MORPHOLOGICAL AND SYNTACTICAL ERRORS OF JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WITH DIFFERENT SEX IN SPEECH PRODUCTION
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.26618/exposure.v13i2.14783Keywords:
Morphological Errors, Speech Production, Language Acquisition, Sex, Surface Strategy TaxonomyAbstract
There are differing opinions in the field of cognitive sciences when it comes to the role of sex in language acquisition. Men and women exhibit differences in their speaking and writing ability as a result of their distinct social roles throughout evolution. These disparities are equally, if not more, evident in students, both during normal and abnormal growth. In addition to the well-documented advantage that girls have in early language development, it is noteworthy that the majority of developmental problems that predominantly impact communication, speech, and language skills are more prevalent in boys. This article seeks to elucidate the disparities between sex regarding ordinary communication and language development, as well as the disparities in the occurrence of neurodevelopmental disorders connected to communication. Additionally, particular attention is given to data derived from the field of neuroscience, which may offer valuable insights into the neurological mechanisms that contribute to the comprehension of this event. We contend that the structural arrangement of the female brain confers women with an innate edge in developing communication and language systems compared to men. Divergent perspectives are present on the differentiation between sex within the field of cognitive sciences. The talks are founded upon clinical, social, and political perspectives. The evolutionary and biological perspectives have often emphasized arguments related to 'nature', whereas feminist and constructivist viewpoints have often emphasized arguments related to 'nurture' when discussing cognitive sex differences. This narrative review provides a comprehensive analysis of the origins and historical evolution of these arguments, as well as a summary of the findings in the field of sexually polymorphic cognition. By adopting multidisciplinary techniques, we aim to highlight the importance of interconnecting disciplines and gaining a more comprehensive knowledge of the precise factors that contribute to sex differences and gender diversity in cognitive capacities.
References
Barbu, S., Nardy, A., Chevrot, J.-P., & Juhel, J. (2013). Language evaluation and use during early childhood: Adhesion to social norms or integration of environmental regularities? Linguistics, 51(2), 381–411. https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2013-0015
Bates, E., Dale, P., & Thal, D. (1995). Individual differences and their implications for theories of language development. In P. Fletcher & B. MacWhinney (Eds.), The Handbook of Child Language (pp. 96–151). Oxford: Blackwell. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/239064682_Individual_differences_and_their_implications_for_theories_of_language_development
Bauer, D. J., Goldfield, B. A., & Reznick, J. S. (2002). Alternative approaches to analyzing individual differences in the rate of early vocabulary development. Applied Psycholinguistics, 23(3), 313–335. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716402003016
Berglund, E., Eriksson, M., & Westerlund, M. (2005). Communicative skills in relation to gender, birth order, childcare and socioeconomic status in 18-month-old students. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 46(6), 485–491. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9450.2005.00480.x
Bornstein, M. H., & Cote, L. R. (2005). Expressive vocabulary in language learners from two ecological settings in three language communities. Infancy, 7(3), 299–316. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327078in0703_5
Bornstein, M. H., Hahn, C.-S., & Haynes, O. M. (2004). Specific and general language performance across early childhood: Stability and gender considerations. First Language, 24(3), 267–304. https://doi.org/10.1177/0142723704045681
Chevrot, J.-P., Nardy, A., & Barbu, S. (2011). Developmental dynamics of SES-related differences in students’ production of obligatory and variable phonological alternations. Language Sciences, 33(2), 180–191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2010.08.007
Connellan, J., Baron-Cohen, S., Wheelwright, S., Batki, A., & Ahluwalia, J. (2000). Sex differences in human neonatal social perception. Infant Behavior and Development, 23(1), 113–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0163-6383(00)00032-1
Dulay, H., Burt, M., & Krashen, S. (1982). Language two. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fenson, L., Dale, P. S., Reznick, J. S., Bates, E., Thal, D. J., & Pethick, S. J. (1994). Variability in early communicative development. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 59(5), 1–173. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5834.1994.tb00173.x
Galsworthy, M. J., Dionne, G., Dale, P. S., & Plomin, R. (2000). Sex differences in early verbal and non-verbal cognitive development. Developmental Science, 3(2), 206–215. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-7687.00114
Gayo, H., & Widodo, P. (2018). An analysis of morphological and syntactical errors on the English writing of junior high school Indonesian students. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 17(4), 58–70.
Hoff, E., Laursen, B., & Tardif, T. (2002). Socioeconomic status and parenting. In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of Parenting: Biology and Ecology of Parenting (2nd ed., Vol. 2, pp. 231–252). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Hoff-Ginsberg, E. (1998). The relation of birth order and socioeconomic status to students’ language experience and language development. Applied Psycholinguistics, 19(4), 603–629. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716400010389
Huttenlocher, J., Waterfall, H., Vasilyeva, M., Vevea, J., & Hedges, L. V. (2010). Sources of variability in students’ language growth. Cognitive Psychology, 61(4), 343–365. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2010.08.002
Hyde, J. S. (2005). The gender similarities hypothesis. American Psychologist, 60(6), 581–592. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.60.6.581
Hyde, J. S., & Linn, M. C. (1988). Gender differences in verbal ability: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 104(1), 53–69. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.104.1.53
Leaper, C. (2002). Parenting girls and boys. In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of Parenting: Students and Parenting (2nd ed., Vol. 1, pp. 189–225). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Leaper, C., Anderson, K. J., & Sanders, P. (1998). Moderators of gender effects on parents’ talk to their students: A meta-analysis. Developmental Psychology, 34(1), 3–27. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.34.1.3
Liégeois, L. (2014). Phonological variables usage in a corpus of parents-child interaction: Cognitive devices of learning and impact of language exposure. (Ph.D. thesis). Université Blaise Pascal; Clermont Ferrand.
Locke, A., Ginsborg, J., & Peers, I. (2002). Development and disadvantage: Implications for the early years and beyond. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 37(1), 3–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/13682820110089911
Lovas, G. S. (2011). Gender and patterns of language development in mother-toddler and father-toddler dyads. First Language, 31(1), 83–108. https://doi.org/10.1177/0142723709359241
Richard, J. (Ed.). (1974). Error analysis. London: Longman.
Richards, J. C., & Schmidt, R. (2002). Longman dictionary of language teaching and applied linguistics. Great Britain: Pearson Education.
Zaid, S. B., Ab. Rashid, R., Azmi, N. J., & Yusri, S. S. (2017). Factors affecting the morphological errors in young ESL learners’ writing. International Journal of Academic Research in Progressive Education and Development, 6(3), 92–99. https://doi.org/10.6007/IJARPED/V6-I3/3165
Zambrana, I. M., Ystrom, E., & Pons, F. (2012). Impact of gender, maternal education, and birth order on the development of language comprehension: A longitudinal study from 18 to 36 months of age. Journal of Developmental & Behavioral Pediatrics, 33(2), 146–155. https://doi.org/10.1097/DBP.0b013e31823d4f83
Zhang, Y., Jin, X., Shen, X., Zhang, J., & Hoff, E. (2008). Correlates of early language development in Chinese students. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 32(2), 145–151. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025407087213
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
In order to assure the highest standards for published articles, a peer review policy is applied. In pursue of the compliance with academic standards, all parties involved in the publishing process (the authors, the editors and the editorial board and the reviewers) agree to meet the responsibilities stated below in accordance to the Journal publication ethics and malpractice statement.
Duties of Authors:
- The author(s) warrant that the submitted article is an original work, which has not been previously published, and that they have obtained an agreement from any co-author(s) prior to the manuscript’s submission;
- The author(s) should not submit articles describing essentially the same research to more than one journal;
- The authors(s) make certain that the manuscript meets the terms of the Manuscript Submission Guideline regarding appropriate academic citation and that no copyright infringement occurs;
- The authors(s) should inform the editors about any conflict of interests and report any errors they subsequently, discover in their manuscript.
Duties of Editors and the Editorial Board:
- The editors, together with the editorial board, are responsible for deciding upon the publication or rejection of the submitted manuscripts based only on their originality, significance, and relevance to the domains of the journal;
- The editors evaluate the manuscripts compliance with academic criteria, the domains of the journal and the guidelines;
- The editors must at all times respect the confidentiality of any information pertaining to the submitted manuscripts;
- The editors assign the review of each manuscript to two reviewers chosen according to their domains of expertise. The editors must take into account any conflict of interest reported by the authors and the reviewers.
- The editors must ensure that the comments and recommendations of the reviewers are sent to the author(s) in due time and that the manuscripts are returned to the editors, who take the final decision to publish them or not.
Authors are permitted and encouraged to post online a pre-publication manuscript (but not the Publisher’s final formatted PDF version of the Work) in institutional repositories or on their Websites prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (see The Effect of Open Access). Any such posting made before acceptance and publication of the Work shall be updated upon publication to include a reference to the Publisher-assigned DOI (Digital Object Identifier) and a link to the online abstract for the final published Work in the Journal.
