Rouba Hassan

Geneviève De Weck

Stefano Rezzonico

Anne Salazar Orvig

Élise Vinel

Anne Salazar Orvig

Elise Vinel

Chapter 8. Variations in adult use of referring expressions during storytelling in different interactional settings

Keywords: Child-directed speech, interactional settings, joint storytelling, mothers, nouns, developmental language disorders, teachers, third-person pronouns

de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires publics ou privés.

Why study the uses of referring expressions among adults?

This chapter looks at how different adults use referring expressions in spoken narratives in different interactional settings. The adults whose uses are analyzed have different statuses (mothers vs. teachers), different interlocutors (adults vs. children, children with or without developmental language disorder, DLD), and their language is observed across different social contexts (home vs. school). We argue that these interactional settings influence the uses of referring expressions in specific ways that we strive to explore.

Two general observations were the starting point of these studies. The first one concerns the discrepant results of studies on reference among children [START_REF] Hickmann | From early to late mastery of reference: Multifunctionality and linguistic diversity[END_REF]. The second is that the productions of young children are often compared to those of adults (or older children) when asked to tell a story to an experimenter [START_REF] Hickmann | Children's discourse: person, time and space across languages[END_REF][START_REF] Jisa | Increasing cohesion in narratives: a developmental study of maintaining and reintroducing subjects in French[END_REF], in which case the adult (or older children) productions are considered as the target model of development that the child must attain.

Concerning the first observation, certain studies, including the original one by [START_REF] Karmiloff-Smith | Language and cognitive processes from a developmental perspective[END_REF], have shown that it is not until a later age (about 9 years) that children master the anaphoric value of pronouns and the proper use of definite and indefinite noun phrases (for a review, see [START_REF] Hickmann | Children's discourse: person, time and space across languages[END_REF]. Other studies [START_REF] Allen | The role of cognitive accessibility in children's referential choice[END_REF][START_REF] Salazar Orvig | Dialogical beginnings of anaphora: the use of third-person pronouns before the age of 3[END_REF][START_REF] Serratrice | The role of discourse pragmatics in the acquisition of subjects in Italian[END_REF][START_REF] Skarabela | Signs of early social cognition in children's syntax: The case of joint attention in argument realization in child Inuktitut[END_REF] have shown, on the contrary, that in dialogue, children under age four exhibit an early sensitivity to the presence of referents and their accessibility in discourse.

As de Weck and Salazar Orvig (2014) pointed out, these opposing results can be explained essentially in terms of both the authors' diverging theoretical views and conceptions of anaphora, and by the fact that the data analyzed are drawn from very different settings that have a definite impact on children's productions. In one case, the child is asked to produce a narrative in front of an experimenter; in the other, the child is interacting with a familiar person, during activities that are also familiar. The experimental contexts in the former case are thus quite different from what children encounter in their everyday life. This may account for why young children's use of referring expressions in this type of context differs from how they use them in dialogue, where they seem to have better skills.

Therefore, regarding the second finding, the productions of adults and older children in an experimental context must be seen as resulting from a lengthy acculturation to different narrative forms, one of which is written narrative.

Such acculturation is strongly linked to schooling. Hence, comparing the younger children productions to the latter's does not take into consideration the fact that this model is not grounded in the children's initial experience.

As to the diverging theoretical views, and in short, in one case, authors consider that children use referring expressions with a deictic value before mastering their anaphoric value towards the age of 9 [START_REF] Hickmann | Children's discourse: person, time and space across languages[END_REF][START_REF] Karmiloff-Smith | Language and cognitive processes from a developmental perspective[END_REF]. In the other, authors pose that the acquisition of reference is grounded in dialogue and in the communicative experience of children tightly linked to "language games" (Salazar [START_REF] Salazar Orvig | Dialogical beginnings of anaphora: the use of third-person pronouns before the age of 3[END_REF][START_REF] Salazar Orvig | Referential features, speech genres and activity types[END_REF].

It follows from these considerations that it is necessary to explore the diversity of usage children actually encounter in narratives, which constitute the models upon which they build their own uses. In order to address this issue and account for this diversity, we need to study how the use of referring expressions by adults differs according to whether they are telling a story to an experimenter or telling a story with a child. Based on the assumption that the models to which children are exposed affect their language productions, the study of adult usage in these two settings is indispensable for understanding the development of reference in children. As brought out by research on the links between a child's acquisition of reference and discursive patterns [START_REF] Clancy | Referential strategies and the co-construction of argument structure in Korean acquisition[END_REF] or on the types of questions asked by the experimenter [START_REF] Campbell | Factors affecting young children's use of pronouns as referring expressions[END_REF][START_REF] Serratrice | The role of discourse and perceptual cues in the choice of referential expressions in english preschoolers, school-Age children, and adults[END_REF], analyzing adult usage provides insight into the way children acquire and use referring expressions.

Except for [START_REF] Bamberg | A functional approach to the acquisition of anaphoric relationships[END_REF], and more recently de Weck and Salazar Orvig (2014), de Weck, Salazar [START_REF] De Weck | The impact of the interactional setting on the choice of referring expressions in narratives[END_REF], Vinel (2014), and Marcos, Salazar Orvig, da Silva & Heurdier, (Chapter 7, this volume), few researchers have looked into these fundamental questions from a dialogical and interactionist angle. In the research on child-directed speech (CDS), especially for French, there is indeed a gap that needs to be filled. Moreover, among the studies that have dealt with preschool children's conversational partners other than family members, such as teachers, few have focused on reference. Other than [START_REF] Vinel | Comment des adultes et des enfants, âgés de 3 à 6 ans, racontent ensemble des histoires en situations familiales et scolaires[END_REF], we know of no studies for French dealing specifically with the construction of reference in narratives by teachers.

Yet, school is an important arena for child socialization in our societies. In France, children go to school at an early age, sometimes attending preschools -which are full-fledged schools in France -at the young age of two and a half. Preschool prepares children for future learning in elementary school by placing priority on language via book reading and narratives. The substantial rise in preschool attendance has allowed the schools to offer new cultural and artistic awareness to children between the ages of two and six, and to develop activities revolving around books [START_REF] Grossmann | Enfances de la lecture: manières de faire, manières de lire à l'école maternelle[END_REF]. Reading-based activities in school are different from those at home, and this most certainly affects the referring expressions used both by adults (teachers in this case) and by children.

The diversity of models in child directed speech

Children experience a range of discourse models, the variety of which depends on numerous factors: the activity being carried out (de Weck, Hassan, Heurdier, Klein & Salagnac, Chapter 9, this volume;[START_REF] Rezzonico | Maternal recasts and activity variations: a comparison of mother-child dyads involving children with and without SLI[END_REF], the interlocutor [START_REF] François | Pratiques de l'oral[END_REF]Gallaway & Richards, 1994;Khomsi, 1982;[START_REF] Rondal | L'interaction adulte-enfant et la construction du langage[END_REF][START_REF] Rondal | Langage et éducation[END_REF], parental styles of narrative elicitation [START_REF] Peterson | Parental styles of narrative elicitation: effect on children's narrative structure and content[END_REF], and sometimes also according to whether or not the child has a developmental language disorder (de Weck, 2010). The verbal scaffolding that mothers provide to their children with developmental language disorder is both similar and different from that given to typically developing children. The similarities mainly pertain to the structural characteristics of the child directed speech (CDS), at the phonological, lexical, and morphosyntactic levels. The differences concern interactionist aspects [START_REF] Conti-Ramsden | Mother's discourse adjustments to language impaired and non-language-impaired children[END_REF].

Most of the CDS research has focused on children under three years of age (Gallaway & Richards, 1994;[START_REF] Geekie | Language learning at home and school[END_REF][START_REF] Rondal | Langage et éducation[END_REF].

However, children's speaking skills continue to develop well beyond the age of three: with schooling, they acquire discursive skills related to literacy [START_REF] Dickinson | Long-term effects of preschool teachers' book readings on low-income children's vocabulary and story comprehension[END_REF][START_REF] Hoffman | Reading aloud in classroom[END_REF][START_REF] Morrow | Reading and retelling stories: strategies for emergent readers[END_REF][START_REF] Sulzby | The development of the young child and the emergence of literacy[END_REF]. At this point, the child is confronted with other discursive formats.

One can even assume that the fact of attending school will have an influence on parental CDS (see the older studies by [START_REF] Snow | Mother's speech to children learning language[END_REF]1983, on motherchild interaction, the impact of context, and the development of literacy).

Very early in life children are exposed to narratives [START_REF] Bruner | Acts of meaning[END_REF]. At first, it is during spontaneous interactions focused on narratives or exchanges revolving around books that children manipulate the linguistic units enabling them to refer to characters and construct reference. When children start attending preschool, and even before in daycare centers, they gradually begin to experience a greater diversity of meaningful verbal interactions, and become exposed to a diversity of storytelling, in a variety of discursive formats: personal experience narratives, narratives read aloud, picture-based storytelling, and so on. Experiencing these different types constitutes the source from which children learn to construct reference in a narrative framework.

Thus, for children in daycare or preschool, the polyadic context provides opportunities, especially for the older ones, that the dyadic context does not supply, both in terms of the quantity of heard or overheard speech, and in terms of the monitoring the speech of others (Marcos, Salazar Orvig, Bernicot, Guidetti, Hudelot & Préneron, 2004). These contexts, which generally contain more question/answer sequences, more references to absent objects, and a wider variety of models and styles, have a positive impact on the productions of younger children.

Hence, it is important to document how adults address school children (after the age of three) regarding specifically the construction of reference in dialogue-based narratives. In this prospect, the questions addressed in this chapter are related to the uses of referring expressions by mothers and preschool teachers while telling a story with a child (or a group of children in the case of teachers), and in which ways these uses differ from those of an adult telling the same story (as the mothers) to an experimenter.

Uses of referring expressions by mothers and teachers during joint storytelling

The literature supplies little data on this specific topic. Moreover, there are only a few studies that compare the uses of French referring expressions by mothers and teachers during a joint-storytelling activity. The most recent is [START_REF] Vinel | Comment des adultes et des enfants, âgés de 3 à 6 ans, racontent ensemble des histoires en situations familiales et scolaires[END_REF]. Regarding mothers, [START_REF] Bamberg | A functional approach to the acquisition of anaphoric relationships[END_REF], de Weck and Salazar Orvig (2014), and[START_REF] De Weck | The impact of the interactional setting on the choice of referring expressions in narratives[END_REF] proposed a fine-grained description of how mothers introduce and maintain reference when telling stories to their child (with or without DLD). De Weck and collaborators raised the question of whether the mothers' referential strategies could be characterized not only as anaphoric, but also as deictic or thematic as described for chidren's narratives by [START_REF] Karmiloff-Smith | Language and cognitive processes from a developmental perspective[END_REF]. If so, it would mean that these strategies are linked not only to cognitive development but also to discoursepragmatic factors, and thus, to the child's exposure to narratives and how others tell stories with him/her. In fact, the authors found that the mothers used referring expressions in certain, somewhat unexpected ways in comparison to adults telling the same story to an experimenter. For instance, the mothers mentioned a referent for the first time using a third-person or demonstrative pronoun. They accounted for these uses in terms of pragmatic factors: joint manipulation of a book, which enhances the effect of focusing on a shared activity, but also in terms of interaction strategies: asking questions to involve the child in the narrative, making sure the characters are identified, pointing, enlisting the child, and stressing key moments by employing strong expressions. These results are in line with [START_REF] Bamberg | A functional approach to the acquisition of anaphoric relationships[END_REF] findings, which showed that more than 50% of the expressions used by adults when introducing referents were presupposing devices.

Regarding the strategies of mothers of children with DLD in storytelling situations, the research has revealed a variety of profiles [START_REF] Justice | Topic control during shared storybook reading: Mothers and their children with language impairments[END_REF][START_REF] Salazar Orvig | Profils de mères et implication des enfants dans la co-construction d'un récit[END_REF][START_REF] Vander Woude | Interactional sequences in shared book-reading between parents and children with histories of language delay[END_REF]. Some mothers play the role of principal narrator as they strive to elicit the child's participation via verbal appeals. However, these profiles do not appear to be radically different from those found in mothers of typical children. More generally, mothers seem to adapt to their child's needs, which in the end often improves the child's participation in the activity, whether or not he/she exhibits DLD [START_REF] Skibbe | Socioemotional climate of storybook reading interactions for mothers and preschoolers with language impairment[END_REF].

As far as teachers are concerned, there are many studies dealing with discourse in the classroom, as we have seen above, but few have looked at spoken narrative in school from the standpoint of managing reference in a linguistic perspective. Studies that looked at reading activities in school have focused on reading styles [START_REF] De Temple | Styles of interaction during a book reading task: Implications for literacy intervention with low-income families[END_REF][START_REF] Dickinson | Variation in preschool teachers' styles of reading books[END_REF][START_REF] Frier | Littératie familiale et lectures partagées[END_REF][START_REF] Grossmann | Enfances de la lecture: manières de faire, manières de lire à l'école maternelle[END_REF][START_REF] Roser | Roles adults play in preschoolers' response to literature[END_REF], scaffolding in child-directed questions [START_REF] Blewitt | Shared book reading: When and how questions affect young children's word learning[END_REF][START_REF] Dickinson | Long-term effects of preschool teachers' book readings on low-income children's vocabulary and story comprehension[END_REF][START_REF] Florin | Pratiques du langage à l'école maternelle et prédiction de la réussite scolaire[END_REF][START_REF] Makdissi | La littératie au préscolaire. Une fenêtre ouverte vers la scolarisation[END_REF][START_REF] Zucker | Preschool teachers' literal and inferential questions and children's responses during whole-class shared reading[END_REF], or the cognitive complexity of teacher talk [START_REF] Aukrust | Young children acquiring second language vocabulary in preschool group-time: Does amount, diversity, and discourse complexity of teacher talk matter[END_REF][START_REF] Massey | Teacher-child conversation in the preschool classroom[END_REF].

These studies showed that the teachers' discourse has different effects on pupils' productions. With the exception of [START_REF] Vinel | Comment des adultes et des enfants, âgés de 3 à 6 ans, racontent ensemble des histoires en situations familiales et scolaires[END_REF], the scarce studies comparing adults with different statuses or in different contexts [START_REF] Geekie | Language learning at home and school[END_REF][START_REF] Hudelot | Étayage langagier de l'enseignant dans le dialogue maître-élève[END_REF][START_REF] Hudelot | The use of a functional dialogic model of verbal interaction to compare how daycare workers and teachers scaffold 3-year-old children[END_REF][START_REF] Rondal | Langage et éducation[END_REF] have pertained to discursive or structural aspects. In short, older studies comparing mothers and teachers (Granowsky & Krossner, 1970, cited by Rondal, 1978) have concluded that preschool teachers' speech differs from mothers' speech by its greater mean length of utterances and greater syntactic complexity, but also its clearly smaller range of vocabulary. In their study, [START_REF] Geekie | Language learning at home and school[END_REF] noted that the speech addressed by teachers to small groups of four 5year-old pupils had features similar to those found among mothers talking to their children during goal-oriented activities like looking for objects.

As far as reference is concerned, a recent exploratory study on reference during storytelling [START_REF] Hassan | Formes et usages des expressions référentielles dans des séances de lecture à la maison et à l'école. 80e congrès de l[END_REF], compared the usage of a female teacher and four mothers. They found that the mothers produced more pronouns (all types pooled) than nouns, and conversely, that the teacher produced more nouns than pronouns. This result was coupled with another that may seem surprising: for the teacher, nouns very often served to maintain a thematic progression (a function generally fulfilled by pronouns) and were used less often to introduce the referents of the story.

Aim of the studies

In summary, the findings in the literature indicate a lack of knowledge of CDS for children on the topic of reference, especially for children over three years of age; but also, that teachers and mothers have their own specific usage. In our interactionist approach to language acquisition (Bakhtin, 1979(Bakhtin, /1986;;[START_REF] Bruner | Child's talk; learning to use language[END_REF][START_REF] Clark | First language acquisition[END_REF][START_REF] François | Conduites linguistiques chez le jeune enfant[END_REF][START_REF] Nelson | Young minds in social worlds: Experience, meaning, and memory[END_REF][START_REF] Tomasello | The cultural origins of human cognition[END_REF], where verbal interaction constitutes the place where children experience the language categories through the discourse addressed to them, we contend that it is essential to know the usage of the adults -with whom children interact -if we want to better understand how children construct (or rather co-construct reference1 ) and grasp the uses and values of referential linguistic units. Thus, to address the issue of variations in adult referential usage according to the interactional setting in a narrative activity, four different contexts were considered: mothers telling a story in interaction with their child, teachers telling a story in interaction with their pupils, and adults telling the same story as the mothers to another adult, the experimenter. When mothers were telling a story with their child we considered two cases: mothers telling a story with their typically developping children (TD) and mothers telling a story with their children with developmental language disorder (DLD).

The study of [START_REF] De Weck | The impact of the interactional setting on the choice of referring expressions in narratives[END_REF] showed that the usage of the mothers when telling a story to their child differed from that of the adult participants when telling a story to an experimenter. The former were engaged in a dialogue with a child, whereas the latter were engaged in an individually managed narrative directed at another adult. Based on these results, we further developed three hypotheses. First, the usage of the mothers differ from that of the teachers. Notably, as mothers and teachers have different statuses, they do not view their role in the storytelling activity in the same way. Because they have different goals (teachers have didactic intentions, mothers primarily seek to make their child participate), they behave differently [START_REF] Hassan | Formes et usages des expressions référentielles dans des séances de lecture à la maison et à l'école. 80e congrès de l[END_REF]. Second, teachers' usage is closer to that of the adults telling the story to an experimenter because they should tend more than the mothers to follow the model of monologically managed narratives, as this is the literate model for narratives promoted at school [START_REF] Canut | Lire des albums : quelle compréhension et quelle appropriation par les élèves de maternelle ? Le français aujourd[END_REF]. Based on results from de Weck and Salazar Orvig (2014), the third hypothesis was that mothers' uses of referring expressions when telling a story to their children with DLD is similar to that of mothers telling the same story to their TD children.

Method

In order to confirm our hypotheses, we conducted three comparative studies.

The first compared mothers telling a story with their child (Mother-to-Child context) and adults telling the same story to the experimenter (Adult-to-Experimenter context) (de Weck et al. 20192 ). The second compared mothers and teachers in two social contexts, (home vs. school). The third compared mothers of TD children and mothers of children with DLD3 . Thus, we made use of several corpora taken from different databases and studies, but with points in common and specificities we will describe below.

Corpora

The first corpus (Adults Narratives Corpus, see Appendix I) was used in de Weck & et al.'s study on the impact of interactional settings (2019): 20 women, all of whom were native speakers of French under the age of 40, telling a story to an experimenter. None of the women worked in a field

Situations and Materials

Except for the School context, the materials used were the same: a picture book with no text entitled Ah les belles vacances des petits cochons!4 The mothers were instructed to tell the story with their child as they usually do, and to take as much time as they needed. For the participants telling the story to the experimenter, this one handed them the book and asked them to tell the story.

In the School context, a different book without text was used in order to avoid a familiarity effect (since the children in the mother-child dyads also participated in the school sessions). The book chosen here was Le voleur de poules. 5 The teachers were instructed to conduct a reading session as they usually do but with a smaller group of 8 to 12 children, rather than the whole class. No time limit was set for telling the story in any of the situations.

There are only very few books without texts adapted for school. We chose the one that was appropriate for use in the different classes (with the younger and older pupils), and presented the strongest similarities with the book used with the mother-child interactions. Both books involve only animal characters. They both revolve around a main character that experiences some incidents involving other characters and who is wrongly attributed a number of intentions. All participants (children and adults) were unfamiliar with the books.

The video and audio recordings were made in a quiet, convenient place for the participants in the Home, Mother-to-Child and Adult-to-Experimenter contexts, and in a classroom for the School context. The corpora were transcribed (in written French) and any expressions that corresponded to the referents we were analyzing were coded in terms of their grammatical and discursive characteristics (see below).

Referents and Axes of Analysis

To make our comparisons, we drew up a list of referents for each of the two books. Twenty-one referents for Ah les belles vacances des petits cochons! and 19 for Le voleur de poules. The referents included ones pertaining to the main and secondary characters, and some inanimate entities that were important to the unfolding of the plot.

We analyzed the productions of the different adult groups described above along two axes: the types of referring expressions used in the narrative, and their position in the referential chain. Depending on what groups were being compared, other aspects were also analyzed. These aspects will be presented in the section specific to the comparison in question.

The referring expressions fell into one of six categories: (1) nouns (common nouns, proper nouns, and adjectives used as nouns), (2) third-person pronouns (clitic and strong), (3) right and left dislocations (noun dislocations and pronoun dislocations), (4) demonstrative pronouns, such as ça (this/that), ( 5) null forms, which correspond to omissions, zero anaphora, or prompts (e.g., when the adult verbalizes the determiner alone to allow the child to fill in with the noun), and (6) other pronouns (interrogative, possessive, relative, indefinite, numerical, adverbial).

The position in the referential chain fell into one of four categories: (1) first mentions, which correspond to the first mention of a referent, (2) subsequent mentions of a referent, which include all mentions of an already mentioned referent (except repetitions) located at less than four full speech turns away in a dyadic context, and eight turns away in a polyadic context, (3) reactivations, which occur when a referent is reintroduced at least four full speech turns away from the preceding mention of the same referent, and (4) repetitions, which are utterances repeated verbatim, reformulated with syntactic rephrasing, or phonological correction. Repetitions immediately follow the repeated utterance. This category was only taken into account in the mother-teacher comparison.

As reported in de [START_REF] De Weck | The impact of the interactional setting on the choice of referring expressions in narratives[END_REF] for adults telling the story to the experimenter, 20% interrater agreement yielded 97.42% agreement (Cohen's kappa: 0.95) for the types of referring expressions and 92.07% (Cohen's kappa: 0.79) for the position in the referential chain.

With regard to the comparisons of mother of children with or without DLD and the comparisons between mothers and teachers, the interactions were coded by a first coder and 100% of the coding was reviewed by a second coder. To further ensure coding stability, 10% of each interaction was recoded blind from the original coding. Interrater agreement yielded, respectively, 94.53% (Cohen's kappa: 0.92) and 96.47% (Cohen's kappa: 0.95) for the types of referring expressions and 91.80% (Cohen's kappa: 0.85) and 86.8% (Cohen's kappa: 0.82) for the position in the referential chain.

Statistical processing

Statistical processing was done for the comparison of the Mother-to-Child and Adult-to-Experimenter contexts and for the comparison of the mothers with children with or without DLD. Mann-Whitney U tests were performed because the data did not satisfy the minimal assumptions for a parametric test (normal distribution, homoscedasticity, and variance equality). Methods for normalizing the variables (e.g., logarithmic transformation, arcsin of the square root, etc.) did not allow us to approach the normal distribution for many of the variables.

Given the relatively small number of participants in the mother-teacher comparison, no statistical tests were carried out.

Variations According to the Interactional setting and the Status of the Adult

We noted above that the use of referring expressions among mothers in a joint-storytelling activity with their child is diversified. We think that, unlike the mothers (whether they are interacting with a typical child or one with DLD), the teachers use of referring expressions, due to their educational role, will be more prototypical, particularly when it comes to introducing referents.

At the same time, insofar as the teachers are in a dialogue situation with their pupils, they may also exhibit behavior that is close to that of the mothers. By situating the teachers' behavior in the School context with respect to the participants in the Adult-to-Experimenter context on one side and in the Mother-to-Child context on the other side, we should be able to determine to which extent the interactional setting impacts the adults' referential strategies.

Let us now present the results of the comparisons between the interactional settings. We will begin by summarizing the results of a previous study (de [START_REF] De Weck | The impact of the interactional setting on the choice of referring expressions in narratives[END_REF] reporting the usage in the Mother-to-Child context to that in the Adult-to-Experimenter context (5.1); next we will compare the Home context to the School context (5.2); finally, we will see how the mothers telling the story to their child compare with each other according to whether their child has or does not have a DLD (5.3). Even though we noted some shared aspects between both contexts related to the constraints of the narrative genre (Tables 1 and2), two reference styles stood out. The first style was found in the discourse of participants in the Adult-to-Experimenter context, which presented some of the characteristics typical of narratives produced by adults in experimental setting [START_REF] Hickmann | Children's discourse: person, time and space across languages[END_REF][START_REF] Jisa | Increasing cohesion in narratives: a developmental study of maintaining and reintroducing subjects in French[END_REF][START_REF] Kern | Effet du type de support imagé sur la production du récit chez l'enfant[END_REF][START_REF] Fossard | Referential choices in a collaborative storytelling task: Discourse stages and referential complexity matter[END_REF], namely, first mentions of referents produced a a noun phrase (88.89%), most of which included an indefinite determiner (55.56% of the NPs); subsequent mentions, which were predominantly third-person pronouns (65.06%); and also some rare nouns (19.37%). The nouns were usually associated with inanimate referents or shifts between characters. Reactivations of referents were frequently realized using nouns (85.43%). The second style was found in the mothers' discourse. Compared to the participants in the Adult-to-Experimenter context, when telling the story with their children, mothers produced a wider range of referring expressions (Tables 1 and2) at every position in the referential chain. So, for first mentions and reactivations, they used significantly fewer NPs (52.29% and 41.42%, respectively) and significantly more third-person pronouns (14.68% and 25.94%, respectively). To introduce a referent, the mothers used more presupposing devices (definite NPs: 35.25%, and even third-person pronouns, see Table 1) based on a common ground, which is something that the participants in the Adult-to-Experimenter context rarely did.

Comparison of Mother

These expressions occurred in three different contexts: the new referent could be retrieved as part of a set of referents mentioned earlier (Example 1); it could also be retrieved through a bridging inference (H. [START_REF] Clark | Bridging[END_REF] based on previously mentioned referents (Example 2); or through its presence in a picture (Example 3). These NPs or pronouns were often accompanied by pointing.

(1) Mother (Elouan) 7

7 Example captions indicate the status of the participants: in the Mother-to-Child context, the mothers (Mot are identified by the name of their child), in the School context the teachers (Tea are identified by the type of preschool class) and in the Adult-to-Experimenter context the participants are identified by their name. When the productions of a child is given, the first three letters of his/her first name are

The main character arrives at the artists' exit of a theater Mot83 i(l) rencontre des cochons qu'il a l'air de connaître 'he meets some pigs he seems to know' (…) (…) Mot90 mais il <l'un de ces cochons> le [personnage principal] présente comme le pianiste. ((pointe en direction d'un des cochons responsables du concert))

'but he <one of these pigs> presents him [main character] as the pianist ((she points to one of the pigs responsible for the concert))'

(2) Mother (Emma)

The main character falls on a moving train car 'yeah so you see the little pig ((points to the traveling pig)) he is explaining to the train inspector ((points to the inspector in the train))'

(3) Mother (Julie2)

The mother begins to tell the story

Mot5

j(e) pense que là tu vois ? i s(e) promène = ((revient en arrière dans le livre))

'I think that there you see? he is wandering =((comes back to the beginning of the book))'

Participants in the Adult-to-Experimenter context mostly relied on these presupposing devices in the bridging context (Example 4), and without gestures.

(4) Adult (Audrey)

The main character has been taken by a carriage.

Aud24

sur la route humhum comme par hasard ils croisèrent ou et même ils doublèrent la voiture ((tourne la page))

'on the road hum hum as if by chance they crossed or even they passed the car ((turns the page))' Aud25 la voiture qui avait tant pollué le petit cochon 'the car that had so much polluted the little pig'

given in lowercase (e.g., Emm for Emma). An approximate English translation is given between inverted commas. For more details on transcription conventions, see Appendix II.

Aud26

il leur fit des grands signes 'he waved them big signs'

For introductions (Example 5) and reactivations (Example 6), the mothers also used interrogative pronouns.

(5) Mother (Emma)

The main character has lost his clothes Mot86 pis qu'est-ce qu'i(l) voit là ? = ((pointe l'épouvantail))

'then what does he see there?' ((she points to the scarecrow)) ( 6) Mother (Sacha)

A car passes with a rich person inside 'do we know him, that one there ? ((raises his arm to go and point)'

In addition, the mothers used dislocations quite frequently for first mentions (16.97%), reactivations (18.83%), and subsequent mentions too (10.04%).

The dislocations are used to identify a referent (Example 7), reintroduce it after a topic change (Example 8), or highlight it during an immediate repetition.

(7) Mother (Tom)

The main character has lost his clothes

Mot25

ça tu sais c(e) que c'est ? ((pointe l'épouvantail))

'that you know what it is? ((points to the scarecrow))' ( 8) Mother (Sophie)

Running away, the main character comes across a caravan Mot6 c'est pas ses petits amis ça? il a pas retrouvé ses amis ? ((montre l'image du doigt))

'Isn't that his little friends? didn't he meet up with his friends again? ((points to the picture))'

This comparison brought out a referential style specific to the Mother-to-Child context that differed both from that of the other women called upon to participate in this experimental context (Adult-to-Experimental context), and from that of written narratives. The interactional setting proved to have a significant impact in the participants' referential strategies. The use of referring expressions observed here is consistent with the fact that mothers were striving to engage their children in the activity (one of the dimensions of scaffolding: [START_REF] Wood | The role of tutoring in problem solving[END_REF]) by asking them questions (see interrogative pronouns), attracting their attention to one of the entities in the story (presupposing devices accompanied by pointing), establishing and ensuring a shared understanding of the story (see dislocations serving to identify or emphasize a referent). The mothers' productions also served different purposes: (co)constructing a narrative and getting the child involved. This task, which we asked them to perform, is probably far closer to the ordinary activity of a mother than telling a story to another adult.

Comparison of Home context to School context

The purpose of second comparison was to determine the specificities of teachers' usage (School context) with respect to that of mothers (in Motherto-Child context), in order to show how the experience that children have of reference in school dialogues (focused on storytelling) differs from that they are accustomed to at home, in particular with their mothers.

The preceding comparison showed that, beyond the common points linked to the constraints of the narrative genre, the referential strategies in the Adultto-Experimenter context were prototypical (see 5.1), whereas that of the mothers in the Mother-to-Child context were more diversified, regardless of the position in the referential chain. In the light of this finding, we wondered whether the behavior of teachers would conform more to the expected usage for narrating to an experimenter or, on the contrary, whether it would share some features with that of the mothers in the Mother-to-Child context.

The group of mothers in the Home context were interacting with younger children than those in the preceding comparison. This could explain the differences in the percentages observed, although the tendencies were the same. Contrary to what we did in the preceding section, we took the interrogative pronouns out of the other-pronoun category because there were twice as many in the School context. The distribution of the referring expressions shows (Table 3) that the participants in the Home context (mothers) and in the School context (teachers) had quite different styles. The mothers preferentially introduced new referents with nouns (32.2%), whereas the teachers hardly introduced any referents at all (only 11 introductions), and when they did, they mainly used interrogative pronouns (5) and nouns (4). On the other hand, they used many nouns for reactivations (48.54%), and repetitions (48.84%). They also used interrogative pronouns for reactivations, but to a lesser extent (21.36%).

In one introduction, teachers used a dislocated presupposing expression with a third-person pronoun (Example 9). ( 9) Teacher (Year 2)

First picture in the book identifying the characters 'there is a fox, and he sees // and he sees all the chickens' Tea72 un renard qui voit les poules de loin (( pointe le renard avec la tête ))

'a fox that sees the chickens from far away ((points to the fox with her head))' Jul6 et qui a mangé // et qui a pris les poules.

'and who ate // and who took the chickens' Tea74 qui a pris les poules ? 'who took the chickens?' Vio14 qui a pris une poule ! 'who took a chicken!' Tea75 ah il en a pris une. 'oh, he took one.'

The teacher asks questions in order to identify which of the chickens was taken by the fox, then she asks:

Tea79 et qu'est-ce qu'ils font les autres ?

'and what are they doing the others?'

As expected, in accordance with the constraints of the interlocution in the classroom (materials shared by several interlocutors but at a distance), and the necessity of explaining and verbalizing (which took precedence over pointing), the teachers employed very few demonstrative pronouns, which were never used to introduce a referent. The fact that the teachers produced far more nouns than the mothers did could be related to the importance at this age of acquiring the lexicon in school.

As expected once again, third-person pronouns predominated for subsequent mentions, but much more so among the mothers (62.54%) than among the teachers (41.86%). Indeed, we can see a large proportion of nouns in subsequent mentions by the teachers (29.23% vs. 15.34% for the mothers).

Nouns are almost as frequent in subsequent mentions as in first mentions for the teachers. This usage seems to be teacher-specific in comparison to the mothers who used nouns the most to introduce and reactivate referents. Note (Table 3) the large number of repetitions in the teachers' discourse (38.87% vs. 8.22% for the mothers) and the abundance of nouns in this position (48.84%).

Both the mothers and the teachers used a non-negligible proportion of dislocations, as found in spoken French [START_REF] Blanche-Benveniste | Detachment constructions[END_REF]. These dislocations served to reactivate a referent. However, as [START_REF] Vinel | Expressions référentielles et reprises d'énoncés dans des dialogues adulte-enfant à l'école et en famille: une étude exploratoire[END_REF] showed that the referring expressions in the utterances repeated by the mothers were mostly pronouns, a finding that was confirmed here by the large proportion of third-person pronouns in subsequent mentions and in repetitions. This is consistent with the fact that the mothers produced a larger proportion of pronouns than nouns, and relied especially on self-repetitions. By contrast, the referring expressions in the utterances repeated by the teachers consisted mainly of nouns. This is due to the fact that teachers frequently make other-repetitions and the referring expressions of children in school are mostly nouns (de Weck, Hassan, Heurdier, Klein & Salagnac,Chapter 9,this volume). Thus, the high proportion of nouns in the teachers' usage in subsequent mentions seems to be characteristic of teaching practices and the interactive dynamics of dialogue-based narratives in school. This aligns with our hypothesized impact of the interactional setting and namely the interlocutors' status on discursive productions. Moreover, some of our research has shown that the type of utterance (question vs. assertion or demands) plays a different role for teachers and mothers [START_REF] Vinel | Construction de la référence dans des séances de lecture dialoguée à l'école et à la maison[END_REF]. Accordingly, teachers use most often questions to introduce referents whereas mothers do so via assertions.

The nature of didactic interaction is such that it requires teachers to ratify the ideas proposed by their pupils, share them with the class (make sure that everyone hears and understands what each pupil says; Example 12), and validate them. These functions are fulfilled by repetitions (E. [START_REF] Clark | Repetition as ratification: How parents and children place information in common ground[END_REF], which also ensure discourse coherence. Often, the teacher also repeats a pupil's remark (Kil1, Example 13), which allows him/her to make an inference (Tea2, Example 13) focusing on the character (the "fox") that incites the pupil to go on with the narrative. (il) y a une tête de de du du renard 'there's a head of of of the of the fox' Tea2 y a la tête du renard donc ça va parler d'un renard 'there's the head of the fox so it's going to talk about a fox'

Comparison of Mothers of Children With and Without Developmental Language Disorder

As de Weck and Salazar Orvig (2014) already noted in a preliminary study with fewer participants, our two groups of mothers, as a whole, had very similar profiles. They mainly used third-person pronouns (both clitic and strong), nouns, and dislocations. Both groups of mothers also had relatively small proportions of other pronoun forms (demonstrative, interrogative, and other; see Table 5). Mann-Whitney tests were conducted to test for significant differences between the two groups. Likewise, no significant difference between the two mother groups was found when we analyzed the three reference-chain positions separately (Table 5). [START_REF] Grosjean | La statistique en clair[END_REF]. This correlation indicates that the higher the child's raw score was on the comprehension test, the less the mother used dislocations. It is important to note here that all of the children with DLD who participated in this study had an expressive disorder, whereas their comprehension level varied in a way similar to that of typical children. This could mean that the mothers adapted to the comprehension level of their child by using dislocations when they thought that the child had trouble following the progression of the story.

Mothers TD children

Conclusion

The aim of this chapter was to describe how adults use referring expressions in storytelling activity in different interactional settings, in other words to account for the various uses of referring expressions experienced by children.

This was made necessary by the assumption that in order to be able to better account for the children's use, we need to better know the adults'.

We did this by examining the usage of adults with different statuses in different settings. The observed uses in Home and Mother-to-Child contexts were found to differ from those of monological narratives in experimental contexts. The results of our comparisons of the forms produced and their distributions, as a function of the position of the referring expression in the referential chain, indicated substantial differences in the way the expressions were used. The factors of variation that entered into the choice of the referring expression depended not only upon the general contrast between dialogue or monologue, but also on the implications of the social context (home vs.

school) and on the way in which the adult led the activity. In the case of mothers telling the story with their child with or without DLD -as no significant differences were found -as de Weck and Salazar Orvig (2014) showed, mothers and their children share a discursive and situational space.

Definite determiners as well as clitic pronouns for first mentions or reactivations are a manifestation of this shared intersubjective representation.

At home, the experience a child has of spoken narratives is one in which reference is anchored in dialogue, with attention getters and interlocutors that rely on a common ground. One can therefore assume that the characteristics often deemed typical of young children -(e.g., introduction of referents by presupposing devices, dislocations, gestures and reliance on shared knowledge ;[START_REF] Hickmann | Children's discourse: person, time and space across languages[END_REF][START_REF] Karmiloff-Smith | Language and cognitive processes from a developmental perspective[END_REF][START_REF] Jisa | Increasing cohesion in narratives: a developmental study of maintaining and reintroducing subjects in French[END_REF] -could reflect their picking up on the adult model rather than only their difficulty managing reference. As [START_REF] Peterson | Parental styles of narrative elicitation: effect on children's narrative structure and content[END_REF] showed, taking a

Vygotskian standpoint, children internalize the interactional patterns of narrative elicitation and structure their own narratives in a way that reflects these patterns.

Granted, at the age of four or older, children's experience of spoken and written narratives and book-based discourse is probably quite varied. And yet, despite this acculturation, their mothers do not adopt the decontextualized model of narratives when interacting with them. This is a clear indication of the strong impact of dialogue and the joint construction of a common ground in the acquisition of reference.

We also observed this impact in the School context, even though didactic interaction imposes its own usage constraints and requirements on teachers, ones that differ not only from those of mothers but also from those observed in decontextualized narratives. As we have seen, the teachers introduced few referents (introductions were mainly done by the children). When they introduced referents, teachers employed mostly interrogative pronouns. Thus, the usage of adults in a situation where they are telling a story to another adult (an experimenter) does not appear to be comparable to what children hear in exchanges at home or in school.

In conclusion, these results suggest that throughout childhood, children are confronted with interactive-discursive models of narratives that vary according to the social context. The purpose of this chapter was to improve our knowledge of these models. It seemed essential in our dialogical perspective, firstly, to describe the different usage styles of adults interacting with a child, in order to better account for the diversity of children's communicative and discursive experiences, and secondly, to show that these styles differ from those observed when an adult tells a story to another adult.

These specific aims should further our general knowledge of child usage, in view of gaining insight into developmental processes.

  -to-Child context to Adult-to-Experimenter context The main goal of this comparison was to apprehend the model of reference children are exposed to during joint-storytelling (de Weck et al., 2019). The stories generated narratives that exhibit a number of specificities (de Weck & Salazar Orvig, 2014) which were confirmed by the present study.

  Mot34il a t(ou)jours son cigare au bec 'He still has his cigar in his mouth.' (…) (…) The main character is mistaken for the pianist expected at the concert Mot83 j(e) pense qu'il a jamais joué d(e) piano / c(e) pauvre monsieur cochon 'I think he's never played the piano / this poor Mister pig' qui c'est qui arrive ? 'oh look ¡ who's coming?' Sac94 ((tourne la petite page)) ('(turns the little page))' Mot88 on l(e) connaît c(el)ui là ? ((lève son bras pour aller pointer))

  le renard il va rentrer dans le bateau 'maybe the fox he's going to go into the boat' Tea282 peut-être le renard il va monter dans le bateau 'maybe the fox he's going to go up onto the boat' lapin ((montre le livre aux enfants)) 'It's also going to talk about a rabbit ((shows the book to the children))' Kil1

Table 1 .

 1 Distribution (in percentage) of the referring expression categories in the Adult-to-Experimenter and Mother-to-Child contexts, by position in the referential chain 6

			A-to-E	M-to-C	Total	U		p
			context	context
			%	%	%
	Total	Nouns	31.10	19.15	25.07	45.00		<.001
		Disl*	2.63	11.46	7.08	30.50		<.001
		3PP	54.81	58.44	56.64	147.00	.157
		NF	2.63	0.39	1.50	87.00		.002
		OtherP	8.82	10.56	9.70	159.00	.277
		N=	2505	2548	5053
	FM	Nouns	88.89	52.29	72.84	35.50		<.001
		Disl	0.72	16.97	7.85	57.00		<.001
		3PP	5.38	14.68	9.46	118.00	.026
		NF	0.00	1.38	0.60	180.00	.602
		OtherP	5.02	14.68	9.26	92.50		.003
		N=	279	218	497
	Rea	Nouns	85.43	41.42	58.46	29.50		<.001
		Disl	5.30	18.83	13.59	43.00		<.001
		3PP	5.30	25.94	17.95	76.50		.001
		NF	0.00	1.26	0.77	170.00	.429
		OtherP	3.97	12.55	9.23	123.00	.038
		N=	151	239	390
	SM	Nouns	19.37	13.15	16.25	105.00	.009
		Disl	2.70	10.04	6.39	48.50		<.001
		3PP	65.06	66.71	65.89	181.50	.62
		NF	3.18	0.19	1.68	68.00		<.001
		OtherP	9.69	9.90	9.79	199.50	.989
		N=	2075	2091	4166
	* Disl: dislocations, 3PP: third-person pronouns, NF: null forms, OtherP: other pronouns, FM: first mentions, Rea:
	reactivations, SM: subsequent mentions
			A-to-E	M-to-C	Total	U	p
			context	context
			%	%	%
		Indefinite	55.56	42.62	51.12	106.00	.018
		Definite	22.65	35.25	26.97	100.50	.012

Table 3 .

 3 Distribution (in percentage) of the referring expressions categories in Home and School contexts, by position in the referential chain

  Table 4 shows, the teachers employed almost solely noun dislocations (Example 10), whereas the mothers' usage was more varied, exhibiting either demonstrative or strong third-person dislocated pronouns (respectively Example 7 and Example 11).

	smaller number of subjects (four mothers and one teacher) but examined all
	of the story and dialogue referents.
		DDisl*	StDisl	NDisl	N=
		%	%	%
	Home context	19.32	26.09	54.59	207
	School context	4.96	2.13	92.91	141
	* DDisl: demonstrative pronoun dislocations, StDisl: strong third-person pronoun dislocations, NDisl: noun
	dislocations
	Table 4. Distribution (in percentage) of dislocations in Home and School contexts
	(10) Teacher (Year 2)
	End of the story: the hen decides to stay with the fox
	Tea212 et qu'est-ce qu'elle a décidé de faire	'And what did she decide to do then
		alors la poule ?		the hen?'
	(11) Mother (Romain)
	One of the pigs jumps up on a ladder to pick apples
	Mot275 qu'est-ce qu'il fait lui là ((pointe le	'what's he doing, him there?
		cochon)) ?		((points to the pig))?'
	In short, teachers differed from the mothers in terms of the linguistic units
	chosen to introduce and maintain reference, and in terms of the number of
	repetitions and nouns in subsequent mentions. These results corroborate
	Hassan, Salagnac & Vinel's (2012) preliminary results reported above,
	suggesting a certain consistency in teachers' use. Their study dealt with a

Table 5 .

 5 Disl: dislocations, 3PP: third-person pronouns, Dem: demonstrative pronouns, Int: interrogative pronouns, NF: null forms, OtherP: other pronouns, FM: first mentions, Rea: reactivations, SM: subsequent mentions Distribution (in percentage) of the referring expressions categories for mothers of typically developing children and mothers of children with DLD, by position in the referential chainThe 15 mothers of children with DLD confirmed the tendencies reported in Section 5.1. Contrary to the comparison of the Adult-to-Experimenter and the Mother-to-Child contexts, in this study, we separated the interrogative pronouns from the category of other pronouns in order to find out how often the mothers used this type of pronoun. This category turned out to be rather marginal, however (1.94% of the total). For this reason, although the two groups of mothers did not differ significantly as to the proportion of dislocations employed in the activity examined here, it is nevertheless interesting to relate the mothers' use of dislocations to the children's comprehension level. To do this, we calculated the correlation between the dislocation rate of each mother with the raw score of her children on the lexical comprehension test, taken from the N-EEL[START_REF] Chevrie-Muller | Nouvelles épreuves pour l'examen du langage[END_REF]. This measure was selected in the light of the fact that the older children and the younger children took different

				Mothers
				children	Total	U	P
				with DLD
			%	%	%
		Nouns	17.46	18.35	17.94	102.00	.663
		Disl*	11.26	13.16	12.29	77.00	.141
		3PP	59.39	56.63	57.89	81.00	.191
	Total	Dem Int	5.17 2.13	6.39 1.78	5.83 1.94	80.50 101.00	.184 .633
		NF	0.92	1.01	0.97	100.00	.584
		OtherP	3.68	2.69	3.14	85.00	.254
		N=	1741	2082	3823
		Nouns	51.83	51.52	51.66	107.00	.819
		Disl	15.24	19.70	17.68	81.00	.187
		3PP	15.85	10.10	12.71	75.50	.124
	FM	Dem Int	4.27 8.54	7.07 8.08	5.80 8.29	89.50 104.50	.314 .731
		NF	3.05	2.53	2.76	104.50	.654
		OtherP	1.22	1.01	1.10	110.50	.888
		N=	164	198	362
		Nouns	34.55	39.23	37.41	104.00	.724
		Disl	19.39	21.15	20.47	103.50	.708
		3PP	31.52	28.85	29.88	112	.983
	Rea	Dem Int	4.24 6.67	3.85 4.62	4.00 5.41	107.00 109.50	.797 .893
		NF	2.42	1.54	1.88	106.50	.701
		OtherP	1.21	0.77	0.94	112.50	1
		N=	165	260	425
		Nouns	11.47	10.96	11.20	96.00	.494
		Disl	9.84	11.08	10.51	80.00	.178
		3PP	67.71	66.75	67.19	94.00	.443
	SM	Dem	5.38	6.71	6.09	66.50	.056
		Int	0.85	0.55	0.69	100.00	.494
		NF	0.50	0.74	0.63	91.50	.313
		OtherP	4.25	3.20	3.69	92.00	.395

* morphosyntactic comprehension tests. The two measures yielded a significant negative correlation (Spearman's rho: -.396, p=.030), but one that is weak

See Marcos et al., Chapter 7, this volume, where the authors point out the impact of dialogue on the choice of referring expressions by a child based on the adult's discourse, which the child uses to construct his/her own discourse.

Here, we summarize the main results from de[START_REF] De Weck | The impact of the interactional setting on the choice of referring expressions in narratives[END_REF]. In that paper, the Mother-to-Child context was named the "CHILD condition" and the Adult-to-Experimenter context was named the "ADULT condition".

The mothers are in Mother-to-Child context when they are compared to the participants in the Adultto-Experimenter context and when the two groups of children interlocutors (with and without DLD) are considered. The mothers are in the Home context when they are compared to the teachers in the School context.

Goodall, J.S. (1980). Ah les belles vacances des petits cochons! Paris: Gallimard. Original edition: Paddy Pork's Holiday. Macmillan Children's Books (1975). See Appendix III.A for a summary of the story.

Rodriguez, B. (2005Rodriguez, B. ( /2010)). Le voleur de poules (The chicken thief) Paris: Autrement. See Appendix III.B for a summary of the story.

This table presents the total distribution of referring expressions and gathers the main content of tables 1, 3 and 4 from deWeck et al. (2019: 304-307).

Acknowledgements

We thank the internal and external anonymous reviewers, as well as Evan Kidd, for their helpful comments, the team of the DIAREF project (Acquisition des Expressions Référentielles en dialogue: approche multidimensionnelle) for their contribution to the scientific and methodological discussions. The data analyses reported here were conducted by the authors with the collaboration of Mélanie Bernasconi, Christine da Silva-Genest, Janina Klein, Somayeh Rahmati and Nathalie Salagnac. A special thank goes to Vivian Waltz for her accurate and rigorous translation from French to English.

Funding

This research was made possible thanks to the grants from the ANR Agence Nationale de la Recherche (French National Agency for Research), and the FNS, Fonds National de la Recherche Scientifique Suisse (Swiss National Science Foundation): Grants n° ANR-09-ENFT-055; FNS 100012-111938 and 100012-124744

related to childhood but two of them were high-school teachers of French and literature.

The second corpus was compiled from the Mother-Child Interactions corpus, (see Appendix I, see also de Weck & Salazar Orvig, 2014): 43 mothers telling a story with their child (ages 4 to 7 years). Among the 43 mothers, 15 had a child with DLD.