gender and developmental differences in children's conversations

Sex Roles, Vol. 16, Nos. 9/10, 1987

Gender and Developmental Differences in

Children's Conversations 1

Ann M. Berghout Austin, Mahshid Salehi, and Ann Leffler Utah State University

Extending work on childhood gender differences by J. Block ("Assimilation, Accommodation and the Dynamics o f Personality Development," Child Development, 1982, 53, 281-295) and J. H. Block ("Differential Premises Arising from Differential Socialization o f the Sexes: Some Conjunctures," Child Development, 1983, 54, 1335-1354), the present research investigated assimilative and accommodative discourse devices in the speech o f 24 preschool children (12 boys and 12 girls) and24 middle-chiidhood youngsters (12 boys and 12 girls) in each o f grades 3 and 6. Boys" discourse, regardless o f age, contained more accommodative devices. Girls" discourse, regardless o f age, contained more assimilative devices. Age effects were apparent; older children, regardless o f gender, used more discourse devices o f both kinds than younger children.

The present research examined gender effects in children's language. There now exists a large body of literature on the patterns and impact of male and female linguistic differences among adults (Derber, 1979; Edelsky, 1977; J. A. Fishman, 1985; Lamb, 1981; Vetterling-Braggin, 1981). This literature argues that since language reflects social structure and social structure in- cludes gender stratification, language production and interpretation tend to be sex -differentiated (P. M. Fishman, 1978). While results are sometimes weak or mixed (Berryman-Fink & Wilcox, 1983), in many instances the fin- dings indeed suggest that language is gendered. For instance, gender differences are apparent in language production, evidently impugning less power and self-assurance to utterances from females than those from males (Thorne & Henley, 1975). Thus, women seem to use tag questions and qualifiers more

tPortions of this paper were presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, August 1985.

49"/

03600025/87/0500-0497505.00/0 © 1~7 Plenum Publishing Corporation

498 Austin, Salehi, and Leffler

often in conversation than do men, sounding less assertive as a result (P. Fishman, 1979; Lakoff , 1973). On the other hand, in group conversations men more often interrupt women (Eakins & Eakins, 1978; Leffler, Gillespie & Conaty, 1982), are more frequently the initiators in talk exchanges (Soskin & John, 1963), and take longer speaking turns than women (Eakins & Eakins, 1978; Edelsky, 1981). Likewise, during verbal exchanges women exhibit less verbal and nonverbal control and superiority behaviors than men (McCar- rick, Marderscheid & Silbergeld, 1981; Putnam & Skerchock, 1978), and are expected by both men and women to use polite linguistic forms across situa- tions (Kemper, 1984).

Gender differences in discourse production are important for the differential expectations they convey to males and females. "Embedded in our language are messages about the nature and worth of the sexes, the posi- tions they should occupy in relation to each other and the appropriateness of their aspirations and behaviors. Language serves to structure general ways of thinking about the sexes" (Trenholm & Todd-de-Mancillas, 1980, p. 62).

Given the centrality of language in socialization, it would be useful to determine whether children of different ages also use gendered language patterns. Unfortunately, much of the previous research regarding gender differences in discourse was accomplished with adults, with very little emphasis on differences in childhood language production. But it is reasonable to predict that if gender-distinctive discourse is apparent in adult conversations, it is apparent or emergent in children's conversations as well. According to several theorists (Austin, 1975; Bates, 1976; Bernstein, 1966; Cook, Fritz, McCornack, & Visperas, 1985; Cook-Gumperz, 1977; Hymes, 1971; Searle, 1970), social context and uttered speech reflect each other, and children develop notions of conversation within the totality of their social milieu. Com- munication, then, is the confluence of a notion of language usage with an interpretation of the social world (Cook-Gumperz, 1977). As individuals com- municate, their talk exchanges are shaped by their interpretation of communication within the social setting and their theory as to the relationship participants have with each other in to that setting (Shatz, 1977). "The heart of cultural reproduction through speech [is] the process by which children find order in the speech around them and the process by which a social order is renewed" (Hymes, 1983, p. xiii). Thus, if there are societal differences in the expectations for and treatment of the sexes, these differences should be reflected in language production as well. Although gendered communication has been examined among adults, children's discourse has not received the same attention, thus making it difficult to determine when children's discourse shows signs of gendering, how such gendering develops, or if indeed children's communication is gendered at all.

Gender Differences in Children's Conversations 499

J. Block (1982), and J. H. Block (1983) have suggested that the accommodative/assimilative dimension is one specific pattern that differentiates individuals by gender. This dimension has been suggested to play a crucial role in the major extension of Piagetian theory to include behavioral as well as cognitive aspects of child development (J. Block, 1982; J. H. Block, 1983). According to Block (1982) and Block (1983), assimilative behavioral strategies, commonly used by females in a social setting, provide continuity through maintenance of similarities, traditions, and interactions; accommodative strategies, commonly used by males, result in social innovation through the creation of new modes and interactive patterns. Hence, if speech is inex- tricable from social milieu, gender differences in behavioral assimilation and accommodation should be speech differences as well. Females should show assimilative discourse patterns through the maintenance of conversational topics while males should show accommodative patterns through frequent changes in conversational topic.

The present study sought to extend Block's and Block's predictions of gender-differentiated assimilative and accommodative behavior to discourse devices among children. It differs in several ways from past research in its examination of gender-distinctive discourse. First, while most previous studies have examined conversations of adults, the present study investigates children's conversations. We were also able to compare language across three age groups. Researchers have documented age variations in referential communication (Flavell, Botkin, Fry, Wright, & Jarvis, 1968; but few studies to our knowledge have examined actual changes in discourse production and attention to conversational conventions across childhood. Further, most previous studies gathered data from a very small number of participants while in this study the subject pool is comparatively much larger. In addition, while it is known that childrren feature different interaction patterns according to sociometric status and acquaintanceship (Austin, 1985), these factors have been uncontrolled in previous linguistic research. For example, Austin (1985) found differences in the discourse styles of popular and rejected children. Differences in discourse production were also apparent according to acquaintanceship; that is, when children were speaking with friends vs with nonfriends. Since these factors have been uncontrolled in most linguistic research, it is possible that the gender differences reported in past research may have actually reflected differences in social status or acquaintanceship rather than gender per se. The present study utilizes data collected from popular and rejected preschool, third-, and sixth-grade children, and their friends and nonfriends; therefore, we were able to separate gender, status (popular vs unpopular), grade, and friendship effects in discourse production.


The general prediction of gender effects that this study tests is that boys, regardless of grade, sociometric status, or friendship match, were expected to show more accommodat ive discourse features than grils. One the other hand, girls were expected to show more assimilative discourse features than boys across grade, sociometric status, and friendship match. Recent literature argues that gender effects reflect general social status patterns rather than variations unique to gender status (Wager, Ford, & Ford, 1986). Thus, it is predicted here that status would shape discourse patterns in ways similar to gender. Specifically, it was expected that popular (high-status) children would feature more accommodative features; unpopular (low-status) children assimilative features. Finally, friendship and developmental differences were also expected, although their directions were not predicted.

M E T H O D

Preschool Sample

Subjects. Eighty children, or all the youngsters from two preschools who had received parental permission to participate, formed the initial sampl- ing group. The children were predominantly white, f rom working and middle- class homes (Hollingshead & Redlich, 1958). All children spoke English as a first language. They ranged in age from 3 years 1 month to 5 years 4 months (X = 4 years 8.5 months).

Instruments. The Revised Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT- R) and the Asher Sociometric were used with the preschool sample. The PPVT-R, a measure of receptive language skills, has median immediate retest reliability of .82, and median delayed retest reliability of .77. Overall median correlation with several vocabulary tests and vocabulary subtests f rom intelligence tests is .71 (Dunn & Dunn, 1981).

The Asher Sociometric has a test-retest correlation of .82 as a play rating scale, .84 as a work rating scale, and .69 as a best friend nominator (Asher, Singleton, Tinsley, & Hymel, 1979). Used widely as a sociometric measure for preschool children, it consistently differentiates children who also differ on other measures pertinent to each individual study.

Procedure. By means of the Asher Sociometric test and the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT), 12 popular children (6 boys and 6 girls) and 12 unpopular children (6 boys and 6 girls) with similar PPVT scores were selected for further study. To do this, each child's rating on the Asher was t ransformed into a z score. Children with a z score of .8 or above were grouped as popular, while those with a z score -.8 or below were grouped as unpopular . They were matched with two same-gender children whose


PPVT scores were within at least one-half standard deviation from each other. These matches involved the following: one child whom the target child had chosen as a "friend" and who had also chosen the target child as a "friend" on the Asher, the other, considered a neutral "nonfriend," who bad neither chosen nor had been named by one subject as a friend or a rejectee. Thus, each popular child was matched and filmed twice, once with a same-gender friend and once with a same-gender nonfriend. Likewise, each rejected child was matched and filmed twice, once with a same-gender friend and once with a same-gender nonfriend. The order of the target child's involvement with the two partners was randomized.

Third- and Sixth-Grade Samples

Subjects. Participants were selected f rom an initial sample of 240 third- and sixth-grade children, or all youngsters who had obtained parental permission for participation in the third and sixth grades at two elementary schools. The children were predominantly white, f rom working and middle- class homes (Hollingshead, & Redlich 1958). They were selected as part of a larger study which is described in more detail elsewhere (Austin, 1985; Austin & Draper, 1984).

Instruments. Although the Comprehensive Test o f Basic Skills (CTBS) is a test o f academic achievement rather than of intellectual abilities, it was used with the middle childhood sample in order to provide some control for cognitive differences. For CTBS validity estimates, the Bayesian procedure has been used to calculate mastery scores, with a .75 mastery criterion set for each objective. Regarding reliability, standard errors of measurement ranged f rom 4.39 to 6.85 for the total bat tery (The Preliminary Technical Report of the California Test of Basic Skills, 1982).

The Peery Sociometric, an instrument containing three internal measures of reliability, was used to differentiate more-liked (popular) children f rom less-liked (rejected) children. When the validity of the Peery was assessed through tests of social comprehension, popular children had the highest scores and rejected the lowest [F(3,21 = 8.187, p <.001; Peery, 1979).

Procedure. By means of the Peery Sociometric, 24 children were chosen as subjects in each grade. Only those children categorized as popular or rejected on at least two of the three internal measures were included. The grade 3 subject pool comprised 12 popular (6 boys and 6 girls) and 12 rejected (6 boys and 6 girls) children who ranged in age f rom 8 years 3 months to 10 years 2 months (mean = 9 years). Grade 6 subjects included 12 popular (6 boys and 6 girls) and 12 rejected children (6 boys and 6 girls) who ranged in age f rom 10 years 3 months to 13 years 1 month (mean = 11 years 3


months). Scores on the CTBS were also collected for each child and used when matching both friends and nonfriends. All partners had CTBS scores within at least one standard deviation, but usually one-half standard deviation, f rom each other.

Both the target child and the friend had mutually chosen each other on the sociometric test. Each target child was also matched with a same-sex nonfriend. As with the preschoolers, this was a neutral choice, since neither the target child nor nonfriend had accepted or rejected each other on the sociometric test. Similar to the preschool pairings, each popular child was filmed twice, once with a same-gender friend and once with a same-gender nonfriend. Each rejected child was also filmed twice, once with a same-gender friend and once with a same-gender nonfriend. The order of involvement with friend and nonfriend for both popular and rejected children was randomized. Only same-sex pairs were used in both preschool and middle childhood samples.

Procedure

Each dyad was taken separately to a small room in the respective schools where toys and objects o f interests to each age were placed. The dyads were left alone in the room and were encouraged to explore the toys in order to decide which items they thought other children of their age would also en- joy. Their interactions were videotaped. For the preschool participants, each interactive session lasted 15 minutes. For the third and sixth graders, each session lasted 5 minutes, due to external constraints. For all groups, scores were standarized across all interactions to facilitate comparability.

Data Analysis

All utterances of both children in each dyad were transcribed and analyzed. Two judges, naive to the research design, independently verified the transcriptions and scored the tapes. Intra- and interrater reliabilities deter- mined by percent o f agreement were taken at the beginning of the analysis, as well as the midpoint and end. They were .88 and above for all items.

Discourse was analyzed as to its use of accommodat ing vs assimilating devices. This meant observing which child began vs continued vs ended each conversation, and how these roles were carried out. Eight dependent variables were coded. The first three listed below represent assimilative variables; the remaining five, accommodat ive devices.

1. Reinforcers or utterances that acknowledge the partner 's action, vocalization, or state. These were further classified into positive and


negative reinforcers. A positive reinforcer would be, "That 's a dumb tower." They are assimilative behaviors.

2. Conversation facilitators or utterances that followed upon a play or conversation theme previously introduced or otherwise continued the ongoing theme. Example: I f a child said, "My father took me to the store last night," a facilitator would be the answer, "That was nice of him," or "Was it fun?" They are assimilative behaviors.

3. Length o f time in mutual engagements, where mutual engagements were defined as instances where both partners verbally or nonverbally cooperated in the same play or conversational theme. Exam- pie: A verbal mutual engagement would be the discussion both children had regarding Child A's trip to the store. A nonverbal mutual engagement would be the time both children spent, without speaking, building a tower together. They are assimilative behaviors.

4. Conversational initiators, defined as remarks that began a conversation or initiated another after a 5-second lapse. They are accommodative behaviors.

5. Conversational redirectors, or remarks that changed the conversational theme. Example: Child A and Child B have been playing with clay together; Child B redirects when she says, "Let 's look at this book now." They are accommodat ive behaviors.

6. Conversational terminators, or remarks that explicitly ended the interaction without opening a new topic. Example: Child A and B are talking. Child A uses a terminator when he says to Child B, "Shut up," or, "Stop doing that ." They are accommodat ive behaviors.

7. Verbal attention-getting devices measure those occasions where one child tries explicitly to get the attention of the other child. An example would be the remark of Child A to Child B, "Hey, look at me." They are accommodat ive behaviors.

8. Nonverbal attention-getting devices, or instances where attention was elicited nonverbally. Example: Child B tapped Child A on the arm or shoulder. They are accommodat ive behaviors.

It was theorized that high values of (1) reinforcers, (2) facilitators, and (3) length of t ime in mutual engagements would indicate a heavy concentration of assimilative features in the discourse, while high values of (4) initiators, (5) redirectors, (6) terminators, and (7-8) verbal and nonverbal attention-getting devices would indicate a heavy concentration of accommodative features in the discourse. Thus, it was predicted both that girls and also that unpopular children would receive higher scores on variables 1, 2, and 3, while boys and popular children would receive higher scores on variables 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8. To control for possible differences in utterance production, each individual's utterance total in each of the eight categories was divided by that person's

~ o ~ . . . . . . . . . . . ~ ~ § ~ § ~ ~

o ~ o ~ ~ ~ . . . . . . . .

~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

~ o ~ ~ o ~ m o ~ ~ . . . .


total utterances overall. As Table I shows, associations between dependent variables were sufficiently low that they presented no dangers of coUinearity.

RESULTS

The data were analyzed through a 2 (friendship) within 3 (grade) x 2 (sex) x 2 (status: popular vs unpopular) analysis of variance where Y = Grade (G) + Sex (X) + Status (S) + GX + GS + XS + GSX + Error A + Friendship (friend or nonfr iend)(F) + FG + FX + FS + FGX + FGS + FXS + Error B. Using this split plot model, successive measurements made on the target child (whether popular or rejected) constituted the repeated measure. Separate analyses were run on the utterances of the target child and the utterances of the partner, since different processes had been used to select target and partner.

As predicted, the main effect of gender was significant for several dependent measures. Boys had significantly higher scores for initiators o f target, initiators of partner, verbal attention-getting devices of the target, and nonverbal attention-getting devices of the partner. Girls had significantly higher scores for facilitators o f the target, facilitators of the match, reinforcers of the target, and reinforcers of the match. Thus, boys used more accommodative devices in conversation (initiators, and verbal and nonverbal attention-getting devices) and girls used more assimilative features (facilitators and reinforcers). Older children used more conversational devices than younger children.

Significant Gender E f f e c t s - B o y s

As predicted, boys of all ages used more initiators in conversation than girls regardless of whether the initiators were those of the target (F = 8.730, 1,59, df, p <_ .01, girls = .04, boys = .06) or those of the partner (F = 8.0866, 1,59 df, p ___ .01, girls = .04, boys = .06). Likewise, verbal attention- getting devices were significant for boy target children (F = 6.7573, 1,59 df, p <_ .01, girls = .04, boys = .06). Likewise, verbal attention-getting devices were significant for boy target children (F = 6.7573, 1,59 df, p <__ .01, girls = . 10, boys = . 15). Nonverbal attention-getting devices were significant for boy partners (F = 4.5455, 1,59, df, p < .04, girls = .07, boys = . 12).

Significant Gender Effects--Girls

, As predicted, facilitators were used more often in conversation by girls, both target (F = 9.9278, 1,59, df, p <_ .01, girls --- .20, boys = .17) and


par tner (F = 8.7193, 1,59, df, p _< .01, girls = .20, boys = .18). Also as predicted, girls used more reinforcers in c o n v e r s a t i o n - b o t h target (t = 1.9454, 60 df, p < .05, girls = 281.04, boys = 246.81) and partner (t = 1.8740, 60 df, p <_ .05, girls = 270.71, boys = 244.86). In addition, girl target children used more positive reinforcers in speech than boy target children (t = 1.87195, 60 df, p _< .05, girls = 88.71, boys = 71.63).

Significant Grade Ef fec ts

The main effects o f grade were significant for the dependent variables o f reinforcers, redirectors, facilitators, terminators, mutual engagements, verbal at tent ion-gett ing devices, and nonverbal at tention getting devices. To determine between where the three grades specific differences lay, multiple mean comparisons were performed using tests o f least significant differences. Both target and partner children in sixth grade outscored the others on redirectors (match: F = 26.19, 2,59 df, p < .01, preschool = .06, third grade -- .11, sixth grade = .12; target: F = 27.3152, 2,59 df, p _< .01, preschool = .06, third grade = .12, sixth grade = .13). Par tner 6th graders also outscored other grades on facilitators (F = 10.6173, 2,59 df, p _ .01, preschool = . 18, third grade = . 17, sixth grade = . 18).

Grade significantly affected terminators o f the partner (F = 4.8093, 2,59 df, p _ .012, preschool = .003, third grade --- .010, sixth grade = .002), with significant differences occurr ing between sixth graders and third graders. Third and sixth graders involved each other in more mutual engagements than preschoolers (F = 16.2412, 2,59, df, p < .01, preschool = .43, third grade = .72, sixth grade -- .82).

Both preschool par tner and target children used less verbal at tention- getting devices than third and sixth graders (partner, F = 7.38964, 2,59 df, p _< .01, preschool = .06, third grade = . 19, sixth grade -- . 11; target 8.96, 2,59, df, p _< .01, preschool --- .07, third grade -- . 17, sixth grade = . 13). This was likewise true with nonverabl at tention-gett ing devices. Preschool partner and target children used nonverbal ways o f getting attention less often than third- and sixth-grade children (partner, F = 10.41462, 2,59 df, p < .01, preschool = .02, third grade = .25, sixth grade = .13; target, F = 14.5102, 2,59, d f p < .01, preschool = .03, third grade = .13, sixth grade = .11). When total at tention-gett ing devices, both nonverbal and verbal, used both by target and par tner were considered, preschool children again used less o f these manipulat ions than third- and sixth-grade children (F -- 12.77055, 2,59 df, p < .01, preschool --- .20, third grade -- .64, sixth grade = .47).

Third-grade target children used less reinforcers than preschool or sixth- grade target children (F = 3.70908, 2,60 df, p _< .03; preschool = 275.10,


third grade = 230.63, sixth grade = 286.04). Sixth-grade partner children used more reinforcers than preschool or third-grade partners (F = 7.48867, 2,60 df, p < .01; preschool = 252.73, third grade = 227.92, sixth grade = 292.71). Finally, preschool target and partner scored lower than third- or sixth-grade children on positive reinforcers (target, F = 16.6865, 2,60 df, p <_ .01; preschool -- 43.00, third grade : 96.25, sixth grade = 101.25; partner, F = 25.7695, 2,60 df, p <_ .01, preschool = 36.96, third grade = 101.67, sixth grade = 105.63).

There were no significant main effects of friendship or status, although in a separate report involving the middle childhood sample only, status effects were apparent (Austin, 1985). Two-way interactions were nonsignificant.

DISCUSSION

Regardless of age, social status, or type of acquaintanceship, the conversation of boys and girls with same-sex peers vary with regard to assimilative and accommodative speech features. In this study, similar to our predictions, boys ' speech in preschool and middle childhood was laden with more accommodative devices such as initiators and attention-getting devices, while girls' speech contained more assimilative features such as facilitators and reinforcers.

In the literature, gendered discourse features such as conversational initiators, and attention-getting devices or control behaviors, are argued to be status associated for adults (McCarrick et al., 1981; Pu tnam & Skerchock, 1978). It is probable that they carry a similar impact for children, with higher status awarded to those who use more accommodative devices, or change points and attention-getting devices in speech, than those whose speech is more assimilative or sustaining. Thus, our fin- dings suggest that, like adults, early and middle childhood male discourse patterns convey higher status than early and middle childhood female patterns do. If, according to J. Block (1982), "Personality development represents a constructive achievement by the individual" (p. 289), this progressive con- struction is continually shaped and truncated through continual linguistic contact and tutelage. As attempts are made to equalize experiences for boys and girls, attention must be directed to the gender differences even very young children have learned to produce in conversations, and the larger social context these patterns may reflect and reinforce.

The patterns we examined reveal developmental as well as gender im- pacts. Flavell et al. (1975) have argued that discourse techniques are developmentally sensitive, with changes in communicative sophistication oc- curring particularly after the youngster enters middle childhood. This point


is well demons t r a t ed by the present da ta . Use o f most conversa t ional devices increased with age such tha t m idd l e - ch i l dhood youngs ters , t h rough redirectors , fac i l i ta tors , t e rmina to r s , mu tua l engagements , verbal a t ten t ion-ge t t ing devices, and nonve rba l a t t en t ion-ge t t ing devices a t t ended more to the con- ve r sa t ion and to the peer than preschool ch i ldren did.

C o n t r a r y to Aus t in and D r a p e r (1984), and Aus t in (1985), conversa- t ional d i f ferences were no t found between popu l a r and rejected chi ldren, nor be tween fr iends and nonf r iends . However , the studies men t ioned examined in te rac t ions solely in midd le ch i ldhood , while this s tudy ana lyzed interac- t ions in the p reschool years as well as midd le ch i ldhood . H y m e l (1983) has cau t ioned tha t soc iomet r ic ins t ruments m a y no t be as accura te when used with p reschoo l samples . Thus , the lack o f s ta tus and f r iendship effects m a y be due to measu remen t issues. It is fur ther poss ible that less-l iked chi ldren m a y show less p red ic t ab le behav iors in p reschool than in middle ch i ldhood . In any case, gender appea r s the mos t signal e lement d is t ingushing chi ldren f rom ear ly p reschoo l years to the end o f midd le ch i ldhood .

Acco rd ing to H y m e s (1964), the ob jec t o f communica t ive deve lopment is to l ea rn to p r o d u c e u t te rances tha t not on ly are g r ammat i ca l l y correct , bu t also a p p r o p r i a t e to the s i tua t ion and to the fac i l i ta t ion o f conversa t ion . These d a t a indicate the progress chi ldren make dur ing ch i ldhood with regard to their ab i l i ty to p r o d u c e connec ted discourse . Nonetheless , the s tudy also indica tes tha t as ch i ldren deve lop socie ta l ly no rma t ive speech, they are deve lop ing d iscourse convent ions tha t p r o m o t e the unequal pa r t i c ipa t ion o f boys and girls.

R E F E R E N C E S

Asher, S. R., Singleton, L. C., Tinsley, B. R., & Hymel, S. A reliable sociometric measure for preschool children. Developmental Psychology, 1979, 15, 443-444.

Austin, J. L. How to do things with words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1975. Austin, A. M. B. Young children's attention to dyadic conversation as modified by sociometric

status. Genetic, Social and General Psychology Monographs, 1985, 11, 151-156. Austin, A. M. B., & Draper, D. C. Verbal interactions of popular and rejected children with

their friends and nonfriends. Child Study Journal, 1984, 14, 309-323. Bates, E. Pragmatics and sociolinguistics in child language. In D. M. Morehead & A. E. Morehead

0Eds.), Normal and deficient child language. Baltimore, MD: University Park Press, 1976. Bernstein, B. Elaborated and restricted codes: Their social origins and some consequences. In

A. G. Smith (Ed.), Communication and Culture. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1966.

Berryman-Fink, C. L., & Wilcox, J. R. A multivariate investigation of perceptual attributes concerning gender appropriateness in language. Sex Roles, t983, 9(6), 663-681.

Blo.ck, J. Assimilation, accommodation and the dynamics of personality development. Child Development, 1982, 53, 281-295.

Block, J. H. Differential premises arising from differential socialization of the sexes: Some conjunctures. Child Development, 1983, 54, 1335-1354.


Cook, A. S., Fritz, J. J., McCornack, B. L., & Visperas, C. Early gender differences in the functional use of language. Sex Roles, 1985, 12(9/10), 909-915.

Cook-Gumperz, J. Situated instructions: Language socialization of school-age children. In S. Ervin-Tripp & Mitchell-Kernan (Eds.), Child discourse. San Francisco, CA: Academic Press, 1977.

Derber, C. The pursuit o f affection: Power and individualism in everyday life. New York: Ox- ford Press, 1979.

Dunn, L. M., & Dunn, L. M. Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Revised: Manual for Forms L and M. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service, 1981.

Eakins, B. W., & Eakins, R. G. Sex differences in human communication. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1978.

Edelsky, C. Acquisition of an aspect of communicative competence: Learning what it means to talk like a lady. In S. Ervin-Tripp & C. Mitchell-Kernan (Eds.), Child disclosure. San Francisco, CA: Academic Press, 1977.

Edelsky, C. Who's got the floor? Language in Society, 1981, 10, 383-421. Fishman, J. A. Macrosociolinguistics and the sociology of language in the early eighties. An-

nual Review o f Sociology, 1985, 11, 113-127. Fishman, P. What do couples talk about when they are alone? In D. Butturff & E. L. Epstein

(Eds.), Women's language and style. Arkon, OH: University of Akron Press, 1979. Fishman, P. M. Interaction: The work women do. Social Problems, 1978, 25(4), 397-406. Flavell, J. H., Botkin, P. T., Fry, C. L., Jr., Wright, J. W., & Jarvis, P. E. The development

o f role-taking and communication skills in children. Huntington, NY: R. E. Krieger Co., 1975.

Hollingshead, A. B., & Redlich, F. C. Social class and mental illness. New York: Wiley, 1958. Hymel, S. Preschool children's peer relations: Issues in sociometric assessment. Merrill-Palmer

Quarterly, 1983, 24, 237-260. Hymes, D. Formal discussion. In U. Bellugi & R. Brown (Eds.), The acquisition of language.

Monographs o f the Society for Research in Child Development, 1964, 29, 107-112. Hymes, D. Competence and performance and performance in linguistic theory. In R. Huxley

& E. Ingrain (Eds.), Language acquisition: Models and methods. London, England: Academi~ Press, 1971.

Hymes, D. Foreword. In E. Ochs & B. B. Schieffelin (Eds.), Acquiring conversational competence. Boston, MA: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1983.

Kemper, S. When to speak like a lady. Sex Roles, 1984, 10(5/6), 435-443. Lakoff, R. Language and woman's place. Language in Society, 1983, 2, 45-80. Lamb, T. A. Nonverbal and paraverbal control in dyads and triads: Sex or power differences.

Social Psychology Quarterly, 1981, 44(1), 49-53. Leffler, A., Gillespie, D. L., & Conaty, J. C. The effects of status differentiation on nonverbal

behavior. Social Psychology Quarterly, 1982, 45(3), 153-161. McCarHck, A. K., Marderscheid, R. W., & Silbergeld, S. Gender differences in competition

and dominance during married-couples group therapy. Social Psychology Quarterly, 1981, 44(3), 164-177.

Peery, J. C. Popular, amiable, isolated, rejected: A reconceptualization of sociometric status in preschool children. Child Development, 1979, 50, 1231-1234.

r'utnam, L. L., & Sherchock, L. Verbal and nonverbal determinants o f dominance in sex-type male, sex-type female, and androgynous dyads. Paper presented at International Com- munication Association, Chicago, 1978.

Searle, J. R. Speech acts. Cambridge, London: University Press, 1970. Shatz, M. The relationship between cognitive processes and the development of communica-

tion skills. In H. E. Hocek and C. B. Keasey (Eds.), Nebraska symposium on motiva- tion (Vol. 25). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press, 1977.

Soskin, W. F., John, V. P. The study of spontaneous talk. In R. Barker (Ed.), The stream o f behavior. New York: Irvington Publisher, 1963.

The Preliminary Technical Report o f the California Test o f Basic Skills. (1982). CTB/McGraw- Hill, Monterey, CA.


Thorne, B., & Henley, N. (Eds.). Language and sex: Difference and dominance. Rowley, MA: Newbury House Publishers, 1975.

Trenholm, S., & Todd-de-Mancillas, W. The effects of sexist language in interpersonal judgments. In S. L. Burryman & V. A. Eman (Eds.), Communication, language and sex. Rowley, MA: Newbury House Publishers, 1980.

Vetterling-Braggin, M. (Ed.). Sexist language: A modern philosophical analysis. Totowa, N J: Rowman and Littlefield, 1981.

Wager, D. G., Ford, R. S., & Ford, T. W. Can gender inequalities be reduced? American Sociological Review, 1986, 51(I), 47-61.

gender and developmental differences in children's conversations

Documents