DISCOURSE PROCESSES 6, t_19 (1983)

script Recognition, Articulationand Expansion in Children's Role play*

Wnunu A. ConsARoD epartment of Sociolo gy

Indiana University

Recent work on children's discourse has developed the importance of children'sknowledge of social scripts for the production of sustained dialogue in peer interac-tion. Applying Cicourel's interactive model of discourse, this papr, .iu.ines pre-school children's recognition, articulation, and expansion of social scripts in role play.The analyses suggest that children's use of scripts depends on the nature of role playand that children's attempts at script expansion can be seen as precursors to adults'recognition of the potential of conversation for self-expression.

INTRODUCTION

Recently, references to several concepts (e.g., schema, scripts, plans, and goals)used in theoretical models of memory, problem solving, and text comprehension(Bobrow & Collins, 1975; Kintsch, 1974; Rumelhart, tg75; Rumelhart &Ortony , 1977; Schank & Abelson, 1977) have begun to appear with some regu-larity in theoretical approaches to discourse processes (Cicourel, lg7g, t9b0;Freedle & Duran, 1979; Tannen , 1979). Although current work in cognitive sci-ence may have important implications for theoretical models of discourse, thecontributory potential of concepts like schema or scripts depends on their integra-tion with features of discourse processes discovered by sociolinguists and eth-nographers of communication (see Freedle & Duran, 1979). In a recent series ofpapers Cicourel (1975, 1978, 1980) presents an interactive model which inte-grates ongoing work on discourse in sociology, linguistics, anthropology, andcognitive psychology. In this paper, I will briefly review Cicourel's model andevaluate a recent report (Nelson & Gruendel, 1 979) on children's use of scripts inpeer dialogues in line with the model. In the last part of the paper, I will upplyCicourel's model in an analysis of children's use of scripts in iole play in a nurs-ery school.

*Correspondence and requests for reprints should be addressed to William A. Corsaro, Depart-ment of Sociology, Indiana university, Bloomington, IN 4740s.

I

2 CORSARO

CICOUREL'S INTERACTM MODEL: THE ROLE OF SOCIALSTRUCTURE IN THE STUDY OF DISCOURSE

According to Cicourel, discourse involves several levels of information and more

than one type of logical reasoning.' Regarding logical reasoning, Cicourel ar-

gues that discourse models which rely primarily on references to autonomous

syntactic, turn-taking, or macro-level text or story grammar rules "must be un-

derstood as aspects of a general processing system that reflects on and interacts

with information from a local communicative context" (1978, p- 26).[n short,

Cicourel argues that the importance of formal structures of discourse is contin-

gent on the local conditions of interaction in the assignment of semantic signifi-

cance to what is said in specific discourse events. In his interactive model,

Cicourel builds on Pierce's classic notion of abduction. Cicourel describes an

abductive form of reasoning to demonstrate how autonomous rules (deductive

hypotheses) are affected by local features of the interactive setting, discovered

inductively via extensive analysis of naturally occurring discourse and related

ethnographic data.Abductive reasoning is also important for the integration of multiple levels of

information in discourse p(rcesses. Although discourse can be understood at

many different levels of analysis, most approaches to discourse rely on top-down

or bottom-up models. As Cicourel has argued, top-down models generally in-

volve references to higher order predicates that index constituent parts of the dis-

course such as general goals, beliefs, events, procedures, etc., or general rela-

tionships which exist between speakers (e.g., superordinate-subordinate

alignments). Bottom-up models, on the other hand, are characterized by a focus

on lower levels of abstraction like syntactic structure, propositional content ofsyntactic strings, turn-taking procedures, etc., with little reference given to status

characteristics of participants or organizational features of interactive settings. In

actual discourse, however, participants often make use of several levels of infor-

mation at once. Additionally, Cicourel maintains that researchers must also rely

on their tacit knowledge of social structure, as well as emergent features of inter-

active settings, in the analysis ofdiscourse which go beyond the level ofabstrac-

tion addressed in a given model. Therefore, Cicourel argues that an interactive

model of discourse must address abductive reasoning and cognitive processes

participants use in articulating various levels of information in actual discourse

events.In Cicourel's view, concepts like schema or scripts are useful because they

can be seen as forming a framework for processing incoming discourse. For ex-

ample, Schank and Abelson define "script" as "a structure that describes appro-

priate sequences of events in a particular context. A script is made up of slots and

rI have presented a detailed review of Cicourel's recent work elsewhere (Corsaro, l98l). In this

context, I will examine fearures of his interactive model which have direct bearing on the integration

of concepts from cognitive science with other theoretical approaches to discourse processes.

SCRIPT RECOG}'TNON. .\TT]

requirements about whal can frIlticular script can be used as biland for anticipating the dirwtilmay proceed. Cicourel t l9t0l rappropriateness of various scrqarticulate this knowledge siilCicourel's notion of abducti\E t

first problem of approprtaterns$esis that would choose amoog s(1978, p. 28).This hypotresk-stances more specificalll' as t sct

and participating in ongoing dition, until its usefulness dirrm

textualization-see Gumpea. I I

other interactants, durine nticbuated, until mutual un&rstamdfi

process. To determine holr; iilcontextualize, higher or&r cusearchers must carefulll- er^mievents, which are ernbeddsd i!field observation (see CicfiIrcl.

Below I examine (a) hon'chpeer play, and (b) ho*' ecyongong interactive events. Hot{cuss a recent report ( l.ielsoo 6scripts to the issue of egoccm

SHARED SCRIPTS AND E

The debate regarding egoffifoHjertholm, 1968; Piaget. 195,times, confusing one. The chfficentric is often a rnatter of 4phasized the social nature of dschool children's speech inErvin-Tripp & Mitchell-Keruchildren's abiliry to ininae mdcently, Nelson & Gruendel I lSknowledge of basic turn-t-l"rqgterances, peer play is often cbspeech. To explain the exisncaschool children, Nelson and Gronly on children's knowlodgr c

SCRIPT RECOGN]TION, ARTICI.JLATION AND EXPANSION IN ROLE PLAY 3

rcquirements about what can fill those slots" (1977, p. 4l). Knowledge of a par-ticular script can be used as background for both interpreting present discourseand for anticipating the direction (i.e., steps orphases) in which the discoursemay proceed. Cicourel (1980) raises the issue of how interactants recognize theappropriateness of various scripts for use in ongoing discourse, and of how theyarticulate this knowledge with specific features of the interactive setting.Cicourel's notion of abductive reasoning implies that interactants deal with thefirst problem of appropriateness by "first stating and then reflecting on a hypoth-esis that would choose among several possible explanations of some set of facts"(1978, p. 28). This hypothesis, which can be seen as a schema and in some in-stances more specifically as a script, is then employed as a means for interpretingand participating in ongoing discourse, with possible modification or elabora-tion, until its usefulness diminishes. The problem of articulation (or con-textualization-see Gumperz, 1976,1978) of the script requires negotiation withother interactants, during which various schema or scripts are proposed and eval-uated, until mutual understanding is achieved and signalled in the interactiveprocess. To determine how interactants recognize the appropriateness of, andcontextualize, higher order concepts like schema or scripts in discourse, re-searchers must carefully examine audio (or preferably video) taped discourseevents, which are embedded in ethnographic materials collected by extensivefield observation (see Cicourel, 1980).

Below I examine (a) how children recognize the appropriateness of scripts inpeer play, and (b) how they articulate script information which features ofongong interactive events. However, before I present that analysis, I want to dis-cuss a recent report (Nelson & Gruendel, 1979) which ties children's use ofscripts to the issue of egocentrism in children's speech.

SHARED SCRIPTS AND EGOCENTRISM IN CHILDREN'S SPEECH

The debate regarding egocentrism in children's speech (cf., Kholberg, Yeager &Hjertholm, 1968; Piaget, 1926,1962; Vygotsky, 1962) has been a long and, attimes, confusing one. The characterization of children's speech as social or ego-centric is often a matter of emphasis and interpretation. Recent research has em-phasized the social nature of children's language. For example, studies of pre-school children's speech in peer play (Cook-Gumperz & Corsaro 1977;Ervin-Tripp & Mitchell-Kernan, 1977; Scheffelin, 1976) have demonstratedchildren's ability to initiate and maintain social exchanges. However, more re-cently, Nelson & Gruendel (1979) have argued that, although children do displayknowledge of basic turn-taking rules and often produce mutually responsive ut-terances, peer play is often characterized by sequences of noncommunicativespeech. To explain the existence of noncommunicative exchanges among pre-school children, Nelson and Gruendel maintain that it is necessary to focus notonly on children's knowledge of conversational structure, but also on their sub-

4 CORSARO

stantive knowledge of the social world. Therefore, they employ Schank and

Abelson's notion of script and argue that, when both knowledge of conversa-

tional structure (initiation routines, turn-taking rules, etc.) and content knowl-

edge (social scripts) "are shared by young participants in a language situation,

dialogue may be expected to occur" (1979,p.75). Nelson and Gruendel present

analyses of several peer conversations to support their claim. The analyses gener-

ally demonstrate that, where there is shared context (i.e., shared knowledge ofsocial scripts), dialogue occurred; where shared context was absent, the chil-

dren's speech appeared egocentric. Nelson and Gruendel's analysis is interesting

and demonstrates the importance of shared scripts for topic maintenance in con-

versation. However, their analysis does not always address how knowledge ofdiscourse rules and social scripts interact in ongoing interaction. There is not spe-

cific discussion ofhow children recognize the appropriateness ofvarious scripts,

nor of how they articulate appropriate scripts with specific features of interactive

scenes. Additionally, Nelson and Gruendel work with a topic based notion ofverbal dialogue that is based on adult conversational events rather than children'splay. As a result, their analysis is often overly adult-oriented. That is, sequences

of interaction which look (or sound) like adult conversation are characterized as

dialogue, and those that do not are labelled egocentric.

To investigate how children recognize the appropriateness of scripts and artic-

ulate appropriate scripts to ongoing peer activities, it is necessary to examine re-

corded interactive materials which are embedded in longer episodes of peer play.

It is also necessary to collect and examine background ethnographic data on both

the participants and features ofthe interactive sefting. I now turn to such an anal-

ysis.

CHILDREN'S USE OF SCRIPTS IN ROLE PLAY

The data for the following analysis were collected during a year long micro-

ethnography of peer interaction in a nursery school (see Cook-Gumperz &Corsaro, 1977; Corsaro, in press, for further details regarding field entry and data

collection procedures). The videotaped interactive episodes selected for analysis

are representative of typical peer activities which occurred in the nursery school.

Script Appropriateness and Articulation in Children's Role Plat'

As I noted earlier in my review of Cicourel's interactive model, actors' use ofscripted information depends upon prior abductive reasoning processes. In

recognizing the appropriateness of scripts and other higher order predicates,

interactants first make note of and organize local features of interactive scenes,

2In this paper, I examine children's articulation, enactment, and expansion of scripts in role play.

In a later report, I will build on this discussion by focusing on the children's creation of action-bound

scripts in spontaneous fantasY.

SCRIPT RECOG}{ITIO\ . .\RT'C

including physical -env ironnnentelnature of ongoing interacuoo- Tbased on past experiences * hr** ;

essing of this information resulcE :

several possible interpretarions uinstances, this hypothesis rnal txsequences of behavior. The etlamong interactants, during u"hichThe proposed script is then er"alu,r

signalled. These "sizing up" aodplished and taken for granted bf iand comprehension of discourscschool children's recognition of r

scripts with play activities \r erE o{

lated to features of the social-ecol& Corsaro , 1977).

Some areas of the schorrl cmtional tools, etc.) which could ce

the children carried into the area cnormally occurs there. The link-gtations resulted in the childreu's(e.g., cooking, cleaning. and c,hilside yard; police chasing and }octwith various types of role plal'" '

involved the use of announcerrs,rto the fire," "Let's clean the htrment on a particular script rerylrrlected, articulated, and enactod &points in play episodes.

In one type of role pla1.. fire &ateness and script articulation rEateness was cued by the presermB ,

fire hats, hose,and ladden r. ThEward because fire fighting inuolrrowas composed of thrce required 1

fire, and (c) returning to tlre firEttional fourth phase of cleaning. sc

of the script and initiation of rhcaccomplished by nonverbal bEbothats) and verbal announcememfiretruckr" "We're on our r"al l

script, the children either n"alkaOnce the children reachd ec dr

SCRIPT RECOGNITION, ARTICULATION AND EXPANSION IN ROLE PLAY 5

including physical-environmental cues, characteristics of participants, and thenature of ongoing interaction. These features are then linked to expectationsbased on past experiences which actors bring to the interactive scene. The proc-essing of this information results in the generation of a hypothesis selected fromseveral possible interpretations to explain or frame the local features. In someinstances, this hypothesis may be a specific script which describes appropriatesequences of behavior. The articulation of scripts often involves negotiationamong interactants, during which one or several scripts are verbally referenced.The proposed script is then evaluated until mutual understanding is achieved andsignalled. These "sizing up" and articulation processes are often quickly accom-plished and taken for granted by adults when utilizing scripts for the productionand comprehension of discourse and text. However, we found that the nurseryschool children's recognition of script appropriateness and their articulation ofscripts with play activities were often complex processes which were directly re-lated to features of the social-ecological areas of the school (see Cook-Gumperz& Corsaro , L977).

Some areas of the school contained props (e.g., furniture, clothes, occupa-tional tools, etc.) which could easily be linked to the accustomed expectationsthe children carried into the area concerning the type and nature of activity whichnorrnally occurs there. The linkage of ecological features and accustomed expec-tations resulted in the children's recognition of clusters of appropriate scripts(e.g., cookirg, cleaning, and child care in the playhouse; fire fighting in the out-side Yard; police chasing and locking up robbers in the climbing bars) associatedwith various types of role play. The articulation of scripts in these areas ofteninvolved the use of announcements and tag questions (e.g., "We're on our wayto the fire," "Let's clean the house now, Ok?"). In some cases, mutual agree-ment on a particular script required some negotiation, but once scripts were se-lected, articulated, and enacted they were often recycled several times at variouspoints in play episodes.

In one type of role play, fire fighting, both the recognition of script appropri-ateness and script articulation were accomplished quickly and easily. Appropri-ateness was cued by the presence and children's use of highly salient props (e .8.,fire hats, hose,and ladders). The articulation process was generally straightfor-ward because fire fighting involved the enactment of one basic script. The scriptwas composed of three required phases: (a) going to the fire, (b) putting out thefire, and (c) returning to the firetruck and/or fire station. There was also an op-tional fourth phase of cleaning, servicing, and arranging equipment. Articulationof the script and initiation of the first phase (i.e., going to the fire) were oftenaccomplished by nonverbal behavior (e.g., gathering equipment, putting on firehats) and verbal announcements ("Look the bars are on fire," "Start thefiretruck," "We're on our way to the fire," etc.). In this initial phase of thescript, the children either walked to the fire or pretended to drive a firetruck.Once the children reached the designated area, phase two began. The children

6 coRsARo

extinguished the fire by using their hoses and, in some instances, shovels andpretend axes (shovels used in a chopping manner). The end of phase two and theinitiation of phase three were often signaled by verbal announcements (e.g.,"Fire's out," "Good job, men," "Back to the truck"). Phase three generallyfollowed these announcements and the children moved back to the firetruck and

station. In some cases, however, re-cycling occurred and the children proceededto a new fire before phase three. A final, optional sequence was also signalled bynonverbal actions or announcements. This phase involved the care and servicingof equipment. For example, the children would hang their hoses on a rack, returnthe ladders and shovels to designated areas, and service the fire truck. However,this phase was frequently omitted and the children immediately re-cycled the ba-sic script. In other instances the script was terminated and the children merelytossed the equipment near where it was stored and moved out of the play area andjoined other activities in the school.

The children's fire fighting role play demonstrates the importance of shared

knowledge of a basic script for the production of concerted activity. Thecoordination of fire fighting episodes was especially impressive given the factthey often involved four or more participants. however, the fire fighting episodesseldom involved sequences of sustained dialogue. This finding seems to raiseproblems for some of the predictions of Nelson and Gruendel (1979), since theylinked the presence of shared scripts in children's play to the production of dia-logue. The problem here is that the emergence ofdialogue depends not only onshared scripts and conversational skills but also on the nature ofplay. Fire fight-ing is action oriented. In this type of role play, the children primarily do things(e.g., go to the fire, put out the fire, etc.) together, in an organized fashion, withdifferent children performing different tasks. But although the play activity wascoordinated, it was seldom interpersonal. As a result, sustained dialogue rarelyoccurred.

It is in family role play, which is based on interpersonal relationships andprocesses, that dialogue is most likely to emerge. Family role play occurred fre-quently in the nursery school and involved the enactment of a large number ofscripts (see Corsaro, 1979). Family role play occurred primarily in the playhousearea of the nursery school. This area contained upper and lower apartments withphysical dimensions scaled to the size of the children. The apartments containedhighly salient props, including beds, dressers, mirrors, tables and chairs, tele-phones, and ovens. As a result, the children had few problems in recognizing theappropriateness of shared scripts regarding typical family activities. However,since the children could select from a wide range of appropriate scripts3, the ar-ticulation of scripts in family role play often involved more verbal negotiation

3The following scripts were enacted in videotaped episodes of family role play in the nurseryschool: child care and discipline, pet care and discipline, telephoning, cooking, cleaning, eatingmeals, shopping, taking a trip, sleeping/napping, dressing up, visiting friends, and making clothes.Garvey (1977a) also found that children enacted a wide range of themes or scripts in family role play.

SCRTPT RECOG\TNON. ATTI

than was the case in other t)?E$initial sequence of a loog epfuo

Example 1.

In this episode. a hlt (8.tered the upstain plaltoust t

cated the roles of hustrrcd rgoing upstairs. Thel' also rrrtending to be kinies rn fuupstairs, B referred to C dnegotiation bet'r*'een B "md R,

of the kinies. \'iderrtaptmg hanalysis with the first ael,&hfl

(2)

(3)

(l)

(4)

(e)

(t0)

Transcripnon

B-R: I told-I told our kiroqF

R-B: This is the $'alh.B-R: Hey, I told-ah-uru-tr to&f

little<ur kitties w i

from-from our [nFi orr I

R-B: Open this.

B-R: I can't. I'm too t!rEd..

B-R: Kitties are plalrngr @ frbackyard. right I

R-B: Yeatr.

R-B: They pla-l' dosn &etr u

backyard.

B-R: With our fri€ds. nEillour friends. nght l

R-B: Call our friends.

(s)(6)

(7)(8)

aThe following symbls are ru'..sed a( ) Words inside palt@iffi

translations.

- -Denotes pausci' !s Wintemrpted.

Underlining denrmcs &r

SCRIPT RECOGNITION, ARTICULATION AND EXPANSION IN ROLE PLAY 7

than was the case in other types of play. Consider the following example of the

initial sequence of a long episode of family role play.

Example 1.

In this episode, a boy (B, age 4.2) and a girl (R, age 3.9) have just en-

tered the upstairs playhouse carrying suitcases and purses. They have allo-

cated the roles of husband and wife as they gathered the materials before

going upstairs. They also saw two boys, C (age 3.8) and D (age 3.8), pr€-

tending to be kitties in front of the downstairs playhouse. As they moved

upstairs, B referred to C and D as "our kitties," but there was no formal

negotiation between B and R or among B, R, C, and D regarding the status

of the kitties. Videotaping began as B and R arrived upstairs. I begin the

analysis with the first audible utterance.o

(2)(3)

(1)

(4)

(e)

(10)

Transcription

B-R: I told-I told our kitties-

R-B: This is the wallet.B-R: Hey, I told-ah-um-I told our

little<ur kitties come back

from-from our trip. Our kitties.R-B: Open this.

B-R: I can't. I'm too tired.B-R: Kitties are playing in the

backyard, right?R-B: Yeah.

R-B: They play down there in the

backyard.B-R: With our friends, right? With

our friends, right?R-B: Call our friends.

Description

B and R are in playhouse. R is kneeling on

floor in front of B trying to open a purse.

R is referring to wallet she has removedfrom a purse.

B gestures, waving lum downward.

R points down to C and D in front of the

downstairs playhouse as she says this.

B walks over near toy telephone after R'sutterance. However, he stops abruptly and

then moves near the bed, where he stacks

clothes and other objects. R meanwhilereturns her attention to opening the wallet.B now places a baby crib in front of bed,

blocking off this area of the playhouse.

(s)(6)

(7)(8)

aThe following symbols are used in transcripts throughout the report:( ) Words inside parenthesis were not clearly heard and should be regarded as probable

translations.

- -Denotes pauses in speech. At the end of an utterance signifies the speaker has been

intemrpted.Underlining denotes that particular words or phrases were stressed.

8

(r 1) B-R:

CORSAROSCRIPT RECOG\TT]-{f'N .dN.T]

At line t9t. B firoducrs rkqq

trnends. There \r"ere o&er rfuldr,E

be seen as a $'a)' of cuemg R s0 rrng *'ith friends l. R rakes rr5! muve of telephoning tnemtrs B rctto'*'ard the telephone . Ho'n'6:t-q6'

near the bed. and eventualn\ $sE

actions at ( 1 1 ). ( 13 l. and r $r "

fourth possible script. sleepgng u

suggestion. but the sleepl.ng scnarrival of the kinies at t 14 r

Although there is stur'-I'*kirqquence, it is clear that the cfuIdrtHowever, this sequence reusf, Er(

isolation, it might be characteriz

the sequence in terms of the intschildren have proposed four s€ri

episode. Let's look at t$'o additinteraction in Example l. that inappear in family role pla) .

Example 2.

Transcription

(24)C-RB: We're the kittl' famitry

(25)R-CD: Here, kitty-kitt1'. Here.

kitty!(26) R-B: Yeah, here's our r*o k(27) B-C: Kitty, you can't corr I

room.(28) R-D: Here, do-do.

(29) B-C: No! No!

(30)B-CD: Go on! Get dou"n rn &backyard !

(31)R-CD: Get down in the brc$ztwo you two cats l

(32) R-D: Go down! Do''*'nl Do'r"

(tZ) R-B: Right.(13) B-R: We'll block this up.(14) R-B: Here-here's a-

This is our little room, right? B is referring to the area where the bed islocated. He seems to be referring to thisarea as a bedroom.

R is standing and offers a purse to B. Btakes purse from R and places it near bed.

R picks up a spoon from the floor and places

it on table in center of the room

B places another purse on the bed.

R and B move into the blocked off area.

R is holding a doll. At this point, C and Denter playhouse and R turns to look at them.

C and D are crawling and "meowing."

(ls) R-B:

(16) B-R:(17) B-R:(18) R-B:(19) B-R:(20) B-R:(2t) R-B:(22) B-R:

Don't leave this. This is ourmixer, right?Right.Put this here.

Here I'll go up.

I'll go asleep.

This is our special room, right?Right.This is our little room, we sleep B is now sitting on the bed.

in, right?(23) R-B: Our little room. Our-

(24)C-RB: We're the kitty family.

In this initial sequence, the children attempt to articulate an appropriate scriptby references to several objects by way of announcements and tag questions. Inthe initial exchanges (lines 1-8), B attempts to negotiate a shared meaning withR regarding the status of the kitties. At (l), B repeats the earlier claim on the

kitties ("our kitties") that he made prior to their arrival upstairs, and at (3) he

informs R that he told the kitties about returning from a trip. I did not observe B'sinforming the kitties of any such trip before he and R went upstairs. It appears

that B is anticipating that the kitties will come upstairs. Therefore, B's initialutterances can be seen as attempts to cue R to the possibility of a script involvingthe care and discipline of the kitties should they enter the playhouse. As we shall

see shortly, this script is indeed enacted when the kitties arrive.R does not initially respond to B's references to the kitties, since she is busy

trying to open the wallet. B returns to a discussion of the kitties (6), and his utter-ance here is important in several respects. First, he notes that the kitties are in the

backyard. This reference does more than merely locate the kitties. The play-houses do not have backyards; B is creating one by describing the area in front ofthe downstairs as such. Therefore, he is again making a claim of ownership on

the kiuies (our kitties----our backyard). B is relying on background knowledge he

assumes R shares with him. Secondly, B has switched from the declarative to the

interrogative, employing a "tag question. " In so doing, he obliges R to respond

to his claim on the kitties rather than to continue fussing with the wallet. Thisstrategy is successful in that R confirms and repeats B's claim on the kitties at (7)

and (8).

SCRIPT RECOGNITION, ARTICULATION AND EXPANSION IN ROLE PLAY

At line (9), B produces additional tag questions, introducing a reference tofriends. There were other children near the kitties, and B's reference here couldbe seen as a way of cueing R to the possibility of an alternative script (i.e., visit-ing with friends).R takes up on this at (11) by suggesting a third script alterna-tive of telephoning friends. B seems close to initiating this script when he walkstoward the telephone. However, he abruptly stops and begins moving objectsnear the bed, and eventually constructs a separate bedroom. He tells R of theseactions at (11), (13), and (20). After R's confirmation at (21), B proposes afourth possible script, sleeping in the bedroom. R seems about to take up on thissuggestion, but the sleeping script stops just short of articulation because of thearrival of the kitties at (24)

Although there is turn-taking and contingent responding in this initial se-quence, it is clear that the children have not yet articulated an agreed upon script.However, this sequence must not be judged in isolation. If it were analyzed inisolation, it might be characterrzed as egocentric conversation. We must analyzethe sequence in terms of the interactional work which is accomplished here. Thechildren have proposed four scripts which were all enacted at later points in theepisode. Let's look at two additional sequences, which occurred right after theinteraction in Example 1, that involved the enactment of two scripts which oftenappear in family role play

Example 2.

Transcription

(24)C-RB: We're the kitty family.

Description

C and D are pretending to be kitties andhave crawled up the steps to the playhouse.They now crawl around playhouse,meowing.C and D crawl near R and continuemeowing. R pets C and D.

C crawls near bed as D knocks somethingfrom the table.D scratches at R as C crawls into theblocked-off area.

C leaves area and crawls to stairs with Dfollowing.

C begins crawling down the stairs. Dfollows but them hesitates at top of thestairs. R is standing behind D.

(ZI)R-CD:

(26) R-B:(27) B-C:

(28) R-D:

(2e) B-C:

(30)B-CD:

(31)R-CD:

(32) R-D:

Here, kitty-kitty. Here, kitty-kitty!Yeah, here's our two kitties.Kitty, you can't come in thisroom.Here, do-do.

No! No!

Go on! Get down in thebackyard !

Get down in the backyard, youtwo you two cats !

Go down! Down! Down!

10 CORSARO

(33)D-RB: No, I'm the kitty. I'm the B has joined R at the top of the stairs.

kittY.(34) R-D: Go! RRR-(35) B-D: Go! Back.(36) R-D: RRR-RRR(37) B-D: Go back in the backYard'

(38) R-D: I:i

get in the backYard' Ya!

(39) B-D: Chow. Chow. Go'

(40) R-D: Go-go! Chow.

(41) B-D: Go in the backYard, we're

busY !

(42) R-B: TheY was,-rough on us'

man. HandY man.

(46) B-R: Next.

(53) B-R: Year, that's new. Very new'

That's -(54) R-B: That's-that needs moPPing,

right?(55) B-R: Yeah.

(56)B-CD: HeY, down kitties!

(57)R-CD: Ra! Ra! Scat! Scat!

D starts down stairs.

D is now downstairs with C.

B has moved to front of playhouse and is

looking down at D and C. R is standing

behind B.R moves away from front of playhouse

toward bed.

SCRIPT RECOGNITION. .\RTT

(c) discipline of the pet(s). tn tucurs after warnings from the mmthe present example, the pet kittithe "kitty family" for the purpurarely speak again, since kitties ation, the children readily fall imc

endearing tone (25) and she pets tB at (26) is interesting because it t

on them (Example 1, lines l. 3, trthe pet care and discipline scripr

discussion. The script enztctilreDl '

be seen as an invitation or cue fo(i.e., pet misbehavior) in that itmisbehavior. C immediatel-v PtGumperz & Gumperz, 1976) ar

blocked-off area. Simultaneous,b

result is the movement to the thit

expulsion from the playhouse t 3

probably common in famill- intcris interesting in this regard. Sh i

discipline, but that they \r'ere e!

It is clear from the analy'sis ofactions (i.e., claims on the kittic:set the stage, So to speak. for 6sThe data suggest that the organiivolves the production of referemple 1) and script articulation and

In the second sequence in Eriact a housecleaning script, ni& c

distincions (e.g., B as husbaxl n

ical labor). The children quicklydoing in this sequence. First. B o

ing the furniture as he describc$

stands with her own use of decl

man to have around" (4_5-+9t" (

notice the floor needs mopping tlphase of the cleaning script- Tllater. However, the cleaning is d

the house (55).

Upon first inspection. fte rseems entirely based on shared Iand unrelated to the prer"iotrs irrcorrect. In the initial sequeme {l

(43) B-R: Let's clean the place. Let',s- B now. picks up the table and begins to

move tt.

(44) B-R: Be careful, I,m gonna move B now puts down the table and pushes the

our table. stove near the head of the stairs '

(45) R-B: Good Bill. you're a handy R sings the last part of this utterance'

B now pushes the table he moved earlier

behind the stove.

(47) R-B: Bill! Bill!(48) B-R: What?(49) R-B: You're a strong man'

(50) B-R: I know it. I just moved this'

(51) R-B: Yeah.(52) R-B: ( ) scraped the floor. oh. Both R and B move near head of stairs and

then look back at area B cleared when he

moved the furniture. R produces this

utterance as she points to the floor in that

area.

C and D now begin crawling up the stairs

and B tries to shoo them back down'

R and B now chase kitties down into the

backyard.

In the first part of this sequen ce (2M2) the children articulate and enact a

script I shall refer to as "pet care and discipline. " The script, which appeared

quite frequently in family iole play in the nursery school, involves three phases:

(a) notice of and affectionate behavior toward the pet(s), (b) pet misbehavior, and

SCRIPT RECOGNITION, ARTICULATION AND EXPANSION IN ROLE PLAY 11

(c) discipline of the pet(s). In the second phase, the pet's misbehavior often oc-curs afiter warnings from the master not to engage in some specified behavior. Inthe present example, the pet kitties enter (24) and C identifies D and himself as

the "kitty family" for the purposes of initiation. After this utterance, the kittiesrarely speak again, since kitties are only supposed to meow. After this identifica-tion, the children readily fall into scripted behavior. R calls for the kitties in anendearing tone (25) and she pets them when they crawl near her. R's statement toB at(26) is interesting because it ties the anival of the kitties to B's earlier claimson them (Example 1 , lines I , 3 , and 6). The ease of articulation and enactment ofthe pet care and discipline script at this point in time is facilitated by the earlierdiscussion. The script enactment continues with B's statement at(26), which canbe seen as an invitation or cue for movement into the second phase of the script(i.e., pet misbehavior) in that it is a warning which calls attention to possiblemisbehavior. C immediately picks up on this contextualization cue (Cook-Gumperz & Gumperz, 1976) and purposely misbehaves by crawling into theblocked-off area. Simultaneously, D also misbehaves by scratching R. The endresult is the movement to the third phase of the script, which involves the pets'expulsion from the playhouse (3942). The discipline of pets in this manner isprobably common in family interaction in real life settings. R's comment at (42)is interesting in this regard. She implies that she expected the kitties to resist thediscipline, but that they were especially difficult in this instance.

It is clear from the analysis of this sequence that the children's earlier talk andactions (i.e., claims on the kitties and the blocking off of the special room) haveset the stage, so to speak, for the later enactment of appropriate domestic scripts.The data suggest that the organization or chunking of sequences of behavior in-volves the production of references to various scripts at one point in time (Exam-ple 1) and script articulation and enactrnent at alatpr point in time (Example 2).

In the second sequence in Example 2 (43-56), the children articulate and en-act a housecleaning script, with each child performing duties in line with sex roledistincions (e.9., B as husband moves furniture while R as wife praises his phys-ical labor). The children quickly arrive at a shared understanding of what they aredoing in this sequence. First, B offers a suggestion, then simply goes about mov-ing the furniture as he describes what he is doing (4346). R shows she under-stands with her own use of declaratives, noting that B is a "strong and handyman to have around" (4549). Once the furniture is cleared away, the childrennotice the floor needs mopping (52,53), an activity which can be seen as the nextphase of the cleaning script. This script is eventually completed a short timelater. However, the cleaning is delayed because of the kitties' attempt to re-enterthe house (55).

Upon first inspection, the articulation and enactment of the cleaning scriptseems entirely based on shared knowledge the children brought to the play area,and unrelated to the previous interaction. However, such an interpretation is in-correct. In the initial sequence (Example l) ofthis episode, B spent a good deal

L2 CORSARO

of time moving objects and arranging the furniture. At one point he even createda "special room" (Example l,10-23). Again we see that later script articulationand enactment is tied to previous actions and references to various domestic ac-tivities.

The above episode of family role play continued for a lengthy period of timeduring which additional children became involved, three new scripts(telephoning, cooking, and shopping) were enacted, and three of the five totalscripts were re-cycled. It is evident from these data that shared scripts are impor-tant in the organization of peer interaction. However, it is also clear that scriptenactrnent is dependent upon the children's recognition of script appropriatenessand their ability to articulate the abstract knowledge of appropriate scripts withlocal features of the interactive scene.

Script Expansion and Self Presentation in Role Play.

To this point I have argued that children's use of script information in roleplay is dependent on the children's prior use of abductive reasoning abilities. Inmy analysis I found that the children's recognition, articulation, and enactmentof appropriate scripts often resulted in the production of extended sequences ofdialogue. Further, in line with Nelson and Gruendel (1979), the children's use ofscripts did, at times, help them extend their conversations beyond the immediatecontext. However, even in these instances, the children's dialogues still seemedquite different from much of adult discourse.

In role play children are enacting what are basically instrumental scripts fromthe adult world. Adults do, of course, use language in many situations to getthings done, and on these occasions scripts are important for saying and doingthe right things at the right times (e.g., ordering a meal, asking for the check,etc., in a restaurant). However, a great deal of adult discourse is not instrumentalin the sense of accomplishing specific goals, but is rather performance oriented.It is clear from Goffman's (see especially 1974, pp.496-560) work that much ofadult discourse involves self-presentations in which the participants tell stories orjokes, gossip, reminisce, etc. In informal talk of this type, adults also rely onscripts, but not as guides for what to say and when to say it. Instead, scripts oftenserve as background information for the p.resentation and comprehension of ver-bal performances. Furthermore, in many instances the relevance (see van Dijk,1979) of a verbal performance (story, joke, etc.) in adult discourse can bemarked by the non-occurrence of an expected sequence or sequences of a sharedscript (see Sacks, 1974, 1978). In short, much of adult discourse is directly re-lated to selfpresentation and goes beyond the enactment of, or talk about, sharedscripts.

Having noted apparent differences between children's enactrnent of role playscripts and informal adult discourse, a basic question arises. Would a carefulanalysis of children's role play reveal dialogues which are similar to adult in-formal discourse? The answer to this question is a qualified no. What I found in a

SCRIPT RECOCNTNON. ARI

careful analysis of videotaped rr

data is that some of the childrE!sodes by inserting variants of ryT

riences. Script expansion of rhis

result in mutual understanding I

their insertions. That is. the cl

about the personal variant ad u

One episode from the ,Wconceptualization of children'sscript. A sequence from the cp

Example 3.

This sequence is drarr frlThe sequence occurred sbilhouse area where the)" had tNancy (N, age 3.9) s'as a o

Linda's (L, age 3.8) roh nuing the tamily role pla). fre r

script and a shopping scrryt"playing on a rocking troat r

Transcriprion

(l) B-R:

(2) R-B:(3) B-R:(4) N-R:

(s) R-N:(6) L:(7) N-R:(8) R_N:(9) N-R:

(10) R-N:rll) N-R:( l2) R-N:( l3) N-R:r l4) R-N:I l5 ) N-R:116) L:{17) N:

Know what? I'm grciqNancy's house toda,T.

You are?

Yeah.Yeah. Because mr r:lrrsaid that.

U-uh. For lunchlCome on!No, to see m)' babv"

To see your babl' brdYeah.

His name's Larn'lYes , L-arry JoeI-arry Joe

Joe

lt's a prett)' narrrSure. mv firorrrrnl sadhrt on the brake:Yeah. put oa &re brrkrnreans stop.

n

It

g

tt

il1.

)fE

onr-

\,E

dt-

d

ry

dt-a

SCRIPT RECOGNITION, ARTICULATION AND EXPANSION IN ROLE PLAY 13

careful analysis of videotaped role play episodes and background ethnographicdata is that some of the children did, &t times, attempt to expand role play epi-sodes by inserting variants of typical scripts which were based on personal expe-riences. Script expansion of this type was, however, not successful (i.e., did notresult in mutual understanding), due to the children's failure to contextualizetheir insertions. That is, the children failed to provide sufficient informationabout the personal variant and its relation to the more general scripted activity.

One episode from the data was of particular importance regarding theconceptualization of children's attempts to use personal variants of an ongoingscript. A sequence from the episode appears below.

Example 3

This sequence is drawn from an episode which lasted around 20 minutes.The sequence occurred shortly after the children had left an outside play-house area where they had engaged in family role play. During that play,Nancy (N, age 3.9) was a mother, Barbara (B, age 3.8) was a baby, andLinda's (L, age3.8) role was unclear. Linda seemed to be a big sister. Dur-ing the family role play, the children had enacted a child care and disciplinescript and a shopping script. This sequence begins with the three childrenplaying on a rocking boat while I (R : researcher) stand nearby.

Transcription

(l) B-R: Know what? I'm going toNancy's house today.

Description

R-B: You are?

B-R: Yeah.

N-R: Yeah. Because my mommysaid that.

(5) R-N: U-uh. For lunch?(6) L: Come on!(7) N-R: No, to see my baby.(8) R-N: To see your baby brother?(9) N-R: Yeah.

(10) R-N: His name's Larry?(l l) N-R: Yes , Larry Joe(12) R-N: Larry Joe

(13) N-R: Joe(14) R-N: It's a pretty name(15) N-R: Sure, my mommy said.(16) L: Put on the brakes.(17) N: Yeah, put on the brakes. That

means stop.

L begins to rock the boat faster.

L now tries to slow down the boat.

The children stop the boat and get off and

move nearby in the school yard and sit on

some mats. We pick up the interactionshortly thereafter, where a TV watchingscript is introduced.

(2)(3)(4)

t4

(42) N:

(43) N-L:

(M) L-N:(4s) N-L:(46) L-N:

CORSARO

(47) B: Whoa!

(48) R-B: You Ok?(49) B-R: MY bed.

(50) R-B: Your bed fell over.

(5l)B-NL: I gonna-I want to watch TV!(521 N-B: Ok.

Now we're watching-Hey,let's bring the TV over.

Here we go. Ah. Here's the

TV!Now look at Sanford.

What?Yeah, Sanford.

After she says ''watching,'' N gets up from

the mat and walks over to where a small

wooden box is siming.

N returns with the wooden box and places it

in front of the mat where L is sitting'

At this point B, who was behind the mats

pretending to sleep on a small table, looks

up to see the TV. This movement causes the

table to tiP over.B falls from table into a nearby wagon' She

is momentarilY uPset, but not hurt'

B now gets up and pushes table upright'

R, N, and L now all laugh at B's accident'

B now comes over and joins N and L'

N taps mat with right hand on spot where B

is to sit, and B sits down.

B pretends to change channel.

L pretends to switch channel. L sings in line

with the program's theme song as she says'

"Good Times. "

Pretends to turn channel.

Pretends to turn channel.

Pretends to change channel.

Changes channel.

Taps top of TV set. Then, after she says,

"last time," she seems to be thinking of

what to change it to.

L gets up and Picks uP the TV '

L tries to keep B from moving TV closer'

Changes channel. L now stands on top of

the TV. And then B and N also stand

up.

(53) L-N:(s4)B-NL:

(56)L-BN:

(57)N-LB:(58)B-NL:(5e)N-LB:(60)L-NB:

(61)B-LN:

(62)N-BL:

(63) L-N:

(64)B-NL:

(6s) N-B:(66) L-B:(67)N-BL:

I ( ) that.

I gonna turn it to Sesame

Street. There's Sesame Street.

I gonna turn it ( ). I wanna

see something besides-Iwanna see Good Times.

There's Good Times!

I want (Joe). Ding!And I want Electric ComPanY.

Now let's watch TV.And I wanna-I wanna see

Charlie Brown.

I wanna see the Electric

Company.No. Don't keeP turning it! Now

this is the last time. One more

time for me to do it. The last

time.Someone. Someone turned

over the TV.I want to-I want Charlie

Brownok-You're (putting it) too close.

Ok, we'll turn on Charlie

Brown.

SCRIPT RECOGNITION, ARTI

(68) B-N: I'm tired! Oh-

(69) L-N: Hey, Let's ju*p on th* h

(70) N-L:

(71) N-L:

(72) L-N:(73) N-L:

(74) N-L:

(7s) L-N:

TV.(76) N-L: Yeah, let's turn on the hr(77) L-N: Someone knocked dosr

TV(78) N-L:

(7e) N-L:

(80) L-N:

(81) N-L:

(82) L-N:(83) N-L:

(84) L-N:

(8s) L-N:

(86) N-L:(87) L-N:

Hey. Hey. L, wait. \*-e'lwatching TV here.This is the TV, right:l Aodup here, right?No!Right up here. Becausc rwatching our brottrer. nig

He's only a baby. So l-r,watch him on T\'. Ok?Cause we're at the tro{nRight?I'm gonna change--pretsomeone knocked donn t

Linda, don't kick it-Hslet's turn the brother m-H.y, there now the brffion. Look at your bah.Hey!

Quick. I'm gonna bring !TV. Move right here so

everyone can see it.Look.Yeah, but put those doqLinda.(Mattress). This our rnmYou wanna put'em in-I'll put thenr-l'll prt frirdown-Well, yeah, but-Look, put this--l can punow do the other si&.

ts

is

E

SCRIPT RECOGNITION, ARTICULATION AND EXPANSION IN ROLE PLAY 15

(68) B-N: I'm tired! Oh- After saying she's tired, B notices anotherchild in the swing set at the other end of theyard. B also notices that there is a vacantswing. She then runs off and joins the otherchild in the vacant swing. B does notverbally mark her departure and N and L donot comment on her leave-taking.L points to a bug on the ground in front ofthe TV. After saying this, L moves awayfrom mats to sit on some steps near therocking boat. N follows L, carrying the TV.N catches up with L and first places TVbehind and then in front of L.N tries to place TV on bottom step in frontof L.L pushes the TV away.L now gets a second box and places the TVon top of it. She then places the two boxesin front of where L is sitting. N then sitsnext to L.L seems to nod yes in agreement, and theypretend to watch the TV for a few seconds.L now gets up and moves toward TV.

L knocks over the TV.

N picks up TV and changes channel as Lmoves to rocking boat.

L notices that the mat on the rocking boat isloose.

N now brings two boxes over in front of Lwho is on the rocking boat.

L pulls up mats on boat and N turns to look.N is referring to mats and she moves.

N tries to put mats down.

(6e) L-N:

(84)

H"y, Irt's jump on that bug, N

Hey. Hey. L, wait. We'rewatching TV here.This is the TV, right? And rightup here, right?No!Right up here. Because we'rewatching our brother, right?He's only a baby. So kt'swatch him on TV, Ok?Cause we're at the hospital.Right?I'm gonna change-pretendsomeone knocked down thisTV.Yeah, let's turn on the brother.Someone knocked down theTVLinda, don't kick it-Hey,let's turn the brother on.Hey, there now the brother'son. Look at your baby.Hey!

Quick. I'm gonna bring theTV. Move right here so

everyone can see it.Look.Yeah, but put those downLinda.

rt.

(70) N-L:

(7r) N-L:

(72) L-N:(73) N-L:

Ere

ys,

lys 'of

Fer.pofI

iiti

i;flI

(74) N-L:

(7s) L-N:

(76) N-L:(77) L-N:

(78) N-L:

(7e) N-L:

(80) L-N:

(81) N-L:

(82) L-N:(83) N-L:

ll;'r.r. ; I I

tl;-..1',1,

;lli,1,i.i

jlii;'iiili,

llirri

'lrlli,ll

(8s)

L-N: (Mattress). This our mattress.You wanna put'em in-

L-N: I'll put thenr-I'll put this onedown-

N-L: Well, /€tlh, but-L-N: [,ook, put this-I can put. Ok

now do the other side.N puts all the mats down. L then moves tothe other side of the boat.

(86)(87)

16 CORSARO

(88) N-L: Hey, now let's-uh-I want to N sits on boat facing TV.(89) N-L: Nowyoulistentothebabynext N turns to face L as she says this.

to me, Linda.(90) N-L: You can listen to the baby next

to rne-(91) L-N: I wanna play store. I wanna L gets up from boat and moves toward a

play store. nearbY sandbox.

(92) N-L: Wetl, /'JJ watch the baby! There is now a minute or $o gaP while Npretends to watch the TV and L plays at

sandbox.

(93) N-L: Linda, when the baby's backfrom the hospital you can't see

the baby he's all covered up.

When I first summarized this episode before transcription, I was confused

about Nancy's references to her brother. I knew she was excited about her new

brother, and at that time I decided and recorded in my notes that Nancy wanted to

make her brother part of the pretend play by putting him on TV. However, when

I later transcribed the episode I decided there was something more than Nancy's

excitement about her new brother involved in this sequence.

Inspecting the transcript, we can see that Nancy first reported her brother'smiddle name (11) in response to my declaration of his first name (10). The TVscript was then inroduced by Nancy and the changing of channels began almost

immediately. Nancy first attempted to insert her brother (Joe) into the TV script

at line (57). She received no specific response to this attempt from the other chil-dren. After Barbara leaves (68), Nancy moves the TV, following Linda back

near the rocking boat. At this point there is a definite attempt by Nancy to insert

her brother into the ongoing TV script (73-93). Nancy now provides the addi-

tional information of being at the hospital, and her use of the modifiers "the"and "our" before brother (73,76,78,79) implies that they can now pretend that

the baby is both her and Linda's brother. With this exffa information, it appears

Nancy was trying to expand the TV script in terms of some personal experience.

Nancy persists in her attempt to add this personal variant even though Linda does

not respond. In fact, Linda proposes and begins to enact a new script ("playingstore") at 91. Nancy responds that then "she'll watch the baby alone" (92).

However, Nancy soon gave up on her attempt at script expansion. Linda retumed

from the sandbox with some food (sand pie) from her store, which she gave to

Nancy. From that point to the end of the episode, both Linda and Nancy made

items for sale in the store.Later, when I looked at the above sequence again, I was still confused about

why Nancy referenced the hospital in her attempt at script expansion. Therefore,I replayed the videotaped sequence for Nancy's mother. After the replay, I asked

her simply to interpret what she felt Nancy was trying to get across to the other

children. Nancy's mother not only confirmed my belief that Nancy wanted to

SCRTPT RECOGNTNON. ARTT

pretend her brother \*'as oo T\'. bhcr brother on W. The motber iEfu hospital and Nancy $'ils al}ilshort, Nancy was e'ing ro erpuand interesting incident from hErexperiences which are relarsd m I

contmon occurence in a&il[unsuccessful, because she did mother children to understand hEr

[n one sense, Nancl"s Harkand going beyond the role play eground ethnographic dara. I *"ag

Wrsorutl contribution. which u silcourse. Furttrer, Nanc-v dm romexperience and the ongoing Ltrcfin*'een personal experience aod dnance in discourse. On the o[hcrn'hat egocentric, becausc of bcr

I discovered several othcr rtPlnhich were quite similar no &e xryace to present them here. fu &pcrsonal experience thel' nrsb mvant to the script, theme . otr m1rc*re cognitive recognition rh*r &the contexrualization skill5 [o trrq

C(

In this report, I have b,riefiy rer*proc€sses and applied fu modcl rnnalysis it is clear thu knor ls,ts'dren's production and maiffs.q'l,nalysis also showed trat chddrcuinforrration, and articulare ryprqsffas5. The analysis frrrther dgmrscripa depends on both sostel-Gcrmternd stnrcture of various rob

Finally, the analysis of rfugraphic data also ld ro Sc drscoulepisdes by inserting persooal rrchildren lacked the conversilom.trsuggest that the children ae eryirse lf-expression. Overall. rhp r

rs.

toward a

r while Nplays at

confusedI her newwanted tover, whenr Nancy's

brother'sr. The TVEn almostTV scriptother chil-inda backy to insert; the addi-ers "the"retend thatil appears

rperience..inda does("playingne" (92).

la returnedhe gave tomcy made

used aboutTherefore,ay, I asked

o the otherwanted to

scRrpr REcocNITIoN, ARTIcULAfioN AND ExpANsIoN IN RoLE pLAy L7

pretend her brother was on TV, but also pointed out that Nancy had indeed seenher brother onTV. The mother informed me that Nancy's father had taken her tothe hospital and Nancy was allowed to see her new brother on a TV monitor. Inshort, Nancy was trying to expand the TV script by inserting this rather unusualand interesting incident from her personal experience. The insertion ofpersonalexperiences which are related to the ongoing theme or topic of conversation is acommon occurrence in adult discourse. However, Nancy's attempt wasunsuccessful, because she did not contextualize her insertion well enough for theother children to understand her intent.

In one sense, Nancy's behavior in this sequence can be seen as highly socialand going beyond the role play activity ofenacting typical scripts. Given back-ground ethnographic data, I was able to discover that Nancy wanted to make apersonal contribution, which is similar to adult self-presentations in informal dis-course. Further, Nancy does recognize the proper relation between her personalexperience and the ongoing interaction. This recognition of the relationship be-tween personal experience and the ongoing topic is essential for topic mainte-nance in discourse. on the other hand, Nancy's behavior can be seen as some-what egocentric, because of her failure to contextualize her insertion.

I discovered several other attempts at script expansion in children,s role playwhich were quite similar to the sequence in Example 3. Although I do not havespace to present them here, the data suggest that the children recognize that thepersonal experience they wish to bring into ongoing conversation must be rele-varlt to the script, theme, or topic. what preschool children still must develop isthe cognitive recognition that others do not necessarily share this knowledge, andthe contextualization skills to overcome this lack of shared understanding.

CONCLUSIONS

In this report, I have briefly reviewed cicourel's interactive model of discourseprocesses and applied the model to children's use of scripts in role play. From theanalysis it is clear that knowledge of shared scripts is important for young chil-dren's production and maintenance of peer interactive events. However, theanalysis also showed that children must recognize the appropriateness of scriptedinformation, and articulate appropriate scripts with local fiatures of interactivescenes. The analysis further demonstrated that the articulation and enactment ofscripts depends on both social-ecological features of play environments and theinternal structure of various role play activities.

Finally, the analysis of videotaped role play episodes and background ethno-graphic data also led to the discovery of children's attempts to expand interactiveegi_sodes by inserting personal variants of typical role play scripts. Although thechildren lacked the conversational skills to accomplishscript expansion, the datasuggest that the children are acquifing a sense ofthe potential ofconversation forself-expression. overall, the results demonstrate the value of micro-

18 CORSARO

ethnographies of children's play for theory generation in the area of childhood

socialization.

REFERENCES

Bobrow, D., & Collins, A. (Eds.) Representation and undersmnding: studies in cognitive science.

New York: Academic Press, 1975.

Cicourel, A. Discourse and text: Cognitive and linguistic processes in studies of social structure'

Versm: Quademi di Studi Semiotici, Sept.-Dec., 1975,33-84'

cicourel, A. Language and society: cognitive, cultural and linguistic aspects of language use.

Sozialwissenschaftliche Annalen, B^ld 2, seite B25-B58. Wien: Physica-verlag, 1978.

cicourel, A. Three models of discourse analysis. Discourse Processes, 1980' 3, 101-133.

cook-Gumperz, J., & Gumperz, J. Context in children's speech. In J. Cook-Gumperz & J. Gumperz

(Hs.),Papersonlanguageandcontext,lVorkingPaper*46'LarrgageBehaviorResearchLab-oratory, University of California, Berkeley, 1976'

Cook-Gumperz, J., & Corsaro, W. Social-ecological constraints on children's communicative strate-

gies. SociologY, 1977, 11, 411434.Corsaro, W. Young children's conception of status and role. Sociology of Education, 1979,52,

46-s9.Corsaro, W. Communicative processes in studies of social organization: Sociological approaches to

discourse analysis. Text, 1981, 1, 543.Corsaro, W. Entering the child's world: Strategies for field entry and data collection in prcschool

settings. In J. Green & C. Wallat (Els.), Ethnography and I'anguage in Educational Settings'

1981. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, in Press.

Ervin-Tripp, s., & Mitchell-Kernan, c. (Eds.), child Discourse. New York: Academic Prcss' 1977 .

Freedle, n., a u**, R. sociological approaches to dialoSue with suggested applications to cogni-

tive science. In R. Freedle (H.), New directions in discourse processes (Vol. 2). Norwood' NJ:

Ablex, 1979.

Garvey, C. Requests and responses in children's spe*h. Journal of child Langrmge, 1975, 2,

4r_63.Garvey, C. Play. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univenity Press' 1977(a)'

carvey, c. The contingent query: A dependent act in conversation. In M. lrwis & L. Rosenblum

(Hs.),Interaction, conversation, andtlw developmmt of language. New York: wiley' 1977(b).

Garvey, c., & Hogan, R. Social speech and social interaction: Egocentrism revisited. childDevel'

opment, 1973, 44, 562-568.Goffman , E. Frame aruilysis. New York: Harper & Row, 1974.

Gumperz, J. Language communication and public negotiation. In P'

the public interest. New York: Academic Press, 1976.

Sanday (Ed.) , AnthroPologY and

Gumperz, J. Sociocultural knowledge in conversational inference. To be

Round Table Monograph on Language and Linguistics. Georgetown

publishe d in 28th AnnualUniversity, Washington,

D.C., 1978.

Keenan, E. Conversational competence in children. tournal of Child language, 1974, 1, 163-83.

Keenan, E. Making it last: Repetition in children's discourse. In S. Ervin-Tripp & C. Mirchell-

Kernan (Eds.), Child discourse. New York: Macemic Press' 1977'

Keenan, E., & Schieffelin, B. Topic as a discourse notion: A study oftopic in the conversations of

children and adults. In C. Li (H.), Subiect atd. topic. New York: Academic Pless, 1976'

Kholberg, L., Yeager, J., & Hjertholm, E. Private speech: Four studies and a review of theories.

Child Developmen, 1968, 39, 691-:136.

Kintsch, W. The representation of meaning in memory. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associ-

atf,s, lyl4.-. Nelson, K., & Gruendel, J. At moming it's lunchtime: A scriptal view of children's dialogues. Dis-

course Processes, 1979, 2, 73-94.

SCRIPT RECOGNMON. ARTT

haget, l. Play, dreams and imitotion uRurnelhart, D. Notes on a schema fm srrt

understanding: Studies in cognitir'? rR.urnelhart, D., & Ortony, A. Represcr

\lontague (Eds.) , Schooling and du o

.A,ssociates, 1977.Srcks. H. An analysis of the coune of e:

rEds.), Explorations in the ethnogrqPtrress, 1974.

Suks. H. Some technical consideranmr oztion of conversatiorutl interactia" '

ift&ok. R., & Abelson, R. Scrrpts pltzrit ,.\sociates, 1977 .

T.wn. D. What's in a frame? Surfre c

-\rrl directions in discourse procct:se\"rswsk)'. L. Thought and language" C)

childhood

tive science.

nl stmcture.

ntutSe use.

1978.

r-133.I J. Gumperzcsearch Lab-

irtive strate-

i, 1979, 52,

ryproaches to

in preschool

rr,l Senings.

: hss, 1977 .

ims to cogni-{mtrood, NJ:

]Ee, 1975, 2,

L- RosenblumiLy, 1977(b).

. ChiA Devel-

)ryology and

t ZErt Annual, Washington,

14, l, 16!83.t C. Mitchell-

[versations ofttss, 1976.;r of theories.

fr.um Associ-

diel,ogues. Dis-

SCRIPT RECOGNITION, ARTICULATION AND EXPANSION IN ROLE PLAY 19

Piaget, J. Play, dreams and imitation in childhood. New York: Norton, 1962.R'umelhart, D. Notes on a schema for stories. In D. Bobrow & A. Collins (Eds.),Representation and

understanding: Studies in cognitive science. New York: Academic Press, 1975.Rumelhart, D., & Orton/, A. Representation of knowledge. In R. Anderson, R. Spiro, & W.

Montague (Eds.), Schooling and the acqusition of knowledge. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates, 1977 .

Sacks, H. An analysis of the course of a joke's telling in conversation. In J. Sherzer & R. Bauman(Eds.), Explorations in the ethnography of speaking. Cambridge MA: Cambridge UniversityPress, 1974.

Sacks, H. Some technical considerations of a dirty joke. In J. Schenkein (Ed.), Studies in the organi-zation of conversational interaction. New York: Academic Press, 1978.

Schank, R., & Abelson, R. Scrlpts plans goals andunderstandings. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates, 1977

Tannen, D. What's in a frame? Surface evidence for underlying expectations. In R. Freedle (Ed.),New directions in discourse processes (Vol. 2). Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 1979.

\rygotsky, L. Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1962.