Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
.-i::.: r.
. :r:,:'iill.'l:,.:ir iil
'
: .!riir':i:,rli ):::i:r
'. . i::-.,::'-:i:'ril:lllri:-ilrr:ii,:i::::
, : .
jrr:
i: ::llliirr:iii, lrl.lari:ra)l::r,1
...,,..t:
.l,r'iir;-1.,:1,!)r: :i:.r:...r,.,?:: i:).'|r-ii i
..ti:t::il ir,::i;;:r:il,.r:.:a:.ru: :r i:r:' rt:irti:r
1., the first fewyears of life, children master the rudiments of their native language.
This remarkable achievement appears to require little conscious effort, and it occurs in
a wide varieqy of contexts. By their third birthday, children have acquired a large and
varied lexicon. They string together multiword utterances, participate appropriately in
conversations, and make simple jokes. They even begin to talk about objects and evenrs
that are not present in their immediate conrext.
By the time children enter kindergarten, usually around age 5, they have acquired
a relatively sophisticated command of language, an accomplishment that has some-
times led researchers to believe that language development is essentially complete.
However, major tasks still await the child, and developments that are as dramrli. as
those of the early years are yet to come (Nippold, 1998, 2000). This chapter describes
changes that occur during the school years. \(/e will pay particular artention to rwo
trends that are qualitatively different from earlier developments. The first is children's
growing abiliry to produce connected mulri-utterance language, as seen, for example,
in their personal narratives. The second is children's evolving knowledge of the lan-
guage system itself; reflected in their expanding metalinguistic awareness and in their
acquisition of literacy.
Our focus on extended discourse and metalinguistic awareness is not meant to
imply that development in other domains has abated.
Quite
the contrary"children con-
tinue to acquire greater expertise in the phonological
(Hua
& Dodd, 2006), semanric,
syntactic (Tomasello,
2003), and pragmatic (Ninio 6c Snow, 1996) aspects oflanguage,
Lhnguolge otnd Literacy
inthe SchoolYears
)1 t11
-)Y
I
392 CHAPfER IEN Longuoge and Literacy in the School Yeors
as has been described in earlier chapters. Taking semantic development
as an example'
childrent
vocabulary conrinues ro grow
",
, trpid rate during the school years
(Nagy
& Scott, 2000), with approxi-"t.1i 3,000
newwords
added to their lexicon each year
(Just 6r carpenter,
:DBh.pr...rti
input continues ro be an important factor in chil-
drens vocabulary growtlr, with the d..rsiry and context of sophisticated
or rare words
like uehicb, cholesterol,
^rd
rurkrbeing
a .tbrrr, predictor of future vocabulary growth
(\(eizman & Snow, 2001). A significlant portio^ of new words also comes from read-
i.,g
1N",io.,"1
Reading Panel, ZSOO)1i
1n+-g
that illustrates the importance of liter-
;;;'", well as the Lanner in which liteiacy interacts with ongoing language
development.
Lexical development
is also related to world knowledge
(crais, 1990), knowl-
.dg. ,hr, in most .hildr.., develops rapidly throughout
the.school years. children who
know more about a wide range oi,opi., acquire t.* *otdt more easily than children
*hor. knowledge of the *orli i, ,nor.limited.'With
the acquisition
of newwords' the
ir."dth a.rd d.ith of ,.**ti. knowledge also increases
(Landauer & Dumais, 1997)'
And bringing tire process full circle, the*addition
of new words to the child's lexicon is
facilitated by the pr.r..r.. of an already rich lexicon
(Nagy & scott, 2000)' The dra-
;;
;..*'h
of tir.lol.on throughout
the school years should make it clear that the
progr.l. that was made in the earf years continues.
This
Progress
s_erves as an impor-
tant foundation
for further growth and, in most instances, allows the child to acquire
qualitatively
new skills like reading and writing'
The chapter is organized to[ically. \7e lo"k fi,rst at how childrens interactions
with peers i.rfl.r..r.. t]iJ t"'g"'gt
dtutlopt"tt't'
'We
then.turn
to a discussion
of
childrens use of a form of ,.r,rlti-.rtterance
language termed decontextualizedlar.
;G;
;r extended discourse.
Extended discourie refers to multi-utterance
language
that focuses on phenomena
rhat are not immediately
Present
(s.now, Tabors, & Dick-
inson, 2001). Examples of extended discourse include persona]
narratives and expla-
nations.Next,weconsidermetalinguistics,knowledgeofth.languagesystemitself.
Childrens
,*"r..r.rr-oirh.
,rr1.-g"overned
nature of th. language system evolves
rapidly during the school y.r.r,
"id-*e
will describe some of the developments
of
this period.
. rtt. ,_
MetalinguisdcawarenessisanimportantcomPonentof,literacy,ournexttoPlc.
Literacy impl[s fl...rr, *rr..ry of reading and writing.-\re:./ill
describe how children
acquire these important skills
",,d
*h,t happens whe., they find reading difficult. Both
metalinguistic
awareness and literacy affe.t,
"nd
are affected by, childrent ongoing cog-
nitive development.
Finally, *. *iil examine childrent exPerience
with bilingualism
during the school
Years.
The notion ,h", l,"gt"ge development
is a life-span
Process
is a guiding princi-
ple of this book. This .t *i .."*itt bri.rg,rs up to the threshold of adulthood' connect-
i"g .t. early years ofl"rg*"g.
dev.lopire.tt
described in the preceding
chapters to the
.t?ng., th"t o..,r, duririg alulthood
that are described in Chapter 1,
lnteroctions with Peers 393
INrrnncroNs
wrTH eEERS
On Their Own
For most children, early experiences with language occur with an adult, usually their
m_other or other primary caregiver. In the first years of life, the child has the advantage
of interacting with a helpful and knowledgeable speaker.
\Vhere
the childt linguistlc
skill is weak or incomplete, the parent can fill in, or scffild(Bruner, 19g3). Hoi"er.r,
as children marure, they are more likely to find themselves in the company of other
children, where they must fend for themselves. Peer interactions represenr true testing
grounds for the young childt evolving communicarive competence (Blum-Kulka
d
Snow 2004; Nicolopoulo u,2002).In time, peer inreractions can become more impor-
tant than parent-child interactions (Cazden
& Beck, 2003;Harris, 199g;
pellegrini,
Mulhuish,
Jones,
Trojanowska, & Gilden, 2002).As children begin to ..rt., th. ii.g..
world, their language skills play a very important role in theiisocial and .ognit"i,r.
development.
In addition, as children enter adolescence, rhey use language to ally themselves
with their peers, or in-group, and to exclude outsiders. G.r"g"r. mark their group
membership through the use of the adolescent register. Adolescent registers .r.oirp"*
avariety oflinguistic fearures, including distinct phonological, ,.-*.,ri., synractic, and
discourse parterns (Beaumont,
vasconcelos, & Ruggeri, 2001
;
Gee, Allen, ar cfinton,
2001; Nippold, 1998,2000): For exampie, the
"doler.ent
register includes many
unique slang terms (e.g.,
chedda meaning money, da bomb
-.".,i.rg
the best, and. rii,
meaning home). Many of these terms are initially specific to particular eras, geographic
regions, social and cultural classes, and are sometimes drawn from regional diJ..L ot
immigrant languages (Rampton,
1998). They are adopted more broadly by adoles-
cents, change rapidly, and either fall out of fashion or become absorbed into rhe gen-
eral lexicon (Romaine,
l9B4). Another current mark of the adolescent register is-the
nonstandard use of discourse markers such as lihe and,you know (Erman,
2001; Siegel,
2002). For example, Erman (2001)
found that adolescenrs, but not adults,
"mploy
you
know to comment on or emphasize discourse as in
"youte
so stupidl"
you
biow'(Lm-
phasis in original, p.1347).
Longuoge Ploy ond Verbol Humor
One aspect of language use that is particularly salient in children is the propensity to play
with language (Dunn,
19BB). In the early school years, play with language represenrs a
sizable portion of children's language. In one study, approximately o.r.-qur.."i of all ut-
terances produced by kindergarten children contained some form of language play (Ely
& Mccabe, 1994). children treat language as they would any other obj.it, as a rich
source of material that can be playfully exploited (Garvey,
1977). AII components of
394 CHAPTER TEN Longuoge and Literacy in the School Yeors
". . . They're icky. They're slimy. Theytre
gooey." Children moY emPloY
Poetic-
devices lo express their feelings of
language are subject to manipulations,
and sPonta-
,r.or'r, *otd play and rhyming sometimes lead to
the invention of new, often nonsense words' In the
following example, a 5-year-old
child who clearly
did notlike bananas used repetition and
Partial
rhyming to amplify her feelings of disgust:
Yuck I hate bananas.
Theyre icky.
They're slimY.
Theyre gooey.
(Ely & McCabe, 1994,p'26)
The almost poetic qualiry of this sPonta-
neous utterance is echoed in children's more ex-
plicit attempts at creating poery. Ann Dowker
(Ual)
asked young children to generate poems in
response to pictures. One boy, aged 5'1, produced
the following lines in response to a picture of a
snowy day:
dieeust
'
llHliTi"Fi::i:
And there's a woP,
AweeP,
A stoP.
And
Yes.
No'
Sledge.
Fledge'
(Dowker, L989,
P'
192)
Theseexcerptsshowthatchildrenhaveapropensitytoplaywiththephonolog-
ical features of language. Recent work suggests .it".1ttit early verbal play sharpens chil-^
lr.ir lirrg,,rirtl. rfilhirrd leads to gr.r,.i awareness of the phonological
Properties
of
Ianguage, an emergent literary skill"(National
Reading Panel, 2000)' For example, chil-
drent early exposure to ..rt*in playful forms of language like nursery rhymes correlates
pori,i ray *ith th.ir later development
of literacy
(Bryant, Bradley, Maclean, 6r Cross-
land, 1989). Classroom instructional practic.i take advantage of children's natural
Oirr*,
disposition by incorporadng
games,als a way of teaching phonemic awareness
^1rilrrnr,
Foorman, Lundberg, & Beeler, L997)'
School-age children allo display a great interest in riddles and other interactive
language pl*y. i;ddt", are word g*.r,
"L"tty
structured as questions, that are depen-
j,i.
;
ihor,ologi.rl,
morphjogical,
lexical, or syntactic ambiguity
(Pepicello 6c
\Teisberg, 1983). 1o ,ot . ,. iiddl.".orrectly,
children must have some insight into the
lnteroctions with Peers
'395
ways that words can be ambiguous. In the following examples of riddles, the first plays
primarily on morphological ambiguiry the second on synractic ambiguiry (phrase
structure):
Question:
\7here did the King hide his armies?
Answer: In his sleevies.
Qtestion:
How is a duck like an icicle?
Answer: They both grow down.
Between the ages of 6 and B, children display a heightened interest in riddles
(McDowell, 1979). Spontaneous riddle sessions can involve many children, each
shouting out riddles as challenges, and answering riddles in turn. Thble 10.1 gives
examples of how children responded to a riddle. Children's abiliry to solve riddles
varies with their knowledge of the genre itself and also with their metalinguistic
development. Skill in solving riddles is also positively correlated with children's read-
ing abiliry (Ely
& McCabe, 1994). Thus, language play is a marker of childrent
developing mastery of the language system, and also a possible means of acquiring
linguistic knowledge.
Verbal humor represents another form of language play. Humor is a universal
feature of language and culture (Apte,
1985). To become full participants in the dis-
course of their communiry children must become familiar with its basic forms of hu-
mor. Children's abiliry to both produce and appreciate verbal humor develops over
Stoges in Solving Riddles
Thrget riddle: Vbat dog heEs tbe best time? Ansuter: A utatch dog.
Level 0
Absent or minimal response:
"I
dont know."
Level 1
Illogical or negative attempt at explication: "Because
dogs dont really have watches."
Level2
Explanation focuses on the situation to which the language referred, not the language itself:
"Because a watch dog is a kind of dog and also it keeps time."
Level 3
Incongruiry is clearly attributed to the language itself: "Because, well, watch dogs are really dogs to
watch and see if anybody comes in but watch dogs . . . Itt a joke 'cause itt also another word for telling
,
time."
Most 6-year-olds are at Level 1; most 8- and 9-year-olds perform at Level 3.
Source: From Ely & McCabe (1994).
39b CHAPTER TEN Longuoge and Literocy in the school Yeors
rime and is ciosely associared with their growing mastery of all aspects of language'
younger
children, who have a limited appreciation of the social and situadonal aspects
of lrrlgr.rrg., are more likely than older children to find simple scatological utterances
llk.
"iooipoo head" humorous. older children are less amused by such simple prag-
matic violations and are more likely to focus on the semantic and syntactic manipula-
tions found in conventional
jokes and puns. At a later stage, adolescents are similar to
adults in their compreh..rsio.,
".,d
prod,J.tion of verbal humor, including the use of
irony and sarcasm
1b.*,
et al., 1996), as described in Chapter 4'
Teasing is another type of complex verbal play that o-ccurs across cultural
communities and serves *rrlripl. ,oci"liring functions
(schieffelin & ochs, 1986;
Tholander, 2oo2).For example, i., Me*i."no families, teasingwith or around children
serves nor only as a form of plry but also as means of social control and of creating
intimate bonds
(Eis.nberg, 1l36j, Among British Bangladeshi working-class adolescent
girls, as another."a*pl.,
teasing seryes to establish and maintain intimacy, to express
iorrghr,.., ,nd reler.eiension,
",
well as to negotiate their intersecting cultural identi-
ties
(Pichler, 2006).
Some forms of teasing are highly structured and ritualisti c. sounding, playing the
dozens, snapping, o, *oofin[iran
aitivity that is found in African American communi-
tier, pred#i.t"'ntly
".rro"[
adolescent males
(Labov, 1972;Motgan' 20A2)' although
it has
"l.o
been document;d in female and mixed-sex groupings
among adults
(Good-
win, 1990). This ritualistic verbal game has many rules that must befollowed to ensure
its playful nature. Sounding involv-es placingfigures who are highly_significant
(e.g., the
,,o,t.r) in implausibl. .oit.*t,
(Fox, cited in Morgan, 2002, p.58; Labov, 1972, pp.
312,319),
as in the following examples:
That's why your mother is so dumb: She was filling out a job application and it
said
"Sign
here." And she put'Aquarius'"
Your mother so skinny, she do the hula hoop in a Applejack'
Your mother play dice with the midnight mice'
sounding builds upon preceding utterances, with the goal being to outwit_ one's
inrerlocutor by g..r.rrtirrg
^
*r,.*.rrithrt
."rr.rot be topped; it is a way in which-ver-
bal skill is pe.'foi-"d
"niprr.ti..d
in the presence of an audience. One study of ele-
-..rory
..hool children fourrd thrt frequent engagement in.sounding was associated
with better comprehension
of figurative language
(e.g., metaphors)
(ortony, Tirrner, &
Larson-Shapiro,
1985).
Gender Differences
In Chapter 6 we saw that children as young as 2 or-3 years.old begin to develop
grrd.rriu,
or special ways of talking
"ssoci"ted
with their gender. During the school
lnteroctions with Peers 39'7
years, gender differences in some domains become more noticeable (Berko
Gleason &
F,ly,2002). The self-segregation by gender that begins in the preschool years often
continues through adolescence, and researchers have noted differences berween girls'
social groups and boys'social groups
(Maccoby,
1998). There are also some differ-
ences in the language of boys and girls, although researchers are not in agreement
about the possible origins of gender differences.'With several notable exceprions, there
is little evidence that there are major biological differences underlying boys' and girls'
rypical language differences. Since differences berrveen boys and girls in basic verbal
abilities are small (Hyde & Linn, 1988), differential ability is unlikely to be responsi-
ble for the kinds of gender differences in language use that have been observed. Most
of the gender differences that do exist in boys' and girls' language are more likely to
be the product of socialization and context than the result of innate biological
differences.
Adults have a strong influence on childrent development of genderlects.
Parents, especially fathers, may play an especially important role in the early years
(Fagot 8r Hagan, 1991; Perlmann & Berko Gleason,1994). However, during the
school years, other adults, including teachers, begin to shape childrent acquisition of
genderlects. For example, teachers may (unknowingly)
react in gender-specific ways
to classroom rule violations by responding positively to boys who call out (interrupt)
without raising their hands but criticizing girls for the same behavior (Sadker
&
Sadker, 1994).
Beyond the pervasive influence of linguistic socialization by adults, children in-
fluence one another, and this peer socialization becomes more important during the
school years. Furthermore, because ofself-segregation by gender, peer socialization is
likely to occur within same-sex groups, where, according to some theorists, boys and
girls have different interactional goals: Girls seek affiliation and boys pursue power and
autonomy (Ely, Melzi, Hadge, & McCabe, 1998; Thorne & Mclean,2002).There is
evidence that in same-sex friendships, middle-class adolescent girls do show a strong
preference for sharing conversation (Aukett, Ritchie, & Mill, 1988), and in these con-
versations adolescent girls are more likely than boys to talk about emotions and feelings
(Martin, 1997).However, in analyses of conversations betrneen teenagers, Goodwin
(1990) found that urban African American girls were as likely to compete as they were
to cooperate and were as interested in justice and rights (supposedly male concerns) as
they were in care and responsibiliry.
Gender differences have been found in seyeral other domains of language during
the school years. For example, boys swear more than girls (Jay, 1992; Martin, 1997)
and are more verbally aggressive (McCabe & Lipscomb, 1988). Although it long had
been believed that boys use more slang than girls, recent evidence reveals that girls are
as proficient in their use oftaboo or pejorative language as are boys (de Klerk, 1992).
In their personal narratives, girls are more likely than boys to quote the speech of
others (Ely 8c McCabe, 1993). This attention to language itself appears to carrF oyer
to achievements in literacy. Girls on average score higher than boys in measures of
398
CHAPIER IEN Languoge ond Literocy in the School Yeors
reading, writing, and spelling, and these differences persist-tt'roiSll^iph
school
(Allred'
1990; Grigg, Daane, Ui.,, Sct"*pbell'
2003; Hedgls er NSwell, 1995; Mullis' Martin'
Gonzalez,Bc
Kennedy,
2003). It ii important to recog.tize that these.gender
differences
;;;r;;-"..
r.,ryi. i,r.'i., p"r, to g*d., differences
in attitudes toward literacy.
For example, some boysvit*
""di"g 'Id
writing as quiet'
qassi.vl
activities with little
intrinsic appeal. So*.-boy,
also cJ.rsider
the i=ontent and subject matter of many
reading and writing trsLs in school to be more suitable for girls than for boys
(swann'
1992).
There are two gender differences
that do have strong biological ties' First' with
p,rb.r[,th.
rir. of f,oyr'vocal
tracts.undergoes
rapid change, leading to characteris-
tic uoice cracking.
porJp,rb.r..nt males have longer vocal cords than postpubescent
females, giving
"dot.r.|. " "tti "aU'
males the abiliry to speak at lower fundamental
frequencies
(Tanner, ilggl' However'
biology
"PP:1tt
to play a lesser role in sex
differencesinvoicepirchthanwouldb.p..di.t.dbytheanatomicaldifferences
alone. Matt i"gly 1;e:it
f"""a that diffeiences
in pitch were as much stylistic'
reflectinglinguisticconvention,astheywerebasedondifferencesinvocal-tractsize.
As anyone who has .,o ,*t..,, voice l.sso.'s knows, individuals
have some control over
where they
,.place,,
their voice. In our gender-dimorphic
society, males place their
voices low and f.*"1., place theiilLi..,
high, thus exaggerating
biologically
determined
diffbrences.
The second rr.;; which a gender difference appears to have a strong biological
basis is in the incide.r.. of t""g.,"g". diro.d.rr, particJarlydcveloPmental
dyslexia
(im-
pairment in learning to read; L.
I\trh.r,
L.rrrring to Read Is Difficult")'
The reported
incidence of dyslexia i;;;.i greater
in,boys than in girls, with ratios varying between
2:1 and 5,1;
how.ver, ;";. #this difference may be due to referral bias
(Shaywitz'
Shap,vitz, Fletcher, 6r Escobar, 1990)' Possible biological reasons for sex differences
in the incidence of ;;;;t;uiu.io
include differences
in brain lateralization and
organization
(see Chapters
1 and 11)'
Extended
Discourse
Much of children's earliest speech is embedded
in the immediate
conversational
con-
text; it revolves around tt'. .r,itat needs and wants' Conversation
for the sake of con-
versation is uncommon,
as is talk about people, objects, and events that are not part of
the current context. However,
as children g.t older, they increasingly
find themselves
in situations
ir, *hi.h th.y are speaking
to .io.rrr.rrrtional
partners
(e'g', peers' teachers)
who may l*.k rh"r.Jf.r"*f.ag..
In"these settings, childr.n.nttd
to learn to talk
about themselves
and th.ir .xpeii.nces
in ways that are comprehensible
and meaning-
fu1. In school r.*irg, lfrifar.i-r r.. asked to describe phengm.ela.that
are not immedi-
ately present, lik. *h", they did while. on vacation' ot *hy birds migrate' In sharing
personal narratives
"U""t
ti" past and in providing.e-xnlanatiol;'
children are using
extend.ed. d.iscourse or d.econtextualized.
laruguage. Thi; is language that refers to people,
lnteractions with
peers
399
events, and experiences that are not part of the immediate context (Snow, Thbors, &
Dickinson, 2001).
Extended discourse can express two quite distinct modes of thought, the
paradigmatic mode and the narrative mode (Bruner, 1986). The paradigmatic mode
is scientific and logical, and the language of paradigmatic thought is consistent and
noncontradictory. Many upper-grade classroom assignments, such as presentations in
science courses, require children to think and write paradigmatically. In contrast, the
narrative mode of thought focuses on human intentions. The language of narrative
thought can be more varied, reflecting both the content of the story and also the sryle
of the storyteller. In general, children develop some level of mastery of both modes of
thought, although the respective balance varies according to the childt culture, expo-
sure to school, and individual circumstances.
Norrotives
Narratives are stories, usually about the past. Rsearchers define narratives (or a mini-
mum narrative) as containing at least two sequential independent clauses about a sin-
gle past event (Laboy,
1972). Personal narratives are stories about personal experience,
often describing firsthand events experienced by the storyceller. Through the telling
and sharing of narratives, narrators (children
and adults alike) make sense of their lived
experiences.
The following example is part of a longer narrative told by a boy, almost 4 years
old. He had been prompted by his mother to describe a recent visit to a fire station.
Although the initial focus of the narrative was on what he saw (fire tools, a steering
wheel), the key point of the narrative describes what the storyteller identified as a
"mistake,"
But you know what I didnt . . . that was not, that I, that I think was a mistake
for him to do.
He let me wear the big heavy fire hat.
But that was a mistake. Because when we got home I was, I was crying.
And my eyes were starting to hurt.
And actually my head hurt.
And my, actually my hand and arm and elbow hurt.
I was so sick when I got home.
In this narrative, the child has given linguistic expression to past events. He cites
the wearing of a heavy fire hat as the cause of his illness and does so as part of a story.
Following his narrative, his mother provided a paradigmatic explanation for what "re-
ally'' happened. In her explanation, she used the word
"associated" in its logical and
400 CHAPIER
IEN Languoge ond Literocy in the School Yeors
scientific
sense, to make clear that one event
(wearing the fire hat) was temporally but
".,.""tdfy
connected
to another
(the child's illness)'
Interest in the develoPment
of children,s
narratives
has grown in recent years
(Berman 8c Slobin, f
gqa;
iit""t"
Haden' & Reese' 2006; McCabe 6c Bliss' 2003;
Melzi & Caspe, ZOOZ; Otf" Ar Capps'
2001.; Striimqvist
ErVerhoeven'
2004)' During
the school years mosr Jifir.r,
*rr,.. the ability to iell coherent
narratives'
Develop-
-.rr.
pro.!.ds
from single-utterance
narratives produced
by. children as young as
j+
,.tor,.fN to novellale"lth
pt"ott"l
stories shared berween adolescents'
In addition a ,"--g"*rJrated
increase in length, a number of other narrative as-
pects shows d.,r.lop*..r-tal
change.
For e*ampl.l
there are changes
with age in the
overall narrarive srructure
(i.e., the way in *hl.h the story is organized)'
Narrative
strucrure has been
^n
lyr"d, from a urr-i.ay of perspectives,
including story
Srammar
(which focuses on rhe structural
elemen,,
"ttd
pioblem-solving
aspects of stories;
Mandler
&
Johnson,
tiilrstein
& Albro, D;7),
sranza analysis
(which uses the
notionoflinesandgroupsoflines'orstanzas;Gee'1986;Hymes'1981)'andhigh-
point analysis
(Labov,-1-i?2; Peterson 6c McCabe,
1983). In high-point
analysis' the
classic story builds ,.rp . ,1rlgl, point^that
is then resolved. In addition to describing
what happen.d 1"
p,ott" tti"tta
reference by Labov)' classic high-point
narratiYes
irr.trra. )rrluatior,tht
""""to''s
attitude toward what happened'
Inastudyor"r".g...,pusofpersonalnarrativesfromchildrenbefweentheages
of 4 and.9,
pererson
,""Ju.Llu.
(iqsal found a number of developmentalchanges'
Using high-poi.r,
,.r"iyii', tt"y fot"'d that the structure
used most frequently
by the
youngest children G;:
i:y;:tlds)
was the leapfrog narratiu.e'
in which tn:
:ltl1[
,yrt.irrti."lly
jumps from one event to another'
often leaving out important polnts
and causal
"rrd..-porJ
.orrrr..,io.rr.
The following
is an example of a leapfrog narra-
,ir. f.o*
^
4-yr^r'ild'girl
(Peterson & McCabe' 1983' p' 72):
Experimenter:HaveyoueverbeentoOberlinorCleveland'anyplacelike
that?
Child':
I been' been to' to Christ
Jovatis
right there'
ExPerimenter:
Youve been where?
Child.:
Christ
Jovah's
house' Sometimes'
ExPerimenter:
And?
Chitd':
I just said' I' I said' Hi' hello' and how are you? And then' and
then, they go to someplace
else' and then' and then I had a
f*ry,
*i.ft,"*ith,
with, with candy and hmmmy' and my' um'
I dont know.
ExPerimenter:
And
You
what?
Chitd:
I don t know what I did' I sure had a pafty'
Anothercommonstructurethatwasusedbychildren.betweentheagesof4and
B was the ,lrrorou[i)i
irrnrnr,which
t"k , t]r. form of recounring
a sequence of
lnteroctions with Peers 401
events ("and
then and then'). The most mature form of narrative, according to high-
point analysis, is the classic narratiaa in which events build to a climactic or high point,
are briefly suspended and evaluated, and then are resolved. Classic narratives were rel-
atively uncommon in 4-year-olds, but made up about 60 percent of the narratives of
8- and 9-year-olds. The following is a classic narrative from an B-year-old boy (the
high
point is in bold type):
You know Danny Smith? Het in third grade, you know, and when he was doing
jumping jacks in gym, you know, his pants split and in class you know his teacher
said, "Danny Smith, what are you doing?" He said, "I'm trying to split my pants the
rest of the way." It was only this much, and he had it this much in class. On the bus
he was going like this, you know, splitting it more, and he was showing everybody.
\7e told Danny he was stupid, and he said,
"No,
I'm not. You guys are the stupids."
(Peterson & McCabe, 1983, p.236)
Evaluation is another important feature of high-point analysis. Evaluation de-
scribes how the narrator feels about the events being depicted and can be expressed in
a number of ways, including compulsion words (haue to, must), affbct terms (scared,
funnfl,
and negatives (events that did not happen: "He didnt hit me.") (Peterson
&
McCabe, 1983, p. 223). Children use a greater variety of evaluations with age (Peterson
6r Biggs, 2001; Peterson & McCabe, 1983). A continued emphasis on evaluation also
marks the development of narratives through adolescence. In comparing narratives
from preadolescent, adolescent, and adultAfrican Americans, Labov
GSZZIf"u"d
that
evaluations increased threefold from preadolescents to adults. Interestingly, a control
group of European American adolescents produced narratives with rates of evaluations
similar to those of the younger African American preadolescents, highlighting how nar-
rative forms vary across cultures, a topic to which we now turn.
No rrotiyes ocross Cu ltures
Early ethnographic work on narrative use in diverse U.S. communities (Heath, 1983;
Miller, 1982) highlighted differences with regard to the frequency in which stories are
shared, the functions narratives serve, and the roles adults and children play in the co-
construction of stories. Recent work in various cultural communities has focused on rhe
uses and pafierns of narrative discourse in the primary context of narrative development,
namely, parent-child conversations (Hayne
& McDonald,2003; Leichtman, \7ang, dr
Pillemer; 2003; Melzl 2000; Miller, Cho, & Bracey, 2005; Minami, 2002). Findings
from this growing line of inquiry show cultural variations in the topics that parents and
children talk about and the ways in which parents guide their childrent narrative produc-
tion. Researchers conclude that cultural values and ideological orientations (e.g.,
high-
lighting the self or others), communicative patterns in the specific communities (e.g.,
communicating in subtle ways or direct ways), and expectations about whar constitutes
4A2 CHAPTER TEN Languoge and Literacy in the School Years
a good story lead to differences
in the ways parents suPPort childrens developing narra-
tive abilities, and thus in the ways children .o.tr,r,r., their narratives in the future'
Currentworkhasalsobeguntouncoverthediversewaysinwhichchildrenfrom
different speech and cultural co'mmunities
structure their independent
narratives' that
is, narrarives told to an unrelated adult or shared with peers
(McCab e, 1996; McCabe
& Bliss; 2003; Nicolopoulou,
2oo2). Spanish-speaking
Peruvian,Andean
children,
for example, conYey.,rd,.ra'tiot'
not by sutpe"ding the narrative.as described by Labo-
vian frameworks,
but iy drp*tingfro*
,h. ordeiof .,rents, such as introducing a dif-
ferent but related.*p.ri.n."
at the high point of the narrative
(Uccelli, in press)'
Japanesechildren,asanother.*,-p1.,-.o..necttemporallydistincteventsthemati.
cally, often using a structure that reflects haiku, a culturally valued literary form
(Minami,2002).
,
.
'
Perhaps the best-known
rypology
of cultural narrative sqyles contrasts topic-
focused and topic-associating.rrro,lr.l'lUichaels,
1981, 1991). Topic-focused
narra-
iirr"r, g..t.rr[f
told by Euro"pe"n h:ti:1" children' are stories about a single person
or evenr that have clear beginnings,
middles, and ends. These stories often conform to
the structure
of classic hig[-poirrit
arratives and constitute the conventional
structure
used in u.S. classrooms.
In contrast, topic-associating
narratives, often preferredby
African American children, link several episodes thematically
and involve several prin-
6;i.hr**ers,
as well as shifts in time
".td
r.tting. These narratives.are
usually longer
,fr'rr, ,opi.-focused
narratives.
However, recent work with African American children
icrrr*pi.rr,
2003) shows that topic-associating
narratives is just one of rhe many
,,.r.r.,,r..,
used and valued in A-frican American communities'
SaraMichaels(i981,1991)hasdocumentedwhatcanhappeninschoolwhen
children tell stories that do not follow the conventional
narrative formula' A topic-
"rr".i".i"g
fi..t-gr*d. Af,ican American girl was told by her teacher that she should
talk
..about
things that are really, really v.iy impo.ta.r.,"
1ld
"to
stick with one thing"
(Michaels,1991,pp.316,3ZO)'Thewaythisgirlusuallymadesenseofherworld
,fr.."gn U., p.rro.rrt *r,",it"t was explicltly discouraged'
and she was urged to adopt
a narrative sryle that conformed
to the dominant
(topic-focused) genre of the class-
room. Altho.rgl, ,rr.rJ ,r;,hi.rg irr.ri.rrically
wrong with teaching students to use dif-
ferent speakirg g.rrr.., ,,.r.rr.it implicit d.rr1rrrti,o,
of the narrative sryle of a childt
indigenous .i Ir. may have negative consequences
(Champion' Katz' Muldrow' 6{
Datl,l999;Mainess,
Ch"rnpio.,]
& McCabe, 2002;McCabe'
1996)' In a follow-up
interview 1 year later, the African American child angrily portrayed
her first-grade
teacher as uninrerested
in whar she had to say. Because this experience occurred early
in her educariorr*t
.*p..i.rr..,
it, influence 1., h., attitude toward teachers, school,
and Iiteracy w", p"r."',i"ffy p'ofot'ad
(Ogbu' 1990)' Many researchers
now see a need
for educator, ,o ...ogrrir. ,t.r. porenri;l
conflicts and to prwide educational envi-
ronmenrs that can r.,7,,rr..rrlt,rr"1
and linguistic diversiry as well as academic achieve-
ment
(Champion et al., 1999; Gutidrrez,
1995; Michaels, 1991). The need to
recognize the cultural diversiry of narratives extends to counseling clinicians' who'
lnteroctions with Peers 403
regardless of their own ethnicirF, are more likely to perceiye signs of psychopathology
in the personal narratives of healthy African American and Latino American children
than in the personal narratiyes of healthy European American children (Pdrez
& Tager-
Flusberg,199B).
Other Forms of Extended Discourse
The ability to narrate well and to use other forms of extended discourse is also an im-
portant precursor to literacy (Snow,
Thbors, & Dickinson,2001).'Written language is
itself decontextualized, often making reference to phenomena that are not part of the
here-and-now. Thus, the development of decontextualized language skills has impor-
tant educarional impIications.
In addition to narratives, other forms of extended discourse include explanations
and descriptions. Explanatory talk is an importanr part of classroom discourse and col-
lege lectures (Beals,
1993; Lehrer, 1994). Childrent initial experiences with explana-
tory talk are likely to occur in the home, where parents may use explanarions as a way
of conveying knowledge about how the world works. In the following example, a fa-
ther moves beyond the immediate contexr (the family dinner) to impart knowledge
about the world, about how rivers flow into lakes
(Perlmann,
1984).
\X/hot that spoon?
That is the gravy spoon. All the juice from the meat runs into that
little hole, you spoon it out.
Isnt that running in?
\Well;
it was running in. See all these little holes in the tracks down
here.
Yes.
\ftren you cut the meat, the juice runs out of the meat into that lir-
tle track there. Runs down till it gets to that hole. Blu-up! Fills it
right up.
[Pause.]
Thatt the way rivers and lakes work.
Teachers are often very explicit in their encouragement of extended discourse. In
first-grade classrooms, teachers have been noted to elicit explanations about objects
(e.g., candles, board games) children had brought to sharing time by saylng, "Prerend
we dont know a tfring about candles," or, "TELL
us how to play. Pretend we're all
blind and cant see the game" (Michaels, 1981, 1991). Exposure to extended discourse
in both home and preschool settings predicts competence in a number ofskills that are
important to the acquisition of literacy (Beals, 2001; Tabors, Roach, & Snow, 2001;
Tabors, Snow, 8r Dickinson,200l).
The kind of extended discourse encouraged in sharing time (i.e., narratives and
explanations) has much in common with what has been termed the referential commu-
nication paradigm, inwhich a speaker is asked to communicate about an object that is
child:
Father:
child:
Father:
child:
Father:
404 CHAPTER TEN Languoge ond Literacy in the school Yeors
not in view of the listener
(Ricard, 1993).In this situation,
effective communication
requires the speaker to be clear and unambiguous
about anaphoric reference
(e'g', pro-
nouns like she
^"a
rt ri and to avoid using i-,appropri"te
deictic terms
(e'g" this' that)
'
A study by Cameroi and \7ang
(i999) illustrates the referential
communication
p","dig*.
They asked children between the ages of 4- and B.years-old
to. tell ,
I:'y
based on
"
*oril.r, picture book to an adult, .ith.t i.t
Person
or over the phone' Chil-
dren told longer
".ri
*or. elaborate stories and made more revisions and corrections
(an index of monitori.rg for listener comprehension)
when narrating over the phone
than when narrating ir,
"p..ro.r.
In general, performance
in-referential communication
tasks develop" irr.r.L.*"lly over tlt
"hool
years
(Lloyd' Mann' & Peers' 1998)'
ffirrnilNGUlSTlC
DEVELOPMENT
tN THE SCHOOL
YEARS
Throughout the school years children continue to acquire new words at a rapid rate as
noted earlier. They learn to master ever more co-plex syntactic structures
(Nippold'
iOOO), ird,
"*.iave
just seen, they learn to u.e
"
v"riety of genres of extended dis-
course. uo*.r.r, ,"pia'""r"rahg
of metalinguistic
awareness is an especially notable
characteristic of 1*go"g. developlent
during-the school years' As we saw in Chapter 4'
metalinguisti.
**rr'..,.-t' is knowledge about language itself'
For the young child, languagtf'
"
tt""'p"rint
medi"m' In using language' chil-
dren need nor have conscious awareness of iticomplex
rule-governed
nature' In time'
however, some aspects of the system become oPaque
(cazden, 1975), perhaps as a re-
sult of the childt active exploration of th. ,yrt.- through l"$llgt.play,(Kuczaj'
Lg1z).In addition, o.rgoi.rj cognitive development
influences childrent understand-
ing of ,fr. ["g.,ir.i. ,fr*ri
(D"oherry 2000i, as does exPosure to literacy
(Purcell-
Gates,2001).
At the most basic level, a precursor of metalinguistic
awareness is seen in children's
correcrions oirt.i, o*" ,p...'t,
(Clark, l97B). Howev.r, the awareness that underlies
self-correction
does 1-ro, ,,...r.*.ily include a conscious understanding
of the- language
sysrem itself; self-correction
shows only that the child-recognizes
ideal mo.dels or,rules
and notes i-pfi.i.fy a discrepanry bennreen her linguistic
behavior and the model or
rule . Tlue metalinguistic awareness requires that knowledge of the language system be
explicit.
Phonolog icol Awsreness
As mentioned in chapte r 4, oneparticular
area that has received much attention in
recent years is children's awareness-and
manipulation
of the sound system of language'
;;f..;.a o as phonologirol
o*orrnro. Specifically,
phonological
awareness is defined
as the understanding
ih"t *ord,
"..
,rrrd. up of sound units, including larger units
Gyll*bl.r)
and smali-er units
(phonemes). Foi example, we know that the word cat is