Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-bvgqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-30T04:07:43.888Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Children's comprehension of pragmatic concepts expressed in ‘because’, ‘although’, ‘if’ and ‘unless’*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 September 2008

Clara S. Wing  and
Ellin Kofsky Scholnick
Clara S. Wing
Affiliation:
University of Maryland
Ellin Kofsky Scholnick
Affiliation:
University of Maryland
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

First, third, and fifth graders judged a speaker's belief about entailment and propositional truth in sentences containing five subordinating conjunction-verb combinations: if, because, although, unless combined with indicative verbs, and if with a subjunctive verb. Children were more accurate when a speaker believed the truth of his utterance (because and although) than when he voiced disbelief (if + subjunctive) or doubt (unless and if + indicative). They were also more accurate in judging entailment when the speaker thought the events in the two clauses were positively related (if and because) than when the speaker expressed a negative relation (unless and although). The pattern of errors in judgement conformed to a pragmatic analysis of the conjunctions. First graders based their judgements on semantic cues and did not differentiate propositional truth and entailment concepts. Third and fifth graders understood the difference between entailment and propositional truth and used syntactic cues to differentiate positive from non-positive statements. However, they thought that a subordinating conjunction only determines belief about its own clause, and they did not understand the appropriate cues expressing uncertainty vs. disbelief.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 8 , Issue 2 , June 1981 , pp. 347 - 365
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1981

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Bates, E. (1976). Language in context. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Clark, H. H. & Clark, E. V. (1977). Psychology and language. New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich.Google Scholar
Collins, A. M. & Quillian, L. R. (1969). Retrieval time from semantic memory. JVLVB 8. 240–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conrad, C. (1972). Cognitive economy in semantic memory. JExpPsych 92. 149–54.Google Scholar
Fillenbaum, S. (1973). Syntactic factors in memory? The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glass, A. L., Holyoak, K. J. & Kossan, N. E. (1977). Children's ability to detect semantic contradictions. ChDev 48. 279–83.Google Scholar
Harris, R. (1975). Children's comprehension of complex sentences. JExpChPsych 19. 420–33.Google Scholar
Hood, L. & Bloom, L. (1979). What, when and how about why: a longitudinal study of early expressions of causality. Monogr. Soc. Res. Ch. Devel. 44, No. 5.Google Scholar
Hopmann, M. R. & Maratsos, M. P. (1978). A developmental study of factivity and negation in complex syntax. JChLang 5. 295–309.Google Scholar
Hunt, K. (1964). Differences in grammatical structures written at three grade levels. Tallahassee: Florida State University.Google Scholar
Inhelder, B. & Piaget, J. (1958). The growth of logical thinking from childhood to adolescence. (Trans. A. Parsons & S. Migram). New York: Basic Books.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kafz, E. W. & Brent, S. B. (1968). Understanding connectives. JVLVB 7. 501–9.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P. & Kiparsky, C. (1970). Fact. In Bierwisch, M.. & Heidolph, K. E.. (eds), Progress in linguistics. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Kodroff, J. K. & Roberge, J. J. (1975). Developmental analysis of the conditional reasoning abilities of primary-grade children. DevPsych 11. 21–8.Google Scholar
Kuczaj, S. A. & Daly, M. J. (1979). The development of hypothetical reference in the speech of young children. JChLang 6. 563–79.Google ScholarPubMed
Lakoff, G. (1970). Linguistics and natural logic. Studies in general semantics, No. 1. Phonetics Laboratory, University of Michigan.Google Scholar
Nelson, K. E. & Kosslyn, S. M. (1975). Semantic retrieval in children and adults. DevPsych 11. 807–13.Google Scholar
O'Brien, T. & Shapiro, B. (1968). The development of logical thinking in children. AmEdResJ 5. 531–42.Google Scholar
Olds, H. F. (1968). An experimental study of syntactical factors influencing children's comprehension of certain complex relationships. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Piaget, J. (1928). Le jugement et le raisonnement chez l'enfant. Neuchatel: Delachaux & Niestle.Google Scholar
Puglielli, A. & Giliberti, A. (1972). II condizionale. Atti del VI Convegno Internazionale della Società Linguistica Italiana. Rome: Bulzoni.Google Scholar
Rinsland, H. D. (1945). A basic vocabulary of elementary school children. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Roberge, J. J. & Paulus, D. H. (1971). Developmental patterns in children's class and conditional reasoning abilities. DevPsych 7. 191–200.Google Scholar
Scribner, S. (1975). Recall of classical syllogisms: a cross cultural investigation of error on logical problems. In Falmagne, R. J.. (ed.), Reasonings, representation and process. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. (1973). Cognitive prerequisites for the acquisition of grammar. In Ferguson, C. A. & Slobin, D. I.. (eds), Studies of child language development. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Steinberg, E. R. & Anderson, R. (1975). Hierarchical organization in six-year-olds. JExpChPsych 18. 544–53.Google Scholar
Stoodt, B. (1970). The relationship between understanding grammatical conjunctions and reading comprehension. Columbus: Ohio State University.Google Scholar
Taplin, J. E., Staudenmayer, H. & Taddonio, J. L. (1974). Developmental changes in conditional reasoning: linguistic or logical? JExpChPsych 17. 360–73.Google Scholar
Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winer, B. J. (1962). Statistical principles in experimental design. New York: McGraw-Hill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar