Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-7tdvq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-11T23:39:29.852Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Preschool boys and girls use no differently*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 September 2008

Michiko Nohara*
Affiliation:
University of Connecticut, Starrs and Concordia University, Montreal
*
Address for correspondence: Centre for Research in Human Development, Concordia University, 7141 Sherbrooke St. W. Montreal, Quebec, H4B 1R6, Canada.

Abstract

Twenty-one videotape recorded interactions of 42 preschool children (aged 3;4 to 5;3) in same-sexed dyads were coded and analysed to see how these children used the word no in their interactions. Results showed that while boys and girls used the word no equally frequently, they were found to use the word in different ways. A trend for boys to use no when correcting or prohibiting their playmate's behaviour more often than girls was revealed. Girls were more likely to provide reasons for denying or rejecting their playmate's proposition or suggestion. The overall findings of this study are comparable to previously reported results indicating that males and females employ different styles of speech in order to accomplish the same goal. However, unlike most studies conducted on language and sex, this study offers a unique approach in that it examines how boys and girls use a word that occurs equally frequently in their vocabulary to accomplish different goals.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1996

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

[*]

I would like to acknowledge Jacqueline Sachs for providing data originally collected by her in collaboration with Jane Goldman & Christine Chaille. Special thanks go to Jacqueline Sachs, Carine Alma, Brenda Shapiro, Carol Fowler and Diane Lillo-Martin for helpful comments made on earlier drafts of this paper.

References

REFERENCES

Aries, E. (1976). Interaction patterns and themes of male, female, and mixed groups. Small Group Behavior 7, 718.Google Scholar
Austin, A. M. B., Salehi, M. & Leffler, A. (1987). Gender and developmental differences in children's conversations. Sex Roles 16, 497510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bailey, L. A. & Timm, L. A. (1976). More on women's – and men's – expletives. Anthropological Linguistics 18, 438–49.Google Scholar
Bloom, L. (1991). Syntactic and semantic development of early sentence negation. In Bloom, L. (ed.), Language development from two to three. Cambridge: C.U.P.Google Scholar
Cook, A. S., Fritz, J. J., McCornack, B. L. & Visperas, C. (1985). Early gender differences in the functional usage of language. Sex Roles 12, 909–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DiPietro, J. A. (1981). Rough and tumble play: a function of gender. Developmental Psychology 17, 5058.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edelsky, C. (1979). Question intonation and sex roles. Language in Society 8, 1532.Google Scholar
Fishman, P. M. (1983). Interaction: the work women do. In B. Thorne, C. Kramarae & N. Henley (eds), Language, gender and society, 89101.Google Scholar
Garvey, C. (1984). Children's talk. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Haas, A. (1979). Male and female spoken language differences: stereotypes and evidence. Psychological Bulletin 86, 616–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klecan-Aker, J. S. (1986). A comparison of language functions used by normal male and female pre-school children in a structured setting. Language and Speech 29, 221–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labov, W. (1966). The social stratification of English in New York city. Washington, D.C.: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
Lakoff, R. (1975). Language and woman's place. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
McCarrick, A. K., Manderscheid, R. Q. & Silbergeld, S. (1981). Gender differences in competition and dominance during married-couples group therapy. Social Psychology Quarterly 44, 164–77.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McCloskey, L. A. & Coleman, L. M. (1992). Differences without dominance: children's talk in mixed- and same-gender dyads. Sex Roles 27, 341–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McNeill, D. & McNeill, N. B. (1968). What does a child mean when he says ‘No’? In Zale, E. M. (ed.), Proceedings of the conference on language and language behavior. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar
Meditch, A. (1975). The development of sex-specific speech patterns in young children. Anthropological Linguistics 17, 421–33.Google Scholar
Nohara, M. (1992). Sex differences in interruption: an experimental reevaluation. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 21, 127–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reik, T. (1954). Men and women speak different languages. Psychoanalysis 2, 315.Google Scholar
Sause, E. F. (1976). Computer content analysis of sex differences in the language of children. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 5, 311–24.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shibamoto, J. S. (1987). The womanly woman: manipulation of stereotypical and non-stereotypical features of Japanese female speech. In Philips, S. U., Steele, S. & Tanz, C. (eds), Language, gender and sex in comparative perspective. Cambridge: C.U.P.Google Scholar
Staley, C. M. (1982). Sex-related differences in the style of children's language. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 11, 141–58.Google Scholar
Swacker, M. (1975). The sex of the speaker as a sociolinguistic variable. In Language and sex: difference and dominance, 7683.Google Scholar
Tannen, D. (1990). You just don't understand: Women and men in conversation. New York: Ballantine Books.Google Scholar
Vaidyanathan, R. (1991). Development of forms and functions in negation in the early stages of language acquisition: a study in Tamil. Journal of Child Language 18, 5166.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wenar, C. (1982). On negativism. Human Development 25, 123.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
West, C. & Zimmerman, D. H. (1977). Women's place in everyday talk: reflections on parent-child interaction. Social Problems 24, 521–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar