Argumentation Strategies of the Early Childhood Language in the
Gender Perspective
Siti Salamah
1
, Fathiaty Murtadho
2
, Emzir
2
1
Student of Doctoral Program in Applied Linguistics Department, State University of Jakarta, Indonesia
2
Department of Applied Linguistics, State University of Jakarta, Indonesia
Keywords: Argumentation, Gender, Types of Argumentation, Pragmatic Strategy
Abstract: The way children view the world is a process of thinking critically that reflected through language expressions
that can be seen from pragmatic strategy in giving argumentation. To date, the study on child’s language in
Indonesian is only focused on the form and structure of argumentative sentences. Meanwhile, the study that
is focused on child’s language viewed from gender perspective has not yet been conducted significantly,
especially that is related to the argumentation strategy. Hence, the study of this paper will be focused on
child’s pragmatic strategy reviewed from gender perspective. The subject and object of this study covered the
use of sentence on children aged 5-6 years old. The study applied descriptive qualitative method. The data
were collected using participated and non-participated observation methods. The data then were analyzed
using the pragmatic match method. The result of this study shows that there were some differences between
the boys and girls reviewed from the frequency intensity of the uttered argumentation types and the pragmatic
strategy in expressing intention. The girls had better abilities in qualitative and comparison-typed
argumentations. On the other hand, the boys were better in analogy-typed argumentations. Either the boys or
girls had equal ability in argumentations type quantity and expert opinion. In the use of pragmatic strategy,
the boys used more representative strategy than the girls. In contrast, the girls were skilled in arguing using
control, expressive, and social strategies than the boys.
1 INTRODUCTION
Human always think critically in deciding their life
perspectives. The ability to think critically can be
traced during child phase. Children have their own
world and the way children view the world is a
process of critical thinking that expressed in their own
uttered languages. Riley and Reedy (2005) confirm
that children decide their positions and are
collaboratively connected with their surroundings
through expressing ideas. Children always express
something, either when they are playing, studying, or
interacting with their family. Those speech acts (at
least are potential to) play role in the process of
emerging opinion differences (Van Eemeren &
Grootendorst, 2003). This is because every child has
different experience schemes in capturing the world,
one from another. Children start developing verbal
utterance for different purposes and functions.
Utterance that emerges opinion differences is the
form of argumentation. Dowden (2011) states that
argumentation refers to the conclusion of more than
one statement utterance. Child’s argumentation
utterance is reflected in the use of pragmatic strategy
in daily utterance, either when asking questions,
expressing opinions, stating explanations, showing
expressions, and asking someone else to do what their
wants. The argumentation uttered by children is
classified into some types; which are quality type,
quantity type, comparison type for consistency,
expert opinion, analogy, and other types (Bova and
Arcidiacono, 2014). The description of
argumentation type is explained as follows:
(1) Quality-typed argument is an argumentation
viewed from quality aspect of something, for
instance good/bad, light/heavy, and etcetera.
(2) Quantity type refers to the argumentation viewed
from the quantity aspect.
(3) Comparison type for consistency is the
argumentation that refers to the behavior of past
utterance. This type of argumentation holds on to
Salamah, S., Murtadho, F. and Emzir, .
Argumentation Strategies of the Early Childhood Language in the Gender Perspective.
DOI: 10.5220/0009001304470455
In Proceedings of the International Conference on Education, Language and Society (ICELS 2019), pages 447-455
ISBN: 978-989-758-405-3
Copyright
c
 2020 by SCITEPRESS – Science and Technology Publications, Lda. All rights reserved
447

the principle of “affirmation of something in the
past explicitly or implicitly is necessary to be
maintained now.”
(4) Type of expert opinion is defined as the
argumentation that refers to the opinion that has
authority. In this issue, authority can be referred
to the experts or adults who are considered have
further knowledge by children.
(5) Analogy type is the argumentation that refers to
the comparison of two equal things at major
premise when minor premise appears then the
conclusion is taken by referring to major premise
with the following illustration:
Major Premise: Generally, Case C1 is similar to
case C2. Minor Premise: Proposition A is true (false)
in Case C1. Conclusion: Proposition A is true (false)
in case C2.
The pragmatic strategy itself is the way children
deliver their utterance meaning. Next, Owen (2012)
confirms that illocution act has appearance sequence
of intentions that is meant to be delivered. Lakoff (in
Eckert and Ginnet, 2003) argues that the difference of
children argumentation strategy from pragmatic
aspect can be viewed from the aspects of question
mark (pemarkah tanya), sign of certainty/doubt,
reinforcement word, indirect form, meaning-reducing
mark (pemarkah pengecil makna), euphuism, and
politeness. Coates (2013) states that the pragmatic
strategy itself involves responding way, certainty
mark (penanda kepastian), question mark (pemarkah
tanya), question, instruction and direction, swearing
way, taboo language, and praise. While according to
Musfiroh (2017), the type of argumentation strategy
is based on its pragmatic function category, which is
in the form of control, representative, expressive,
social, tutorial, and procedural as depicted in table 1.
Table 1: Illocution Functions Used by Children
No.
Category of
Pragmatic
Function
Initial
Speech Act
Preferred
Intention
1.
Control
Asking the
interlocutor to
do something
Asking
something
Instructing
Protesting/
opposing
Protesting
2.
Representative
Asking
answer
Asking content
Giving name
Giving name
Statement
Answering
Answering
Responding
question
Explaining
Explaining
3.
Expressive
Showing anger
Expressing
attitude and
feeling
Saying
exhaustion
4.
Social
Greeting
Greeting
Saying
good bye
5.
Tutorial
Repeating/
practicing
Repeating/
practicing
6.
Procedural
Calling
Calling
In gender perspective, mindset and way of arguing
between man and woman have differences that can be
traced from early years. According to Hellinger and
Buβmann (2003), the study of language difference
between boy and girl is directed to the understanding
about how gender ideas are interpreted to the way of
perception and universal construction toward gender
in language unit by linguistic, social, and culture
parameters. Rowland (2014) confirms that girls
collect language faster than boys. In western
countries which tend to be industrialist, the girl gets
mature faster in language cognitive process. On the
other hand, language socialization process of
something can also affect child’s language ability. It
influences the difference of interaction topic. Parents
tend to talk more about a particular topic to boy or
girl. It shows that boy tends to dominate words related
to transportation than girl does.
Speech of argument has difference gradation in
boy and girl language, especially the used strategy.
Haslett (1983) confirms that girls develop strategy at
first time, are politer and complex at the use of
pragmatic strategy in daily conversation. This issue is
strengthened with a study result by Ladegaard (2017)
in Denmark that shows the girls are politer compared
to the boys. It is marked with the use frequency of
Danish politeness marker with 53% of the girls and
47% of the boys. Clark (2012) states that in a role play
study, the boys and girls were asked to persuade their
mothers to let them play or buy them toys. In the study
scenario, the mothers were directed to refuse for five
times. The results of the study showed that the girls
tended to practice a strategy in adjusting their
language in giving arguments with the norms and
meaning about fairness than the boys. The study
conducted by Wade and Smart (via Morrow, 2006)
shows that in searching for support when talking with
friends, the girls emphasized more on the problems,
while the boys emphasized more on the importance
of friend for diversion and activity. Therefore, early
childhood, either the boys or girls, are capable to start
strategizing in giving arguments.
ICELS 2019 - International Conference on Education, Language, and Society
448

The study on child argumentative utterance in
Indonesian is often merely focused on the sentence
form and structure. Meanwhile, the study focusing on
the argumentation pragmatic strategy of child
reviewed from the gender perspective has not yet
conducted significantly. This study will discuss how
the argument of the boys and girls in their daily life,
either from the aspect of type of argumentation or the
aspect of applied argumentation strategy.
2 METHODS
This study implemented qualitative descriptive
method. In this study, 20 children aged 5-6 years old
(8 boys and 12 girls) were involved as participants.
The object of this study covered argumentative
utterance in Indonesian, which uttered by the
participants. Mukherji (2015) confirms that to
descriptively study early childhood participants, the
data would be suitably collected through observation
method, either participatory or non-participatory. The
data of this study were collected through both
participatory and non-participatory observation
methods. Then, the data were noted down and
analyzed pragmatically. Merriam (2009) declares that
qualitative study must describe the data from the field
as it is. The data that have been noted down and
analyzed then were presented descriptively in the
form of narrative extracts and strengthened by simple
diagram to show the frequency of data appearance.
3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
3.1 Types of Argumentation
Argumentative sentence is often uttered in some
conversations when children are interacting in their
surroundings. The form of argumentative sentence
depends on the conversation topic chosen by children
and their interlocutors. Child’s argumentation topic
can be reviewed from either internal or external
aspects. The internal topic involves an idea about
oneself that is divided into a number of categories
such as physical, characteristic, and behavior. The
external topic focuses on the conversation related to
other than the child’s self, such as parents, play pals,
neighborhood, schools, hobbies, games, and
activities. The external topics covers the categories of
physical, characteristic, behavior, similarities, and
differences. From each topic talked in child’s
utterance, arguments appeared in various types. The
types of argument put forward by the children in this
study were the type of quality, type of quantity, type
of comparison, type of expert opinion, and type of
analogy.
Diagram 1: Distribution of Types of Argumentation on
Early Childhood
The most stated type of argumentation is the quality
argument. Then, the second position stated type of
argumentation by the child’s is the comparative
argument. The last position, there are analogy
argument and expert opinion argument.
The interesting thing is that if it is reviewed from
the gender aspect of the early childhood, the
argumentation intensity between the boys and girls
will be clearly seen. The difference of argumentation
use in each type can be viewed on the following
diagrams.
Diagram 2: Distribution of Types of Argumentation based
on Gender
Diagram 2 shows that the girls outperform the boys
in types of quality and comparison argumentations.
Meanwhile, the boys outperform the girls in terms of
analogy argumentation. On the other hand, the boys
and the girls have equal ability in types of expert
opinion and quantity argumentation types.
Argumentation Strategies of the Early Childhood Language in the Gender Perspective
449

3.2 Strategy of Argumentation
When communicating, children are able to perform
several argumentation strategies such as
representative, control, expressive, and social. This
statement is pictured in diagram 3, which is related to
the distribution of strategies used in each type of
argument.
Diagram 3: Pragmatic Strategy of Each Argumentation
Type
The results of the study as shown in diagram 3
indicate that the most used strategy of argumentation
is the representative strategy. The second most used
strategy is the control strategy. Children are able to
express their intentions so that the interlocutors
follow what they want. The control strategy is
performed through commanding, protesting,or
opposing with prohibition. The expressive and social
strategies are already acknowledged and applied to
the interlocutors. Early childhood is already able to
show expressions to communicate their intentions.
They also have known the way of making friends
using social strategy. The boys applied the
representative strategy more than the girls. In
contrast, the girls were more competent in arguing
using control, expressive, and social strategies than
the boys.
The description of strategy in each type of
argument will be explained as follows.
3.2.1 Strategy of Quality Argumentation
In uttering quality-typed argument, the boys and girls
performed four strategies, namely control strategy,
representative strategy, expressive strategy, and
social strategy. The differences of strategy usage in
uttering the quality-typed argument are illustrated in
the following diagram.
Diagram 4. Pragmatic Strategy for Quality-Typed
Argumentation
In diagram 4, the boys seem somewhat
representatively outperform the girls in terms of
quality argumentation. Quality argumentation on
boys is an argumentation when they explain
something. The boys are more detail and quick
response in explaining something they know to their
mates. It is seen on the following dialogue
illustration.
(Data no. 17)
[♂] Brian : “Aku tadi lihat cacing gede banget, tapi
udah di buang sama Cello”
“I saw a super big worm, but Cello has
thrown it.”
[♂] Adeva: “Emang cacing di mana? Di dalam tanah
atau di mana?”
Where was it? Was it under the ground
or somewhere?”
[♂] Brian : “Nggak, aku lihat di atas baru jalan terus
di buang sama Celo”
“No. I saw it on the ground, just crawling,
then Cello threw it away.”
Data (17) situates when Brian stated that he saw a
worm then his friend threw it away. As for the nature
of the worm, Brian’s argument signifies the quality of
the worm size. Adeva responded by asking more
detail about the spot of the worm. Brian answered that
he saw the worm crawling on the ground, then his
friend threw it away. Reaffirmation was carried out in
detail by Brian including the event activities.
On the other side, girls tend to outperform boys
when arguing for quality in terms of control,
expressing feeling, and social. Early childhood has
already recognized the control argument strategy that
covers asking something, prohibiting over forbidden
things, and protesting over something. The girls tend
to protest when something is not fit with the norms
ICELS 2019 - International Conference on Education, Language, and Society
450

they known, while the boys tend to directly prohibit
strictly.
(Data no. 39)
[♀] Maya: “Ustadzah, Saila gangguin aku!”
“Ustadzah, Saila is bothering me!”
[♀] Sachi: “Saila tadi kamu nakal ya?”
“Saila, were you badly behaved?”
“Nanti kamu jangan main sama saila ya!”
{berbisik ke Abin}
“You don’t play with Saila. Okay?”
{Whispering to Abin}
[♂] Abin: “iya, kita main ayunan aja ya jangan sama
Saila.”
“Okay. Let’s play swings, not with Saila.”
Data 39 situates the girls indirectly protesting to
her teacher (called ustadzah) when their friends
behave out of the norms. Interestingly, the girls tend
to gather alliance when they are about to protest to
someone else who is contradicting the norms they
believed. Then, they will also ask their alliance to stay
away from the child who is considered badly
behaved.
The girls can expressively state their arguments
about what they feel. The girls and boys can show
their social arguments in the forms of greeting, saying
farewell, and asking permission. What makes it
different is that the girls were more responsive to
greet their friends than the boys were.
(Data no. 25)
During break time in Bee Class.
[♀] Milla : “Hei, Zafran, Zafran, aku udah pernah
lihat rumahnya Zafran. Rumahmu
catnya warna coklat-coklat.”
{wajah tampak ceria}
“Hey, Zafran, Zafran, I ever saw your
house. Your house paint is brown.”
{showing her cheerful face}
[♂] Zafran : “Bukan rumah aku catnya warna
putih”
“It’s not my house. My house is painted
white.”
[♀] Milla : “Tapi, aku kemarin jalan-jalan sama
ibu, aku lihat kamu di depan rumah”
“But, I took a walk with my Mom
yesterday, and I saw you in front of
your house.”
[♂] Zafran : “Aku gak lihat kamu”
“I didn’t see you.”
[♀] Milla : “Aku kan di dalam mobil, gak jalan
kaki!” {tampak kesal nada meninggi}
“I was in the car, not walking!”
{seemed upset and voice tone was increasing}
[♂] Zafran : “Oh, gitu”
“Oh, is it so?”
[♀] Milla : “Ya, sudah Zafran, aku mau main
sama Ais lagi.”
{ melambaikan tangan}
“Well, that’s it, Zafran. I want to play
with Ais.” {waving her hand}
Data no. 25 situates the quality of arguments with
social strategy comes with expressive strategy
sometimes. It shows that the girls were more
responsive in greeting their friends. Interestingly, the
girls tend to be more expressive in expressing their
feelings.
3.2.2 Strategy of Quantity Argumentation
Early childhood is already capable to express quantity
argument that stands for number of something.
Diagram 5 shows that this quantity argument is
uttered by children in two strategies, namely
representative strategy and control strategy. The boys
and the girls also had equal ability when expressing
quantity argument through both control and
representative strategies.
Diagram 5: Pragmatic Strategy for Quantity Argument
Type
The representative strategy emerges when
children want to explain a certain number of
something. The control strategy is applied to oppose
or protest their interlocutors who are false in numbers.
It is seen in data no. 4.
(Data No. 4)
[♀] Ust Vio : “Dihitung coba! {membuka buku
bergambar rumah adat dan
menghitung banyaknya rumah}
“Let’s count this!” {Opening a picture
book of custom house and counting
the number of the houses}
Argumentation Strategies of the Early Childhood Language in the Gender Perspective
451

[♀] The pupils: “satu, dua, tiga, empat, lima,enam”
“One, two, three, four, five, six.”
[♀] Ust vio : “enam yang mana ya?”
“Which six is it?”
[♀] Andien : “gak kelihatan ust..” { menyela}
“I can’t see it, Ust. ” {interrupting}
[♀] Ust vio : “nanti teman-teman menebalkan
angka yang sesuai jumlah rumah.
Kalau enam berarti seperti ini. “
{tetap melanjutkan penjelasan tidak
menghiraukan kalimat Andien}
“Later on, you all will trace the dots
of numbers based on the number of
the houses. If it is six, it will be like
this.” {Continuing her explanation
and ignoring Andien’s sentence}
[♀]Ust vio : “are you ready?”
[♀]The girls : “Yes, I am ready”
[♀]Ust Vio :“oke, ustadzah panggil Mbak
Andien” {Lalu Andien maju
mengambil buku}
“Alright. I call Mbak Andien.”
{Then, Andien comes forward to
take the book}
[♂]Kastara : “Halaman berapa ust?”
“What page, Ust?”
[♀]Ust Vio : “Halaman berapa itu Mbak Andien?
“What page is it, Mbak Andien?
[♀]Andien : “Halaman 41”
“Page 41.”
[♂]Kastara : “Hah?? Bukan ya, kamu salah!”
“Hah?? No, it’s not. You’re wrong!”
[♀]Ust vio : “41? di bawah coba dilihat, halaman
14”
“41? Look at the bottom, it’s page
14.”
[♀]Andien : “Hah, gak kok,dari sini keliatan 41.”
“Hah, no, it’s not. It seems like 41
from here.”
[♀]Sheila : “Itu kamu lihatnya kebalik dari atas.
Coba dari depan!”
{Andien membalik bukunya lalu
tersenyum dan membuka halaman
sesuai yang diminta.}
“You see it upside down. See it from
the front side!”
{Andien flips over her book, then
smiles, and opens the page as
instructed.}
Data no. 4 situates that early childhood has been
able to acknowledge numbers and the amount of
objects. However, the number is no more than two
digits. To say numbers that are more than twenty, the
teacher (Ustadzah Vio) excluded the tens and directly
said number per number. The argumentation strategy
used at the beginning was representative, which is
showing and naming the numbers of something. If it
is incorrect, the disciples will do control. Once more,
there was a different control strategy between the
boys and girls. The girls tended to protest and even
gave suggestions than the boys did. The boys tended
to directly blame and prohibit.
3.2.3 Strategy of Comparison
Argumentation
The boys and girls in early childhood are able to
giving arguments comparing something to another.
The comparison argumentation is performed using
the representative and control strategies.
In terms of comparison argumentation (se
diagram 5), the girls outperformed the boys, either
using the control strategy or the representative
strategy. The control strategy is performed by
comparing something that is meant to oppose the
arguments of the interlocutors. In this situation, the
girls were more responsive to oppose the
interlocutors’ arguments when they recognized
something compared to another and it is
contradictory. Representatively, the comparison
argumentation refers to detail explanation about
something. In this term, the girls were more detail in
comparing something. Description of this argument
strategy can be viewed in data below.
Diagram 5: Pragmatic Strategy for Comparison
Argumentation Type
(Data No. 18)
Learning about color
[♀] Ust Yani: “Teman-teman, hari ini kita akan
belajar mengenal warna! Coba siapa
yang suka warna ungu?”
“Friends, today we will learn about
colors! Who likes purple?”
ICELS 2019 - International Conference on Education, Language, and Society
452

[♂] Zafran : “Aku suka warna biru aku cowok”
{menunjukkan mainan bus warna biru}
“I like blue, because I’m a boy.”
{Showing a blue-colored bus toy}
[♀] Mila : “Aku warna ungu kan aku cewek”
{sambil menunjukkan bajunya berwarna
ungu}
“I like purple, because I’m a girl.”
{Showing her purple-colored shirt}
[♂] Sheila : “Kirana pinjemin yang warna biru!
Kamu ini warna ungu aja buat cewek!”
{memberikan pensil warna biru ke Zafran}
“Kirana, lend me the blue color! You get
the purple one, it’s for girls!”
{Giving the blue-colored pencil to Zafran}
Data no. 18 situates an interesting thing of how
the boy and girls compared the colors. Zafran as a boy
responded the teacher’s question using control
strategy to the answer to directly contrast. He did not
like the purple color, but blue color. To him, the blue
color was suit him as a boy. The statement then was
compared by Milla as a girl. Milla liked the purple
color because she is a girl. Her friend, Sheila,
supported the situation to her friend Kirana, as girls,
to not use the blue-colored pencil. Kirana was asked
by Sheila to lend the blue-colored pencil to the boy.
Kirana was given a purple-colored pencil because it
was considered to represent color for girl. The gender
stereotype issue of each kind of colors accepted by
the children is an interesting thing. In this case, the
color stereotype was influenced by the culture of
surroundings. In reality, parents dress their children
according to the children’s gender. The children
participant of this study wore clothes based on their
wants and/or their parents’ restriction. The girls will
be often dressed clothes dominated with more pink
and purple colors. The boys will be often dressed
clothes colored with other than pink and purple. The
toys that brought by the girls were also dominated
with those two feminine-stereotyped colors. On the
other side, the toys that brought by the boys will be
avoided to be dominated by those two feminine
colors.
3.2.4 Strategy of Expert Opinion
Argumentation
The boys and girls have been able to argue by
mentioning an expert opinion that is considered has
knowledge and authority. Both were equal in giving
the arguments of expert opinion. Early childhood
mentions the sayings from parents, teachers, and
adults around them who are considered know more
about something.
Diagram 6. Pragmatic Strategy for Expert Opinion
Argumentation
In mentioning opinion from someone considered
an expert, early childhood often only remembers a
half of the sayings. In this case, when their friends
incompletely give opinion based on the expert who is
accepted in their memories, those who know the
information completely will complete it and even ask
the expert to complete it. It is illustrated in the
following data.
(Data no.32)
[♀] Mila : “Aku gak mau ke dokter gigi, nanti
gigiku dibelah-belah.”
“I don’t want to visit the dentist, he will
cut my teeth.”
[♂] Syafik : “Kenapa gigi kamu sakit?”
“Why? Do you get toothache?”
[♀] Mila : “Nggak gigi aku sehat soalnya aku rajin
berdoa”
“No, I don’t. my teeth are fine because
I always pray.”
[♂] Syafik : “Ih masa berdoa aja ya, apa iya ya ust?
Gigi nya gak sakit yak, karena rajin
gosok gigi.”
“Is it so? Can we just pray for our teeth,
Ust? We don’t get toothache because
we always brush our teeth.”
[♀] Ust Yani : “Betul mas Syafiq kalo kita rajin
gosok gigi, gigi kita gak sakit.
Mungkin maksud Mbk mila, berdoa
sebelum gosok gigi ya?”
“That’s correct, Mas Syafik. If we
always brush our teeth, we will not
get toothache. Maybe what Mbak
Mila meant is praying before
brushing her teeth, isn’t?”
[♀] Mila : “Iya ust”
“Yes, it is, Ust.”
Argumentation Strategies of the Early Childhood Language in the Gender Perspective
453

Data (32) illustrates a situation when a girl named
Mila explained that she did not want to visit the
dentist because she was afraid to get a tooth medical
check. Mila stated that her teeth were fine because she
prayed diligently. Her boy friend named Syafiq
responded that her argument was peculiar. As far as
Syafiq knew, toothache is caused by the laziness to
brush teeth. Syafiq then asked the teacher’s
consideration about his opinion. The teacher then
corrected his arguments. In this context, the teacher is
the expert who strengthens Syafiq’s statement. The
teacher also fixed Mila’s opinion which was half-
accepted. The teacher understood that Mila gave her
opinions based on what she received all this time, that
as the God’s servants, we have to always pray before
starting any activities. The teacher the completed the
information about what it is meant to pray before
brushing teeth. Mila then confirmed the teacher’s
statement and realized that the expert opinion
argumentation she mentioned was not complete.
3.2.5 Strategy of Analogy Argumentation
In the case of analogy argumentation, the boys and
girls implemented the representative strategy, which
was explaining, such as Major Premise: Generally,
Case C1 is similar to case C2. Minor Premise:
Proposition A is true (false) in Case C1. Conclusion:
Proposition A is true (false) in case C2. The boys
often used an analogy of something than the girls did
(diagram 7). The description of this strategy will be
explaine by data below.
Diagram 7: Pragmatic Strategy for Analogy Argumentation
(Data no.7)
[♀] Ust. Vio : “Teman-teman Alhamdulillah hari ini
hujan.”
“Friends, Alhamdulillah. It is raining
today.”
[♀] Ais : “Ust. aku punya payung baru, beli di
pasar tadi pagi.”
“Ust, I have a new umbrella. I bought
it in the market this morning.”
[♀] Ust. Vio : “Iya, di simpan dulu ya.”
“Alright. Keep it, please.”
Data (7) shows that Ais, a girl, responded the
teacher’s statement about today’s raining. The major
premise = It is raining today. Minor premise = to stay
dry, use an umbrella. Conclusion = I bring an
umbrella today. Ais’s analogy stated that if it is
raining then we have to bring an umbrella. An
interesting thing occurs because girls tend to be more
simple and add a feature of something in analogizing
something. Ais stated that it is raining today and I
bring an umbrella, then added with and a new
adjective to explain that the umbrella was just bought
in the market.
(Data No.49)
[♂] Mecca: “Ini punyaku !!! warna-warni tapi
jelek.”
“This is mine! Colorful but ugly.”
[♂] Brian: “Punya Cello singanya lucu pake
kacamata.”
“Cello’s lion is adorable and wearing a
pair of eyeglasses.”
[♂] Nadif: “Ih singanya pacaran {sambil melihat
gambar dua singa berdekatan}
“Look! The lions are dating.” {looking at
two lions standing close at each other}
[♂] Brian: “Anak kecil gak boleh ngomong kaya
gitu dosa.”
“Children are prohibited to talk such
things, it is sinful.”
[♂] Nadif: “Ah kaya kamu ustadzah saja.”
“Ah, you’re just like ustadzah.”
[♂] Brian: “Kalo kamu berbuat dosa kamu masuk
neraka, air susunya darah.”
“If you commit sins, you’ll be in the hell,
the milk is blood.”
[♂] Nadif: “Ah kamu sukanya ngomong dosa-dosa
terus.”
“Ah, you keep talking about sins.”
Data (49) shows a similar thing to data (7). Early
childhood children are able to analogize something by
detailing the conclusion aspect. Data (49) shows
something different, where the boys tend to be
complex in analogizing something. Nadif analogized
living creatures that are close each other means they
have romantic relationships. Brian then reminded him
using the analogy of major premise = talking about
dating is a sin; minor premise = children avoid sinful
ICELS 2019 - International Conference on Education, Language, and Society
454

talks; conclusion = children avoid dating talks
because it is sinful. Nadif responded using the
analogy of major premise = Ustadzah (the teacher) is
someone who often reminds about sinful acts; minor
premise = Brian talks about sins; conclusion = Brian
is like ustadzah. Getting such response, Brian
emphasized his arguments by uttering the major
premise = human commit sins and he will be dragged
into the hell where the milk is from blood; minor
premise = Nadif has committed sin; conclusion =
Nadif will be dragged to hell if he commits sins. The
data (49) model shows that the boys were able to
express analogy arguments and respond an analogy
with an analogy, then answer it with more detail
analogy.
4 CONCLUSIONS
The results of this study show that boys and girls have
capability to give argument in daily conversation.
There are differences of argument uses in boys and
girls. The differences can be seen from the frequency
intensity of argument types uttered by them as well as
from the pragmatic strategy in the intention stating.
The girls have greater ability in qualitative and
comparison-typed arguments. On the other side, the
boys are more superior in the analogy-typed
arguments. Both the boys and girls have equal
abilities in the expert opinion and quantity-typed
arguments. In the implementation of the pragmatic
strategy, the boys applied the representative strategy
more than the girls. In contrast, the girls are more
skilled in giving arguments using the control,
expressive, and social strategies than the boys.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors thank to Director of Applied Linguistics
Doctoral Program in State University of Jakarta for
his support for this paper publication. We also thank
to the ICELS comitte to facilitate this paper
publication.
REFERENCES
Bova, A., & Arcidiacono, F. 2014. “Types of arguments in
parents-children discussions: An argumentative
analysis. Rivista” in Psicolinguistica Applicata/Journal
of Applied Psycholinguistics, 14(1): 43-66.
Clark, E.V. 2012. “Children, Conversation, and
Acquisition” in The Cambridge Handbook of
Psycholinguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Coates, J. 2013. Women, Men, and Language: A
Sociolinguistic Account of Gender Differences in
Language. New York: Routledge, 3
rd
Edition.
Dowden, B.H. 2011. Logical Reasoning. California:
Wadsworth Publishing Company, Belmont, USA
Eckert, P. dan Ginet, S.M. 2003. Language and Gender.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Haslett, B.J. 1983. “Communicative Functions and
Strategies in Children’s Conversations” in Human
Communication Research Winter 1983 Vol. 9 No. 2 pp.
114-129. Washington DC: Internasional
Communication Association.
Hellinger, M. dan Buβmann, H. 2003. “The Linguistic
Representation of Women and Men” in Gender Across
Languages Volume 3. Amsterdam: John Benjamins
Publishing Co.
Ladegaard, H.J. 2017. “Politeness in Young Childrens’s
Speech: Context, Peer Group Influence and Pragmatic
Competence” in Journal of Pragmatics 36 (2004)
pp.2003-2022. Download from
http://www.elsevier.com/locate/pragma at 23
November 2017.
Merriam, S.B. 2009. Qualitative Research: A Guide to
Design and Implementation. San Fransisco: John
Wiley and Sons.
Morrow, V. 2006. “Understanding Gender Differences in
Context: Implications for Young Children’s Everyday
Lives” in Children & Society Volume 20 (2006) pp. 92–
104.
Mukherji, P,and Albon, D. 2015. Research Methods in
Early Childhood: An Introductory Guide. London:
Sage Publications Ltd.
Musfiroh, T. 2017. Psikolingustik Edukasional:
Psikolinguistik untuk Pendidikan Bahasa. Yogyakarta:
Tiara Wacana.
Owens, R. E Jr. 2012. Language Development An
Introduction. Upper Saddle River: Pearson, 8
ht
Edition.
Riley, J. and Reedy, D. 2005. “Developing young children's
thinking through learning to write argument” in Journal
of Early Childhood Literacy 2005 5: 29.
Rowland, C. 2014. Understanding Child Language
Acquisition. New York: Routledge.
Van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. 2003. A
Systematic Theory of Argumentation: The Pragma-
Dialectical Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press
Argumentation Strategies of the Early Childhood Language in the Gender Perspective
455