Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-s22k5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-13T03:26:16.703Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

‘We're friends, right?’: Children's use of access rituals in a nursery school1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 December 2008

William A. Corsaro
William A. Corsaro
Affiliation:
Indiana University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this paper, children's use of access rituals in peer interaction in a nursery school is examined and a discussion of the implications of the findings regarding the development of communicative competence is presented. The findings show that entry into play is a production of some importance involving considerable time and strategy to accomplish, while leave-taking usually involves unmarked physical movement from play areas. The importance of peer interaction in the acquisition of access rituals and the necessity of studying children's verbal routines in natural settings are discussed. (Developmental sociolinguistics, peer interaction, children's use of access rituals, US English.)

Type
Articles
Information
Language in Society , Volume 8 , Issue 2-3 , August 1979 , pp. 315 - 336
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1979

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Cicourel, A. V. (1976). Discourse, autonomous grammars, and contextualized processing of information. Unpublished paper, University of California, San Diego.Google Scholar
Cook-Gumperz, J. (1975). The child as a practical reasoner. In Blount, B. & Sanchez, M. (eds), Socio-cultural dimensions of language use. New York: Academic Press. 137–62.Google Scholar
Cook-Gumperz, J., & Corsaro, W. (1977). Social—ecological constraints on children's communicative strategies. Sociology 11 (3) 411–34.Google Scholar
Cook-Gumperz, J., & Gumperz, J. J. (1976). Context in children's speech. In Cook-Gumperz, J. & Gumperz, J. J. (eds), Papers on language and context, working paper 46. Language Behavior Research Laboratory, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Corsaro, W. (in press a). Entering the child's world: Research strategies for field entry and data collection in a preschool setting. In Green, J. & Wallat, C. (eds.), Ethnographic approaches to face-to-face interactions. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex Publishing.Google Scholar
Corsaro, W. (in press b). Friendship in the nursery school: Social organization in a peer environment. In Asher, S. and Gottman, J. (eds.), The development of friendships. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Corsaro, W., & Tomlinson, G. (1979). Spontaneous play and social learning in the nursery school. in Schwartzman, H. (ed.), Play and culture. West Point, N.Y.: Leisure Press.Google Scholar
Erickson, F., & Shultz, J. (1977). When is a context? Some issues and methods in the analysis of social competence. The Quarterly Newsletter of the Institute of Comparative Human Development 1 (2). Rockefeller University.Google Scholar
Ferguson, C. (1976). The structure and use of politeness formulas. LinS 5. 137–51.Google Scholar
Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago: Aldine.Google Scholar
Gleason, J., & Weintraub, S. (1976). The acquisition of routines in child language. LinS 5. 129–36.Google Scholar
Goffman, E. (1961). Encounters. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.Google Scholar
Goffman, E. (1963). Behavior in public places. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Goffman, E. (1971). Relations in public. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Hartup, W. (1970). Peer interaction and social organization. In Mussen, P. (ed.), Carmichael's manual of child psychology. Vol. 2, New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
McDermott, R. (1976). Kids make sense: An ethnographic account of the interactional management of success and failure in one first grade classroom. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Stanford University.Google Scholar
McDermott, R., Gospodinoff, K., & Aron, J. (1978). Criteria for an ethnographically adequate description of concerted activites and their contexts. Semiotica 24 (3/4), 245–75.Google Scholar
Mehan, H., Cazden, C., Coles, L., Fisher, S., & Maroules, N. (1976). The social organization of classroom lessons (Report No. 67). San Diego: Center for Human Information Processing, University of California, San Diego.Google Scholar
Omark, D., Omark, M., & Edelman, M. (1975). Formation of dominance hierarchies in young children: Action and perception. In Williams, T. (ed.), Psychological anthopology. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. (1972). Sequencing in conversational openings. In Hymes, D. & Gumperz, J. J. (eds), Directions in sociolinguistics. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Schiffrin, D. (1977). Opening encounters. American Sociological Review 42 (5). 679–91.Google Scholar
Sluckin, A., & Smith, P. (1977). Two approaches to the concept of dominance in preschool children. Child Development 48. 917–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strayer, F., & Strayer, S. (1976). An ethological analysis of social agonism and dominance relations among preschool children. Child Development 17, 980–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sutton-Smith, B. (1971). Boundaries. In Herron, R. & Sutton-Smith, B. (eds.), Child's play. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Youssouf, I., Grimshaw, A., & Bird, C. (1976). Greetings in the desert. American Ethnologist 3 (4). 797–824.Google Scholar