Chapter 4 Results
4.1 Children’s expression of negation
4.1.2 Meaning-form mappings of children’s negation
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
announce bringing about an action that the child did not want, or saw the mother act as if she were about to carry out an unwanted action. There were also fragmentary occurrences of prohibition when the mother asked the target child for permission to perform some actions. Inability was expressed when the child failed to achieve goals of herself or her mother. Sometimes it is also led by the mother’s inquiry about whether the child possesses a certain kind of ability. The less occurring semantic meanings are nonexistence and non-occurrence. These categories usually occur after children find an unfulfilled action or the disappearance of someone or something, mostly here and now.
4.1.2 Meaning-form mappings of children’s negation
Table 5 displays the frequency of the number of strategies children used in one negation.
Table 5. Frequency of the number of strategies in one response of negation
Number of strategies N %
One 684 84.2%
Two 118 14.5%
Three 10 1.2%
Total 812 100.00%
Most of the negations involved the use of only one strategy in a response (n= 684, 84.2%) while only 15.8% (n= 128) of whole samples were composed of the
combination of two to three different strategies. These results showed that children’s negations tend to be simple and short, which accords with the previous studies (e.g.
Wu, 2010; Yang, 2003; Jong, 2012). In the following two subsections, we’ll look at the single negation strategy first, then the minority, combination.
‧
Table 6 below listed the number and frequency of direct and indirect strategy in children’s single negation.
Table 6. The distribution of children’s direct and indirect strategy
Types Total %
Direct strategy 335 49.0 %
Indirect strategy 349 51.0 %
Total 684 100.00%
In children’s one-strategy negation, indirect strategy is the majority (n= 349, 51
%), but direct strategy also took a quantity of it (n= 335, 49%). That is, in mother-child interaction, children quite evenly use direct and indirect strategy;
indirect strategy was used only slightly more than direct strategy. Comparing this proportion of indirect strategy to direct strategy with previous study examining peer interaction, children of this age seem to convey their negation differently when facing different interactants. In previous research (Jong, 2012) that examined 5-year-old Mandarin children in peer interaction, children tend to use indirect strategy (n= 172, 67.45 %) instead of direct strategy (n= 83, 32.55%) when refusing peers. Table 7 presents all direct and indirect strategies children applied in their one-strategy negation.
Table 7. Frequency of Children’s single negation strategy
Types Total %
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Temporizing 43 6.3%
Countering move 40 5.8%
Challenge 26 3.8%
Appealing 25 3.7%
Partial agreement 23 3.4%
Total 684 100.00%
Among children’s single strategy, one direct strategy, direct negation, was frequently chosen (n= 277, 40.5%). Children used direct negation to express all kinds of negation meanings, and over half of children’s direct negation were clustered in denial and rejection (n= 169, 61 %), which is shown in the next table. Except for direct negation, two types of indirect strategy were rather common in children’s negation as well; namely, nonverbal (n= 71, 10.4%) and account (n= 64, 9.4%). Then were one direct strategy and one indirect strategy, insistence (n=58, 8.5%) and
correction (n=57, 8.3%). However, children’s usage of strategies varied remarkably in semantic meanings of negation. Table 8 on the next page unfolds all types of single strategy in denial, rejection, epistemic, inability, non-occurrence, prohibition, and nonexistence respectively.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Table 8. Distribution of the semantic meanings of children’s negation served by single strategy Meaning
Strategy Denial Rejection Epistemic Inability Non-
occurrence Prohibition Non-
existence Total Direct negation 108 (35.5) 61 (29.2) 31 (58.5) 19 (51.4) 25 (83.3) 16 (59.3) 17 (70.8) 277 (40.5)
Insistence 21 (6.9) 35 (16.7) 2 (7.4) 58 (8.5)
Direct strategy 129 (42.4) 96 (45.9) 31 (58.5) 19 (51.4) 25 (83.3) 18 (66.7) 17 (70.8) 335 (49) Nonverbal 23 (7.6) 38 (18.2) 7 (13.2) 1 (2.7) 1 (3.7) 1 (4.2) 71 (10.4)
Account 22 (7.2) 29 (13.9) 2 (3.8) 6 (16.2) 1 (3.3) 4 (14.8) 64 (9.4)
Correction 54 (17.8) 1 (0.5) 2 (7.4) 57 (8.3)
Temporizing 10 (3.3) 31 (14.8) 1 (1.9) 1 (3.7) 43 (6.3)
Countering move 34 (11.2) 6 (2.9) 40 (5.8)
Challenge 18 (5.9) 7 (3.3) 1 (3.7) 26 (3.8)
Appealing 11 (20.8) 8 (21.6) 6 (25.0) 25 (3.7)
Partial agreement 14 (4.6) 1 (0.5) 1 (1.9) 3 (8.1) 4 (13.3) 23 (3.4) Indirect strategy 175 (57.6) 113 (54.1) 22 (41.5) 18 (48.6) 5 (16.7) 9 (33.3) 7 (29.2) 349 (51)
Total 304 (100.0) 209 (100.0) 53 (100.0) 37 (100.0) 30 (100.0) 27 (100. 0) 24 (100.0) 684 (100.0)
‧
Comparing direct and indirect strategy in each negation meaning, we can see that denial and rejection were the only two meanings that were conveyed with more indirect strategy. These two meanings shared the same set of strategies, although in a fairly different distribution.
When delivering the meaning of denial, children occasionally give a single ‘no’
directly (n= 108, 35.5%). In our observation, direct negation in denial was less likely to be questioned or requested for a reason than in rejection (only one exception out of 108 occurred in our data). In other instances, they also correct their mother’s assertion (n= 54, 17.8%) or give the opposite of their mother’s assertion (n= 34, 11.2%). Note that correction and countering moves are different in that the former one is a more flexible and open-ended response while the latter one is one or the other and the exact opposite from the mother’s assertion. Excerpt 6 demonstrates children’s countering move in denial. At the beginning the child tried to flatten a pile of folded towels and kept pressing it, and then the mother told him to stop since it was already flat. The child then gave a countering move by copying the structure of his mother’s previous utterance and replacing the adjective into a contrary one, which is the basic structure of children’s countering move.
Excerpt 6. (MOT: the mother, QIN: the child)
*QIN: 我把他壓平一點啊.
‘I was pressing it to make it flatter.’
*MOT: 不用壓 [= laughing].
Correction was only utilized in rejection, denial, and prohibition, and it was very
‧
concentrated in denial (n= 54, 94.7%). In accord with previous findings, correction in our data corrects the mother’s wrong (from the perspective of the child) inference, comment, cognition towards something, or slip of the tongue. Along with that, we have found some interesting usage of this strategy in children’s negation. Sometimes, it serves for children’s sophistry for themselves. As in excerpt 7, the mother
prohibited YOU from playing on the computer, but YOU debated with the correction that it is playing chess (on the computer, of course) instead of playing on the
computer.
Excerpt 7. (MOT: the mother, YOU: the child)
*MOT: 不可以玩電腦.
‘ You can’t play on the computer. ’
*YOU: 那不叫玩電腦那叫下棋.
‘ It is not playing on the computer, it’s playing chess. ’
*MOT: 是 [% nodding].
‘ It is playing on the computer. ’
*YOU: 不是.
‘ No. ’
Other times, children don’t really mean to correct what their mother had said, and are just using this strategy to play tricks with language instead.
Excerpt 8. (MOT: the mother, LEE: the child)
*MOT: 快點.
‧
Besides direct negation, correction, and countering moves, children also used their body language (n= 23, 7.6%) and explanation (n= 22, 7.2%) to deny. Children’s nonverbal strategies in denial mostly were head shaking following their mother’s yes-no question or tag question, and they would give a reason or explanation when facing their mother’s assertion or suspicion. While direct negation was the most frequently used strategy of children’s denial (n= 108, 35.5%), the other direct strategy, insistence, only took 6.9 % (n= 21) of children’s denials, and it always occurred when mothers tried to convince and persuade their children to agree with some fact or assumption. Challenge and partial agreement shared a small part of children’s denial (n= 32, 10.5%), but children used these two strategies even less in other negation meanings.
As for rejection, children seldom reject their mother by saying ‘no’ directly (n=
61, 29.2 %). Unlike direct negation in denial, if children reject their mother with single direct negation, sometimes they would be asked for a reason. In excerpt 9, mother asked LEE to put away the yugioh cards after they played it for several rounds.
The request was rejected with a single direct negation by LEE, which drew the mother to request a reason. Instead of providing an appropriate reason, LEE persisted in her original response by giving another simple no, and brought her mother to stick to her request for a reason as well.
Excerpt 9. (MOT: the mother, LEE: the child)
*MOT: 遊戲王卡收一收啦.
‘ Put away yugioh cards. ’
*MOT: 好不好?
‘ Ok? ’
*LEE: 不好.
‧
Besides, we also found that with children’s direct negation of rejection, sometimes mitigated devices were added -- both physically (i.e. pouting) or linguistically. In the following excerpt, KUO and her mother were dressing a toy doll. The dress and decorations were almost done, and then the mother asked KUO for advice about which shoes to put on the toy doll. Instead of voicing her subjective rejection of putting shoes on the doll in language such as 我不要穿鞋鞋 wo bu yao chuan xie xie
‘ I don’t want to put shoes on her ’ , she said 我們不要穿鞋鞋 wo men bu yao chuan xie xie ‘ Let’s not put shoes on her ’ to make it sounds less self-willed.
Excerpt 10. (MOT: the mother, KUO: the child)
*MOT: 她這件是配什麼鞋鞋?
At other times, they show their rejection by shaking their head or shoulders, whining, kicking at random, or doing what their mother has forbid them to do (n= 38, 18.2 %).
‧
This strategy had the second largest pool of children’s negation in our data, and it mainly appeared in rejection. In previous research, it is commonly seen that children reject with nonverbal strategies such as whining, shaking their head, or sticking out their tongue. In our study, we found that children also deliberately undertake actions to deliver their rejection of taking orders. In the following excerpt, the child left his seat and put a cup back in the cupboard while having lunch. He was thought to keep on having his meal after he put it back, but the boy began to put other cups in order instead. His mother at first urged the child to finish what he had been doing and get back to the dining table, but the boy deliberately slowed his action. Then his mother suggested him to stop since the cups were fine, but the child did not stop until the fifth time of his mother’s hustle.
Excerpt 11. (MOT: the mother, YOU: the child)
*MOT: 快點.
Insistence appeared nearly as frequently as nonverbal strategy does in rejection (n= 35,
‧
16.7 %). This direct strategy that gives the mother her own wants and needs is
different from the other direct strategy in that it only took 8.5% of children’s negation.
It was used to express denial and prohibition, but mainly occurred to deliver rejection.
Hsieh (2009) states that “both self-repeats and other-repeats can be used to double up the illocutionary force, i.e., to do emphasis or to do persuasion, by means of repeating the linguistic form….The increase of the form adds up to the increase of the
function….” Excerpt 12 is an example of repeating direct negation to emphasize rejection. The mother tried to get her daughter to take a shower at first, and the girl rejected by a single direct negation. Then the mother said the least, requesting steps before taking a shower, which were removing hair decorations and undressing. Then the girl smelled out her mother’s intention, bellowing repetition of direct negation at her mother and refusing to comply with her mother’s original request.
Excerpt 12. (MOT: the mother, LEE: the child)
*MOT: 啊你不是要去洗澡了?
Insistence in our data usually incurs the mother’s objection or prohibition which also brings children to reaffirm their insistence repeatedly. The following excerpt shows this circumstance with a scene in which the mother rejected YOU’s request with a single direct negation first, and then they got caught in a mutual negation circle with a single direct strategy. After two turns, the mother called YOU’s full name in tones of
‧
warning, but that incurred YOU to stress his single direct negation with repetition.
Instead of persisting on prohibiting her son to have icy drinks, the mother next urged him to keep on eating. However, YOU still stuck to his original request, and then they got caught in a mutual negation circle again. Some previous research also found that
“mothers and children tended to use no argument when the other partner did not produce arguments” (Slomkowski and Dunn, 1992).
Excerpt 13. (MOT: the mother, YOU: the child)
*YOU: 我要喝冰的.
In order to reject, they may also passively keep the mother’s request pending temporarily (n= 31, 14.8 %), or give reasons and explanation (n= 29, 13.9 %).
‧
Challenge and countering moves were seen less in children’s rejection.
For negation meaning of inability, the frequencies of direct and indirect strategy are nearly the same. Among two direct strategies, children only use direct negation and it took 51.4 % (n= 19) of children’s inability. They always simply said ‘I can’t (do something)’ to answer their mother when they were requested to bring some actions or were asked if they possess certain physical ability. Other times, they would ask their mother to offer help with imperatives such as ‘Help me’, or ‘Could you help me?’ (n= 8, 21.6%). However, the mother would give a hand even if the child did not call for help but merely described the reason of their inability (n= 6, 16.2 %), like ‘So heavy!’ or ‘So difficult!’. Narrowing down one’s incapability to a specific function and emphasizes other things that oneself can do was found in our data as well (n= 3, 8.1%). For example, children said 我會幫她穿拖鞋可是我不會幫她穿這個 wo hui bang ta chuan tuo xie ke shi wo bu hui bang ta chuan zhe ge ‘I know how to put slippers on her but I don’t know how to put this on her’ to emphasize that she was incapable of doing one thing but she does possess the ability to do another.
All strategies children used to express inability can be seen in epistemic as well, and that might be explained by the homogeneity in the meaning of epistemic and inability; they both mean the lack of a certain ability, physically or intellectually.
However, it turns out that children were more direct when expressing their lack of knowledge than when expressing their lack of physical ability. Over half of children’s epistemics were delivered with direct negation (n= 31, 58.5%). In our observation, many children’s direct negation and nonverbal were reactions to their mother’s query about some facts and her yes-no questions that asked children whether they know something.
Children performed a quantity of strategies to express prohibition, and 66.7 % (n= 18) of their prohibitions were delivered with direct strategies. They may also give
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
reason to prohibit their mother from doing something (n=4, 14.8%) or direct their mother to do things they want instead (n= 2, 7.4 %).
When children describe their observation of the disappearance of something, they normally just let slip the circumstance (n= 17, 70.8 %). In a few cases, children would directly ask their mother for the object they found to have disappeared (n= 6, 25%). When expressing non-occurrence, direct negation is usually the top choice for children (n= 25, 83.3 %). Other than that, few partial agreements occurred in a very specific context.
Within all types of single strategy, direct negation is the only one that can be used universally by all negation meanings. Except for it, nonverbal, account, and partial agreement also served for five negative meanings; temporizing, insistence, correction, challenge, and appealing served for three to four meanings. Based on this distribution, it is confirmed that children not only apply strategies conveying denial and rejection as stated by previous studies reviewed in chapter 2, but they also apply strategies of different levels of directness when expressing other meanings of negation. However, it can be found from table 8 that children use a greater variety of strategies to convey their denial, rejection, and prohibition then epistemic, inability, non-occurrence, and
nonexistence.
4.1.2.2 Mappings between meanings and combination
According to Table 5 at the beginning of 4.1.2, only 15.7 % (n= 128) of children’s negation were delivered with a combination of strategies. The following table shows how children assigned single strategy and combination in different
negation meanings. Though combination only took a small part of children’s negation, we found that children were more likely to use combination in their prohibition, denial, and rejection, while epistemic, inability, non-occurrence, and nonexistence are
‧
less likely to be conveyed by combination. As we observed in the last section, children also used more types of single strategy in their denial, rejection, and prohibition. It may be explained by the similarity of semantic components in denial, rejection, and prohibition. That is, these three meanings are led by their interlocutor’s self-centered knowledge, wish, or movement (unwanted by the children). In other words, these three kinds of negation are directed against their interlocutor, so it may require more skillful strategy to maintain the relationship between the speaker and interlocutor. However, epistemic and inability are about children’s own deficiency, and non-occurrence and nonexistence are neutrally stating a circumstance of here and now. These meanings of negation are less threatening to the face of the interlocutor, thus children may use a simpler and direct form to express them.
Table 9. The proportion of single strategy to combination in negation meanings
DEN(%) REJ(%) EPI(%) INA(%) NOC(%) PRO(%) NEX(%)
Before we examine children’s combination types, note that in our data,
combinations that consisted of two strategies were overwhelmingly the majority (n=
118, 92.19%) serving for all meanings among combinations, but combination made up of three strategies only took 7.81% (n= 10) of all combination. These minorities can only be found in denial, rejection, and prohibition— the following is an excerpt from denial.
Excerpt 14. (MOT: the mother, KUO: the child)
*MOT: 她穿了什麼拖鞋啊?
‧
Due to this low occurrence in type and number, here we only analyze only double strategies. The table below shows how children construct their two-strategy
combination with direct and indirect strategy.
A direct strategy leads an indirect strategy is the majority of children’s combination (n= 81, 68.6 %). Children may express direct negation first, then give a reason, make corrections, use body language, utter a short answer or rhetorical question to
challenge their mother, state the absolute opposite from their mother’s utterance, or partially agree on things their mother has said. Two indirect strategies is the second most used combination type (n= 29, 24.6 %). Two direct strategies and an indirect strategy leads a direct strategy were lesser in children’s combination.
Table 10. Children’s direct and indirect strategy in combination
Combination types Total Percentage (%)
A direct strategy and an indirect strategy 81 68.64 %
Two indirect strategies 29 24.58 %
Two direct strategies 5 4.24 %
An indirect strategy and a direct strategy 3 2.54 %
TOTAL 118 100.0%
Table 11 shows the distribution of combinations in each semantic meaning of negation. Among combinations of strategies, only three major types were found to be
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
higher than the upper bound of the confidence interval (p < .05, CI= (1.35, 7.47)), i.e.
the combinations of a direct negation with an account (n= 37, 28.9 %), a direct negation with a correction (n= 31, 24.2 %), and a correction with an account (n= 8, 6.3%). These types of combination were also the three major combinations in children’s denial.
‧
Table 11. Distribution of negation meanings served by two strategies
DEN REJ PRO EPI INA NOC NEX Total Percentage
Direct strategy + indirect strategy 81 68.64 %
DIR+ACC 20 7 6 3 1 37 31.36 %
Indirect strategy + indirect strategy 29 24.58 %
COR+ACC 8 8 6.78 %
Indirect strategy + direct strategy 3 2.54 %
COR+INS 2 2 1.69 %
TEM+INS 1 1 0.85 %
Total 78 23 12 3 1 1 0 118 100.0%
(Semantic meanings: DEN: denial, REJ: rejection, PRO: prohibition. Strategies: EPI: epistemic, INA:
inability, NOC: non-occurrence, NEX: nonexistence. Strategies: DIR: direct negation, NVB: nonverbal, ACC: account, INS: insistence, COR: correction, TEM: temporizing, COU: countering move, CHA:
challenge, APP: appealing, PAR: partial agreement. )
‧
21.85 % of children’s denial was conveyed with 17 types of combination. A direct negation with a correction took 34.62 % (n= 27) of children’s denial combinations.
This sequence of strategies emerged rarely in rejection and mainly in denial. Excerpt 15 is an example in denial. The mother was making a guess to the possible ending of the child’s revised version of a fairy tale. The child negated her mother’s assumption first by a direct negation (沒有被抓走 ‘He didn’t get caught’), then a correction (是他逃回
This sequence of strategies emerged rarely in rejection and mainly in denial. Excerpt 15 is an example in denial. The mother was making a guess to the possible ending of the child’s revised version of a fairy tale. The child negated her mother’s assumption first by a direct negation (沒有被抓走 ‘He didn’t get caught’), then a correction (是他逃回