.91) 2.96 (1.69) 14.77"* 3>1

* p < . 0 1 . ** p<.001 .

ANOVAs. Frequencies in the use of the seven strategies were compared across the three social pretend play forms. As shown in Table 2, there were significant univariate effects for social pretend play form and the use of descriptions of action, F(2, 97) = 8.85, p < .0003; repetition, F(2, 97) = 8.57, p < .0004; semantic ties, F(2, 97)=9.65, p < .0002; tags, F(2, 97) = 14.77, p < .0001; and directives, F(2, 97)=5.40, p<.005. Call for attention and paralinguistic cues were not significant.

Scheffe tests indicated that children used descriptions of action and semantic ties more frequently in cooperative social pretend play, whereas directives and repetitions were more common in simple social pretend play. Children used tags in associative and cooperative pretend play more often than in simple social pretend play.

508

Table 3. Frequency of Communicat ive Strategies by Episode Duration

Farver

Episode

Short Medium Long F Strategies M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) Duration Scheffe

Cues 3.15 (2.32) 3.36 (3.13) 3.53 (4.83) 0.06 n.s. Describe

Action 5.25 (3.68) 7.42 (4.37) 11.03 (5.43) 10.49"* 3 > 1,2 Repetition 1.70 (1.45) 2.04 (2.49) 1.56 (2.51) 0.42 n.s. Semantic

Tie .75 (1.02) 1.48 (1.85) 2.53 (2.44) 5.50* 3>1 Call for

Attention 2.00 (1.62) 1.68 (1.37) 2.00 (1.72) 0.54 n.s. Directive 2.60 (2.25) 4.14 (3.52) 4.70 (5.10) 1.82 n.s. Tags .90 (1.I1) 1.66 (2.13) 2.60 (1.63) 5.44* 3>1

* p<.01 . ** p<.001.

Use of Communicative Strategies by Episode Duration Children's use of the seven communicative strategies was compared for short, medium, and long episode lengths using univariate ANOVAs. These comparisons are presented in Table 3. There were significant univariate effects for descriptions of action, F(2, 97)= 10.49, p < .001; semantic tying, F(2, 97)=5.50, p < .005; and tags, F(2, 97)=5.44, p < .005.

Scheffe tests showed that in long episodes there were more descriptions of action, semantic ties, and tags than in short or medium episodes.

In summary, 2-year-olds had short play episodes and frequently used calls for attention and repetitions. Three-year-olds also had short episodes and frequent calls for attention in their pretend play sequences. However, they used more paralinguistic cues and semantic ties in play than the 2-year- olds. The 4- and 5-year-olds had long episodes and used more descriptions of action, semantic ties, and tags to communicate play than did the younger children. In complex cooperative social pretend play episodes, descriptions of action and semantic ties were most common, whereas directives and repetitions were more frequent in less complex, simple social pretend play.

INTERPRETATIVE ANALYSIS

These results revealed age differences in children's use of communicative strategies to structure pretend play and facilitate shared meaning. The youngest children used rudimentary conversational strategies that required minimal processing by either partner, but at the same time allowed them to communicate simple pretend. The 2-year-olds utilized calls for attention to initiate play and relied on paralinguistic cues to animate objects and to

Shared Meaning in Prelend Play 509

signify their intention to play. Repetition, most frequent among the 2-year- olds, was used to establish common reference and to acknowledge their partner's contributions. This finding is related to Rubin's (1980) research, which suggests that very young children often coordinate play by repeating their partner 's actions and verbalizations, and the work of Keenan (1977), who contended that repetition may turn a partner's prior utterance into shared meaning.

As exemplified in two coded episodes below, by using calls for attention < C A T T > , repetitions < R E P > , descriptions of action < DESACT> and paralinguistics cues < P C > these 2-year-old boys initiated play and sus- tained short interactive pretend play sequences. However, they were unable to coordinate further their actions to engage in lengthy cooperative social pretend play.

J. Look! Two! < CATT >

E. Two! < REP >

J. On the table these are the eating. < DESACT >

E. Table! < REP >

/ /

E. He ride in that. < DESACT >

J. 'Dis goes right here. < DESACT > 'Dis goes right here. < DESACT >

E. He in drive. < DESACT > He in drive. < DESACT > Vroooommmmm. Vrrooooommm. < P C >

J. Thata monkey car! < DESACT >

E. Vroooommm. Vrooommm. < PC>

[Points to the two human figures he placed on benches at the table] [E smiles]

[Takes a figure from the bench and places it in the driver's side o f the jeep E is holding] [Places another figure in the empty space at the table] [Places another figure in passenger side o f E's jeep] [Moves jeep across table]

[Smile at E]

[Smile at J]

In the 2-year-olds' play, conversational turn taking was well established. In- dividual responses were short and were tied to the physical properties of play objects.

510 Farver

The most appa ren t deve lopmenta l change in ch i ld ren ' s use o f conversa- t ional s trategies appea red in the 3-year-old g roup . At this age there was a t rans i t ion point where language deve lopment and social p re tend play inter- sected. Similar to the 2-year-olds , 3-year-olds uti l ized para l inguis t ic cues to an ima te objects . However , 3-year-olds also began to use changes in voice in tona t ion to signify role enac tment and they began using semant ic ties character is t ic o f the 4- and 5-year -o lds ' communica t ive strategies to expand on their pa r tne r ' s u t terances . In the fol lowing episodes , this 3-year -o ld dyad used repet i t ions < R E P > to signal script agreement , para l inguis t ic cues < P C > with voice in tona t ion < P C / V I > , and semant ic ties < S E M T I E > to coord ina t e their p lay sequences more effect ively than the 2-year-olds .

R. We're ready! We're ready! < PC/VI > We're gonna ride the motorcycle. < DESACT > Vrooooom Vroooommmmmm. < P C >

T. We're gonna get the boats out and the table ready. < P C / V I > < S E M T I E >

[Sing-song cadence]

[Puts figure on motorc.vcle and moves it across the table]

[bt sing-song cadence, T sets up the boat, table, and benches]

R. VruuuummmmVroooommmmmm. [Moves motoro,cle] < P C >

T. The camp place is ready. < SEMTIE > The camp place is ready. < SEMTIE >

R. Ok, ready! [Moves motorcycle to where T < REP > has set up the pieces] Vroooom Vroooooommmm. < P C >

T. Come on we gotta get the boats out < SEMTIE > Ready! < R E P >

R. Yee HAM!! [Moves the motorc:vcle in the air < PC/VI > and sets it down next to T's boat]

T. And we gotta get the seats ready. < SEMTIE >

R. Let's go! [R moves the motorcycle in the air < CATT> and T "flies" the boat]

Four - and 5-year-olds used para l inguis t ic cues < P C > a lmos t ent irely to m a r k role por t raya l s . They were less rel iant on repet i t ion < REP > and calls for a t ten t ion < CATT > to c o m m u n i c a t e play than 2- and 3-year-olds .

Shared Meaning in Pretend Play 511

I n s t e a d , t h e y u sed d e s c r i p t i o n s o f a c t i o n < D E S A C T > , s e m a n t i c t ies

< S E M T I E > , d i r e c t i v e s < D I R E C T > , a n d t ags < T A G > to d e v e l o p a n d

c o o r d i n a t e l o n g s e q u e n c e s o f c o m p l e x c o o p e r a t i v e p r e t e n d p lay . T h e fo l -

l o w i n g p l a y s e q u e n c e o f t w o 5 - y e a r - o l d gi r ls i l l u s t r a t e s t h e s e f i n d i n g s :

B. We ' re going on our camping trip. < P V / V I > < D E S A C T >

E. Its gonna be fun, says sister. < P C / V I > < SEMTIE > I wanna go out and walk near the car. < P C / V I > < D E S A C T >

B. No, the car will go too fast < P C / V I > < D I R E C T > and we're on the freeway. < D E S A C T >

E. I 'm sure I'll stay on top over here. < D E S A C T >

B. NO, its not good now.

[Singing as she puts three human figures in the jeep seats] [high voice, holds human figure]

[Moves figure by jeep]

[Moves jeep to corner of table]

[Puts figure on top of camper]

[Puts E's figure in the camper, moves jeep and camper to other side of table]

[Taking pieces out o f camper]

[High voice]

[High voice directed to imaginary camp ranger]

[Hands E her figure]

[" Walks" figure] [High voice]

< D I R E C T > We ' re almost at our camping place. < D E S A C T > Turn of f the freeway and close the camper door. < D E S A C T > Here we are, at our camping place. < D E S A C T >

E. Can I go out first? < P C / V I > < S E M T I E >

B. No, we have to tell them. < D I R E C T > Ask them if we can have this camp place, or do you want 217 < D E S A C T >

E. I want 21. < SEMTIE > < P C / V I >

B. Hi, can we have this one or 21? < S E M T I E > < P C / V I > Let me unpack and you go out and play. Get out sister! < D I R E C T > < D E S A C T >

E. I want to p l a y . . . o v e r here. < D E S A C T > < P C / V I > Uh, right? Right? < T A G >

B. D o n ' t talk cause we have a lot of work to do. < D I R E C T > < D E S A C T >

[High voice]

[Turns figure toward imaginary camp ranger]

512 Farver

E. Ok. < PC/VI >

B. Get your motorcycle here and don't move it while mommy unpacks. Let me see. Set this up, ok sister? <DIRECT> <PC/VI> <TAG>

E. Can I help you? < SEMTIE > < PC/Vl >

B. No, its not a good time. <DIRECT> < PC/VI>

E. Ok. < PC/VI >

B. You say--"ok mother." < DIRECT >

E. Ok mother. < PC/VI >

B. Find something else to do. < DIRECT> < PC/VI >

E. I'll ride on the boat, ok? < DESACT > < TAG >

B. That's not a choice, maybe later. <DIRECT> < PC/VI >

[High voice]

[Hands E the motorcycle] [low voice]

[Animates figure with high voice] [Low voice]

[High voice]

[High voice]

[Low voice]

[Puts figure in boat]

[Low voice]

In the preceding cooperative social pretend play episode, the content was closely tied to what "normal ly" happens on a camping trip. Because family role play was very familar to this dyad, the girls were quickly able to enact a mother-"big"-s is ter script. The actual camping script however, required continual negotiation to reach a shared understanding of what the "campers" were doing. In this sequence, B appears to have more camping experience. Therefore, B takes the lead in directing the play and evaluating the appro- priateness of her partner 's responses. B corrects E when E's responses don ' t fit the orderly sequence of packing up, driving to the "camping place," un- packing, boating, motor cycling, packing up, and returning home. Although other research has suggested that preschooler's play is typically unmarked by explicit verbal negotiation (Farver, 1992; Fein & Schwartz, 1986; GSncti & Kessel, 1984), the need for negotiation may depend on the level of prior shared knowledge partners bring to the play context.

The use of tag questions by 4- and 5-year-olds in this study is consistent with Cook-Gumperz and Corsaro's (1977) observations of preschoolers' play. As illustrated before, E uses tag questions to offer up a plan of action and to elicit confirmation from B that what she proposes to do fits B's con- ventional knowledge about camping.

DISCUSSION

The findings of this study demonstrated that children across the four age groups used communicative strategies to structure pretend play episodes.

Shared Meaning in Prelend Play 513

There was also a clear developmental trend toward increasing pretend play complexity and episode length. All children were able to create shared meaning spontaneously during interactive play episodes from the shared knowledge about everyday activities they brought to the play situation, and by responding to, and building on, their partner's ideas and actions as the play unfolded.

One of the drawbacks of the Howes et al. (1992) play scale may be that some pretend play scripts were more complex than others. Children may have generated complex fantasy scripts with several roles that were not com- plementary. Such scripts may have been more complex than a simple script with complementary roles like mother and baby. Therefore, it is important to keep in mind thal this measure is conservative. Children's pretend play may have been more cornplex than was indicated here.

Educational implications of this research are multifaceted. Language, pretend play, and learning have a complex relationship. Social pretend play contexts provide unique opportunities for young children to become adept at communicating their ideas. In pretend play young children acquire new words to convey meaning that is often beyond their existing repertoires (Clarke, 1983). Furthermore, because pretend play is representational, chil- dren learn how to use gestures and words to designate real events and/or persons (Pelligrini, 1991). For example, Wolf and Grollman (1982) sug- gested that children's ability to integrate play events into coherent shared themes is related to narrative competence. The linguistic and cognitive skills involved in story telling, story enactment, and comprehension are impor- tant predictors of children's later mastery of reading and writing (Galda & Pelligrini, 1985).

In pretend play, Pelligrini (1982, 1984, 1991) showed that children use elaborated language. They define pronouns linguistically, they modify nouns with adjectives, and use causal and temporal conjunctions in order to make their imaginative suggestions intelligible to their play partners. Thus, social pretend play provides experiences for children to practice and master their communicative competence.

Applied research has also demonstrated that young children learn more effectively through methods involving interactive play with peers and materials (Glickman, 1979), when playing children tend to be intrinsically motivated and are functioning at their optimal social and cognitive levels (Vygotsky, 1967). In pretend play children attempt to communicate and in- tegrate their everyday conventional knowledge of the world with that of their partner. By sharing and building on their prior knowledge in collabo- rative play, children develop the skill of constructing systems of meaning that are jointly understood.

In play, children are continually refining social-cognitive concepts. Often, children's play ideas conflict with those of their peers. In the process of negotiating pretend scripts and incorporating their partner's suggestions,

514 Farver

y o u n g ch i ld ren learn to a c c o m m o d a t e d i f f e r e n t pe rspec t ives . Thus , socia l

p r e t end p lay p r o v i d e s an e d u c a t i o n a l se t t ing for y o u n g ch i ld ren to re f ine

thei r ideas and c o m m u n i c a t i v e skills to c rea te sha red m e a n i n g .

C h i l d - c a r e cen ters tha t se rve todd le r s as well as p r e s c h o o l e r s m i g h t

m o d i f y the i r c u r r i c u l u m s to i nc lude o p p o r t u n i t i e s for i n t e r ac t ive socia l pre-

t end p lay exper iences . As the r e sea rch here suggests , va r i ed socia l p r e t e n d

p lay expe r i ences m a y e n h a n c e y o u n g c h i l d r e n ' s d e v e l o p i n g l inguis t ic , soc ia l ,

and cogn i t i ve skills. F u r t h e r r e sea rch is needed to e x a m i n e the m a n n e r in

wh ich t eacher s can fac i l i ta te and s t ruc tu re socia l p r e t e n d p lay e d u c a t i o n a l

expe r i ences fo r y o u n g ch i ld ren .

R E F E R E N C E S

Bateson, G. (1971). The message this is play. In R. Herron & B. Sutton-Smith (Eds.), Child's Play. New York: Wiley.

Brenner, J., & Mueller, E. (1982). Shared meaning in boy toddlers' peer relations. Child Devel- opment, 53, 380-391.

Clarke, E. (1983). Meaning and concepts. In J. Flavell & E. Markham (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 787-840). New York: Wiley.

Cook-Gumperz, J., & Corsaro, W. (1977). Social-ecological constraints on children's com- municative strategies. Sociology, 11, 411-434.

Corsaro, W. (1983). Script recognition, articulation, and expansion in children's role play. Discourse Processes, 6, 1-19.

Corsaro, W. (1986). Discourse processes within peer culture: From a constructivist to an inter- pretative approach to childhood socialization. In P. Adler (Ed.), Sociologicalstudies o f child development. New York: JAI Press.

Corsaro, W., & Tomlinson, M. (1979). Spontaneous play and social learning in the nursery school. In A. Salter (Ed.), Play: Anthropological perspectives (pp. 105-125). New York: Leisure Press.

Doyle, A., & Connolly, J. (1989). Negotiation and enactment in social pretend play: Relations to social acceptance and social cognition. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 4, 289-302.

Farver, J. (1992). An analysis of young American and Mexican children's play dialogues: Illustrative study no. 3. In C. Howes, O. Unger, & K. Matheson (Eds.), The collabora- tive construction of pretend: Social pretend play functions. (pp. 55-63). New York: SUNY.

Fein, G. (1979). Play and the acquisition of symbols. In L. Katz (Ed.), Current topic's in early childhood education, Vol. 2 (pp. 195-225). Norwood, N J: Ablex.

Fein, G., Moorin, E., & Enslein, J. (1982). Pretense and peer behavior: An intersectoral analy- sis. Human Development, 25, 392-406.

Fein, G., & Schwartz, S. (1986). The social coordination of pretense in preschool children. In G. Fein (Ed.), The young child at play (pp. 95-112). Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children.

Forys, S., & McCune-Nicolich, L. (1984). Shared pretend: Sociodramatic play at three years of age. In I. Bretherton (Ed.), Symbolic play (pp. 159-194). New York: Academic.

Galda, L., & Pelligrini, A. (1985). Play, language and story: The development of literate behavior. Norwood, N J: Ablex.

Garvey, C. (1974). Some properties of social play. MerrilI-Pahner Quarterly, 20, 163-180.

Shared Meaning in Pretend Play 515

Garvey, C. (1977). Play. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Garvey, C. (1982). Communications and the development of social role play. In D. Forbes

& M. Greenberg (Eds.), Children "splanning strategies (New Directions for Child Devel- opment Research, pp. 81-102). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Garvey, C. (1984). Children's talk. Oxford, England: Fontana. Garvey, C. (1990). Play. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Garvey, C. ( 1991, March). The cultural dimensions of pretend play in infancy and earl), child-

hood. Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Seattle, WA.

Garvey, C., & Brendt, R. (1977). The organization of pretend play. Paper presented at the symposium on structure in play and fantasy, American Psychological Association, Chicago, IL.

Giffin, H. (1984). The coordination of meaning in the creation of shared make believe reality. In 1. Bretherton (Ed.), Symbolic play (pp. 73-100). New York: Academic.

Glickman, C. (1979). Problem: Declining achievement scores. Solution: Let them play. Phi Delta Kappan, 60, 454-455.

G6nci.i, A. (1987, April). The dynamics of collaboration in the play of preschool children. Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Develop- ment, Baltimore, MD.

G6nci.i, A., & Kessel, F. (1984). Children's play a contextual-functional perspective. In F. Kessel (Ed.), Analyzing children's play dialogues (New Directions in Child Develop- ment Research, pp. 522-532). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Howes, C. (1985). Sharing fantasy: Social pretend play in toddlers. Child Development, 56, 1253-1258.

Howes, C., & Farver, J. (1987). Social pretend play in 2-year-olds: Effects of age of partners. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 2, 305-315.

Howes, C., & Unger, O. (1989). Play with peers in child care settings. In M. Bloch & A. Pellegrini (Eds.), The ecological context of children's play (pp. 104-119). Norwood, N J: Ablex.

Howes, C., & Unger, O. (1992). Collaborative construction of social pretend play between toddler-age partners. In C. Howes, O. Unger, & K. Matheson (Eds.), The collaborative construction of pretend: Social pretend play functions (pp. 45-54). New York: SUNY.

Howes, C., Unger, O., & Seidner, L. (1989). Social pretend play in toddlers: Social pretend play forms and parallels with solitary pretense. Child Development, 60, 132-158.

Keenan, E.O. (1977). Making it last: Repetition in children's discourse. In S. Ervin-Tripp & C. Mitchell-Kernan (Eds.), Child discourse. New York: Academic.

McCune-Nicolich, L. (1981). Towards symbolic functioning: Structure of early pretend games and potential parallels with language. Child Development, 52, 785-797.

McLoyd, V. (1980). Verbally expressed modes of black preschool children. Child Develop- merit, 20, 807-814.

Mueller, E., & Brenner, J. (1977). The origins of social skills and interaction among play- group toddlers. Child Development, 48, 854-861.

Musatti, T., & Panni, S. (1981). Social behavior and interaction among day-care center toddlers. Early Child Development and Care, 7, 5-27.

Nelson, K. (1985). Making sense: The acquisition of shared meaning. London: Academic. Nelson, K., & Seidman, S. (1984). Playing with scripts. In I. Bretherton (Ed.), Symbolic play

(pp. 45-72). New York: Academic. Pelligrini, A. (1982). The generation of cohesive text by preschoolers in two play contexts.

Discourse Processes, 5, I 01-108. Pelligrini, A. (1984). Play centers and the production of elaborated language. Discourse

Processes, 7, 57-67.

516 Farver

PeUigrini, A. (1985). The narrative organization of children's fantasy play: The effects of age and play context. Educational Psychology, 5, 17-25.

Pelligrini, A. (1991). Applied child study: A developmental approach (2nd. ed.). Hillsdale, N J: Erlbaum.

Rubin, K. (1980). Fantasy play: Its role in the development of social skills and social cognition. In K. Rubin (~l.), Children's play (pp. 69-84). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Sachs, J. (1980). The role of adult--child play in language development. New Directions for Child Development, 9, 33--47.

Sachs, J., Goldman, J., & Chaille, C. (1984). Planning in pretend play. In A. Peilegrini & T. Yawkey (Eds.), The development of oral and written language in social context (pp. 119--128). Norwood, N J: Ablex.

Sachs, J., Goldman, J., & Chaille, C. (1985). Narratives in preschooler's sociodramatic play. In L. Galda & A. Pellegrini (Eds.), Play, language and story: The development of chil- dren's literate behavior (pp. 45-61). Norwood, N J: Ablex.

Schwartzman, H. (1976). The anthropology of children's play. Annual Review of Anthropol- ogy, 5, 219-328.

Scidman, S. (1983). Eventful play: Preschoolers' scripts for pretense. Paper presented at SRCD, Detroit, MI.

Vygotsky, L. (1967). Play and its role in the mental development of the child. Soviet Psychol- ogy, 12, 62-76.

Wolf, D., & Grollman, S. (1982). Ways of playing. In D. Peper & K. Rubin (Eds.), Theplay of children (pp. 46--63). Basel, Switzerland: Karger.