Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-mp689 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T05:18:54.468Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Validating justifications in preschool girls' and boys' friendship group talk: implications for linguistic and socio-cognitive development*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 June 2009

AMY KYRATZIS ,
TAMARA SHUQUM ROSS  and
S. BAHAR KOYMEN
AMY KYRATZIS*
Affiliation:
University of California, Santa Barbara
TAMARA SHUQUM ROSS
Affiliation:
University of California, Santa Barbara
S. BAHAR KOYMEN
Affiliation:
University of California, Santa Barbara
*
Address for correspondence: Amy Kyratzis, Gevirtz Graduate School of Education, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA 93106. Email: Kyratzis@education.ucsb.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Children are believed to construct their causal theories through talk and interaction, but with the exception of a few studies, little or nothing is known about how young children justify and build theories of the world together with same-age peers through naturally occurring interaction, Children's sensitivity to when a pair or group of interlocutors who interact frequently together feel that a justification is needed, is an index of developing pragmatic competence (Goetz & Shatz, 1999) and may be influenced by interactive goals and gender identity positioning. Studies suggest that salient contexts for justifications for young children are disagreement and control (e.g. Veneziano & Sinclair, 1995) but researchers have been less recognizant of ‘situations in which partners verbally assist in the construction of justifications as a means to maintain contact or create solidarity’ (Goetz & Shatz, 1999: 722) as contexts for justifications. The present study examined the spontaneously produced justification constructions in the naturally occurring free play of five friendship groups of preschool-aged children (aged from 3 ; 6 to 5 ; 4), in terms of the motivating context of the justification, marking of the causal relationship with a connective, and causal theories accessed in the talk. Partner expansion (validating justifications) was a salient motivating context for justifications, especially in the talk of friendship groups of girls, and seemed to privilege greater marking of the causal relationship with a connective and less arbitrary reasoning. One group of girls varied their use of validating justifications depending on the theme of play. Results are discussed in terms of the implications of use of validating justifications for children's causal theory building with peers, linguistic development, and pragmatic development.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 37 , Issue 1 , January 2010 , pp. 115 - 144
Copyright
Copyright © 2009 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

[*]

The research reported was supported by a grant entitled ‘Gender, peer groups, and social identity in the preschool’ to the first author from the Spencer Foundation. We are grateful to the children who participated in the study and their parents, teachers, and school administrators. We are also grateful to Traci Marx and Nereyda Hurtado, who worked on data collection and transcription.

References

REFERENCES

Au, T. K.-F. (1994). Developing an intuitive understanding of substance kinds. Cognitive Psychology 27, 71–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Au, T. K.-F., Romo, L. F. & DeWitt, J. E. (1999). Considering children's folkbiology in health education. In Siegal, M. & Peterson, C. C. (eds), Children's understanding of biology and health, 209–234. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Barbieri, M. S., Colavita, F. & Scheuer, N. (1990). The beginning of the explaining capacity. In Conti-Ramsden, G. & Snow, C. E. (eds), Children's language, Volume 7, 245–71. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Blum-Kulka, S. (2002). ‘Do you believe that Lot's wife is blocking the road to Jericho?’ Co-constructing theories about the world with adults. In Blum-Kulka, S. & Snow, C. (eds), Talking to adults: the contribution of multiparty discourse to language acquisition, 85–115. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bornstein, M. H., Hahn, C.-S. & Haynes, O. M. (2004). Specific and general language performance across early childhood: stability and gender considerations. First Language 24, 267–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Budwig, N. (1995). A developmental-functionalist approach to child language. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Butler, J. (1990). Gender trouble: feminism and the subversion of identity. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Cameron, D. (1997). Performing gender identity: young men's talk and the construction of heterosexual masculinity. In Johnson, S. & Meinhof, U. (eds), Language and masculinity, 47–64. Oxford: Blackwell. Reprinted in J. Coates (ed.) (1998), Language and gender: a reader, 270–84. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers [page numbers in text refer to reprint].Google Scholar
Carey, S. & Spelke, E. (1994). Domain-specific knowledge and conceptual change. In Hirschfeld, L. A. & Gelman, S. A. (eds), Mapping the mind: domain specificity in cognition and culture, 169–200. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chafe, W. (1984). How people use adverbial clauses. Berkeley Linguistics Society 10, 437–49. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Coates, J. (1996). Women talk: conversation between women friends. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Coates, J. (2004). Women, men, and language: a sociolinguistic account of gender differences in language. 3rd ed. (Studies in language and linguistics). London: Pearson Longman.Google Scholar
Dunn, J. (1996). Arguing with siblings, friends, and mothers: developments in relationships and understanding. In Slobin, D. I., Gerhardt, J., Kyratzis, A. & Guo, J. (eds), Social interaction, social context, and language: essays in honor of Susan Ervin-Tripp, 191–203. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Dunn, J. & Munn, P. (1987). The development of justification in disputes with mother and sibling. Developmental Psychology 23, 791–98.Google Scholar
Eckert, P. & McConnell-Ginet, S. (1992). Think practically and look locally: language and gender as community-based practice. Annual Review of Anthropology 21, 461–90.Google Scholar
Eisenberg, A. (1992). Conflicts between mothers and their young children. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly 38, 21–43.Google Scholar
Eisenberg, A. & Garvey, C. (1981). Children's use of verbal strategies in resolving conflicts. Discourse Processes 4, 149–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ervin-Tripp, S. M. (1978). What do women sociolinguists want? Prospects for a research field. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 17, 17–28.Google Scholar
Ervin-Tripp, S. M. (1993). Constructing syntax from discourse. In Clark, E. (ed.), Proceedings of the twenty-fifth annual Stanford child language research forum, 333–41. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar
Ervin-Tripp, S. M. & Gordon, D. (1985). The development of requests. In Schiefelbusch, R. L. (ed.), Communicative competence: acquisition and intervention, 61–95. Beverly Hills, CA: College Hills Press.Google Scholar
Ervin-Tripp, S. M., Guo, J. & Lampert, M. (1990). Politeness and persuasion in children's control acts. Journal of Pragmatics 14, 195–219.Google Scholar
Goetz, P. J. & Shatz, M. (1999). When and how peers give reasons: justifications in the talk of middle-school children. Journal of Child Language 26, 721–48.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goodwin, M. H. (1990). He-said-she-said: talk as social organization among black children. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Goodwin, M. H. (1999). Constructing opposition within girls' games. In Bucholtz, M., Liang, A. C. & Sutton, L. A. (eds), Reinventing identities: the gendered self in discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goodwin, M. H. (2003). The relevance of ethnicity, class, and gender in children's peer negotiations. In Holmes, J. & Meyerhoff, M. (eds), The handbook of language and gender, 229–51. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, M. H. (2006). The hidden life of girls: games of stance, status, and exclusion. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Gumperz, J. J. & Berenz, N. (1993). Transcribing conversational exchanges. In Edwards, J. A. & Lampert, M. D. (eds), Talking data: Transcription and coding in discourse research, 91–121. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Hood, L. & Bloom, L. (1979). What, when and how about why: a longitudinal study of early expressions of causality. Monographs of the Society of Research on Child Development 44 (serial no. 6).Google Scholar
Kyratzis, A. (1992). Gender differences in the use of persuasive justifications in children's pretend play. In Hall, K., Bucholtz, M. & Moonwomon, B. (eds), Locating power: proceedings of the second Berkeley women and language conference 2, 326–37. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Women and Language Group.Google Scholar
Kyratzis, A. (2001). Emotion talk in preschool same-sex friendship groups: fluidity over time and context. In Budwig, N. (ed.), Language socialization and children's entry into schooling [Special issue]. Early Education and Development 12, 359–91.Google Scholar
Kyratzis, A. & Guo, J. (2001). Preschool girls' and boys' verbal conflict strategies in the U.S. and China: cross-cultural and contextual considerations. In Kyratzis, A., Gender construction in children's interactions: a cultural perspective [Special issue]. Research on Language and Social Interaction 34, 45–74.Google Scholar
Maltz, D. N. & Borker, R. A. (1982). A cultural approach to male–female miscommunication. In Gumperz, J. J. (ed.), Language and social identity, 195–216. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Matthiessen, C. & Thompson, S. A. (1988). The structure of discourse and ‘subordination’. In Haiman, J. & Thompson, S. A.Clause combining in grammar and discourse, 275–329. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nakamura, K. (2001). Gender and language use in Japanese preschool children. Research on Language and Social Interaction 34, 15–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ochs, E. (1996). Linguistic resources for socializing humanity. In Gumperz, J. J. & Levinson, S. C. (eds), Rethinking linguistic relativity, 407–437. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ochs, E., Taylor, C., Rudolph, D. & Smith, R. (1992). Story-telling as a theory building activity. Discourse Processes 15, 37–72.Google Scholar
Orsolini, M. (1993). ‘Dwarfs do not shoot’: an analysis of children's justifications. Cognition and Instruction 11, 287–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shatz, M. (1994). A toddler's life: becoming a person. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sheldon, A. (1990). Pickle fights: gendered talk in preschool disputes. Discourse Processes 13, 5–31. Reprinted in D. Tannen (ed.) (1993), Gender and conversational interaction, 83–109. Oxford: Oxford University Press [page numbers in text refer to reprint].Google Scholar
Slobin, D. I. (1985). Crosslinguistic evidence for the Language-Making Capacity. In Slobin, D. I. (ed.), The cross-linguistic study of language acquisition, volume 2; Theoretical issues, 1157–256. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Thorne, B. (1993). Gender play: girls and boys in school. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
Veneziano, E. (2001). Interactional processes in the origins of the explaining capacity. In Nelson, K. E.., Aksu-Koc, A. & Johnson, C. (eds), Children's language: developing narrative and discourse competence, Vol. 10, 113–141. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Veneziano, E. (2002). Language in pretense in the second year: what it can tell us about ‘pretending’ in pretense and the ‘know-how’ about the mind. In Mitchell, R. W. (ed.), Pretending and imagination in animals and children, 58–72. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Veneziano, E. & Sinclair, H. (1995). Functional changes in early child language: the appearance of references to the past and of explanations. Journal of Child Language 22, 557–81.Google Scholar
Wellman, H. M. & Gelman, S. A. (1992). Cognitive development: foundational theories of core domains. Annual Review of Psychology 43, 337–75.Google Scholar