Fantasy Narrative

A similar series of regression models was constructed to predict skill in fantasy narrative at five, assessing both our more specific hypothesis, that early experience with fantasy talk would best support later competence in fantasy narration, and our more general hypotheses, that early experience with nonpresent talk and early pragmatic flexibility would also support fantasy talk at five. These models are displayed in Table 10.6. For fantasy narrative, even though nonpresent talk explains a portion of the variation (R2 = 13%), pragmatic flexibility and gender seem to play a more important role. Indeed, 41% of the variance in fantasy narrative is explained when these two variables are added to the regression model (see Model 5). Model 5 is illustrated in Figure 10.2, where fantasy scores are plotted against nonpresent talk for girls and boys at high and low levels of pragmatic flexibility. This

TABLE 10.5

Regression Models Explaining Variance in Personal Narrative (PN) at 5 Years of Age (n = 32)

Pragmatic

Pragmatic Flexibility

Nonpresent Talk Fantasy Talk Flexibility Gender x Gender

TABLE 10.5

Regression Models Explaining Variance in Personal Narrative (PN) at 5 Years of Age (n = 32)

Pragmatic

Pragmatic Flexibility

Nonpresent Talk Fantasy Talk Flexibility Gender x Gender

Model

Pi

se (Pi)

Pi

se (Pi)

Pi

se (Pi)

Pi se (Pi)

Pi se (Pi)

dfe

R2 (adj.)

M1

46.63*

15.36

1.30

.23 (.21)

M2

1.47

8.40

1.30

.00 (-.03)

M3

48.40*

15.71

5.23

7.52

2.29

.25 (.20)

M4

43.65**

17.60

3.24

8.25

.12

.20

3.28

.25 (.18)

M5

39.75**

18.06

2.12

8.33

.16

.20

1.43 1.46

4.27

.28 (.18)

M6

37.27**

16.97

1.20

7.82

-1.08***

.59

-8.99*** 4.98

.75** .34

5.26

.39 (.28)

Figure 10.1 Predicted personal narrative score as a function of amount of Nonpresent talk for boys and girls at high (75th percentile) and low (25th percentile) levels of pragmatic flexibility.

figure demonstrates that the more nonpresent talk children produced at 20 months, the better fantasy narrators they tended to be at 5 years of age. In addition, the figure shows that girls tended to be better narrators of fantasy than boys, regardless of pragmatic flexibility. However, children with higher pragmatic flexibility produced better fantasy narratives than children of their same gender with lower pragmatic flexibility.

TABLE 10.6

Regression Models Explaining Variance in Fantasy Narrative (FAN) at 5 Years of Age (n = 32)

TABLE 10.6

Regression Models Explaining Variance in Fantasy Narrative (FAN) at 5 Years of Age (n = 32)

Nonpresent Talk

Fantasy Talk

Pragmatic Flexibility

Gender

Pragmatic Flexibility x Gender

Model

Pi

se (Pi)

Pi

se (Pi)

Pi se (Pi)

Pi

se (Pi)

Pi se (Pi)

dfe

R2 (adj.)

Ml

50.56**

24.04

1,30

.13 (.10)

M2

9.19

12.22

1.30

.02 (-.01)

M3

55.12**

24.22

13.47

11.60

2.29

.17 (.11)

M4

40.43

26.57

7.30

12.45

.38 .30

3.28

.21 (.13)

M5

24.67

24.09

2.79

11.12

.53*** .27

5.77*

1.95

4.27

.41 (.32)

M6

24.57

24.61

2.76

11.34

.48 .87

5.39

7.23

.03 .50

5.26

.41 (.29)

Figure 10.2 Predicted fantasy narrative score as a function of amount of Nonpresent talk for boys and girls at high (75th percentile) and low (25th percentile) levels of pragmatic flexibility.

Nonpresent talk

Figure 10.2 Predicted fantasy narrative score as a function of amount of Nonpresent talk for boys and girls at high (75th percentile) and low (25th percentile) levels of pragmatic flexibility.

The analyses up to this point, then, have confirmed our hypothesis that degree of participation in discussions of the nonpresent around age 2 affects the performance of more autonomous narratives at age 5. In addition, pragmatic flexibility and gender have been identified as contributing additional predictive power for both personal and fantasy narrative. We were surprised, though, at the lack of relationship between fantasy talk and the fantasy narrative composite score. Therefore, we decided to look more closely at two components of the FAN score that are distinctly characteristic of fantasy narrative: genre specificity, a category that comprises the maintenance of a protagonist, character delineation, anchor tense and lack of reliance on deixis; and character voice, which includes direct and reported speech, strategies that can function both for advancing the plot or for coloring the events of the story (see Table 10.3 for examples of features of each of these and Table 10.1 for means, ranges, and standard deviations for these fantasy components).

Two sets of regression models, analogous to those previously built for the composite scores, were constructed for these components of fantasy narrative. As Table 10.7 indicates, the strongest predictors for genre specificity were early fantasy talk and gender. That is, the more fantasy talk children produced early in life, the better they tended to perform in this particular dimension of fantasy narrative at age 5; in addition, girls once again tended to outperform boys at age 5. For character voice (see Table 10.7), nonpresent talk and fantasy talk combined accounted for 18% of the variance. For this dimension of fantasy narrative, there were not significant differences between boys and girls.

Summarizing, these findings indicate that participation in early discussions about the nonpresent positively influence overall performance in both personal and fantasy narration at age 5. We can also conclude that early participation in fantasy talk interactions stimulates development in specific areas of fantasy narrative: the achievement of genre specificity and the representation of character voice.

TABLE 10.7

Regression Models Explaining Variance in Fantasy Narrative Genre Specificity and Character Voice at 5 Years of Age (n = 32)

Pragmatic

Pragmatic Flexibility

Nonpresent Talk Fantasy Talk Flexibility Gender x Gender

TABLE 10.7

Regression Models Explaining Variance in Fantasy Narrative Genre Specificity and Character Voice at 5 Years of Age (n = 32)

Pragmatic

Pragmatic Flexibility

Nonpresent Talk Fantasy Talk Flexibility Gender x Gender

Model

Pi se (fc)

Pi

se (Pi)

Pi

se (Pi)

Pi se (Pi)

Pi

se (Pi)

dfe

R2 (adj.)

Genre Specificity Models

Ml

11.14 6.98

1.30

.08

(.05)

M2

7.92**

3.12

1.30

.17

(.15)

M3

14.20** 6.29

9.02*

3.01

2.29

.30

(.25)

M4

11.90*** 5.85

8.53*

2.78

.08

.07

3.28

.32

(.25)

M5

7.06 6.37

6.56**

2.94

.12

.07

1.47* .52

4.27

.48

(.40)

M6

6.86 6.48

6.48**

2.99

.02

.23

.63 1.90

.06

.13

5.26

.48

(.38)

Character Voice Models

Ml

7.63 5.63

1.30

.06

(.03)

M2

4.69***

2.64

1.30

.10

(.06)

M3

9.47*** 5.41

5.43**

2.59

2.29

.18

(.13)

M4

6.18 5.93

4.05

2.78

.08

.07

3.28

.23

(.14)

M5

6.12 6.20

4.03

2.86

.09

.07

.02 .50

4.27

.22

(.11)

M6

5.82 6.27

3.92

2.89

-.06

.22

-1.24 1.84

.09

.13

5.26

.24

(.10)

*p < .01,

**p < .05, ***p < .10

These relationships are further affected by children's gender and their participation in a wide variety of social interchanges and speech acts, but are not dependent on children's early morphosyntactic skills or vocabulary.

Single Parenting Becoming the Best Parent For Your Child

Single Parenting Becoming the Best Parent For Your Child

Parenting is a challenging task. As a single parent, how can you juggle work, parenting, and possibly college studies single handedly and still manage to be an ideal parent for your child? Read the 65-page eBook Single Parenting Becoming The Best Parent For Your Child to find out how. Loaded with tips, it can inspire, empower, and instruct you to successfully face the challenges of parenthood.

Get My Free Ebook


Post a comment