Hostname: page-component-5db58dd55d-ggg9q Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-27T19:41:54.479Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Syntactic complexity and cognitive style

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Dona M. Kagan
Dona M. Kagan*
Affiliation:
Maricopa Community Colleges
*
Dona M. Kagan, Maricopa Community Colleges, Analytical Studies, 3910 E. Washington St., Phoenix, AZ 85034
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In Study 1, writing samples from secondary and post-secondary students were used to examine the underlying structures of 16 indices of syntactic complexity known to be related to good writing. Factor analysis revealed six syntactic dimensions: unbound description, coordination, unbound description-final position, embedding, elongation, and prepositions. Subscales were constructed to assess each dimension. The purpose of Study 2 was to examine correlations among the six syntactic dimensions and three measures of cognitive style: field-embeddedness, category width, and perceptual accuracy. A coincidence of significant correlations between nearly all of the syntactic subscales and measures of both field-independence and reflectivity indicated an association between syntactic complexity and an analytic cognitive style. Preferred styles of organization applied to verbal and to visual stimuli alike. The ability to analytically perceive spatial relationships is clearly associated with the ability to manipulate language effectively.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 1 , Issue 1 , February 1980 , pp. 111 - 122
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1980

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

Chomsky, N.Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press, 1965.Google Scholar
Christensen, F.The problem of defining a mature style. English Journal, 1968, 57, 572–579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Combs, W. E.Further effects of sentence-combining practice on writing ability. Research in the Teaching of English, 1976, 10, 137–149.Google Scholar
Daiker, D., Kerek, A., & Morenberg, M.Sentence-combining and syntactic maturity in freshman English. College Composition and Communication, 1978, 29, 36–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeFazio, V. J.Field articulation differences in language abilities. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1973, 25, 351–356.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dixon, E.Syntactic indices and student writing performance. Elementary English, 1972, 49, 714–716.Google Scholar
Doob, L. W.Behavior and grammatical style. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1958, 56, 398–400.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fillenbaum, S.Some stylistic aspects of categorizing behavior. Journal of Personality, 1959, 27, 187–195.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Furth, H. G.On language and knowing in Piaget's developmental theory. Human Development, 1970, 13, 241–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gardner, R. W.Cognitive styles in categorizing behavior. Journal of Personality, 1953, 22, 214–233.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Golub, L. S., & Kidder, C.Syntactic density and the computer. Elementary English, 1974, 51, 1128–1131.Google Scholar
Guilford, J. P., & Zimmerman, W. S.Guilford-Zimmerman aptitude survey: A manual of instructions and interpretations (2nd ed.). Beverly Hills, Ca.: Sheridan Supply Co., 1956.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horn, J. L.Human abilities: A review of research and theory in the early 1970's. In Rosenzweig, M. R. & Porter, L. W. (Eds.), Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 27, 1976.Google Scholar
Hotelling, H.Analysis of a complex statistical variable into principal components. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1933, 24, 417–441; 498–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunt, K. W.Grammatical structures written at three grade levels. NCTE Research Report #3. Champaign, Ill.: National Council of Teachers of English, 1965.Google Scholar
Hunt, K. W.Syntactic maturity in schoolchildren and adults. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 1970, 35, 1, 1–67.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kagan, J., Pearson, L., & Welch, L.Conceptual impulsivity and inductive reasoning. Child Development, 1966, 37, 583–594.Google ScholarPubMed
Kagan, J., Rosman, B., Day, Albert J., & Phillips, W.Information processing in the child: Significance of analytic and reflective attitudes. Psychological Monographs, 1964, 78 (1, whole no. 578).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaiser, H. F.The varimax criterion for analytic rotation in factor analysis. Psychometrika, 1958, 25, 187–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaiser, H. F.The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 1960, 20, 141–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, M. L.Research in composition: A need for theory. Research in the Teaching of English, 1978, 12, 193–202.Google Scholar
Luria, A. R.The direct function of speech in development and dissolution, Word, 1959, 15, 341–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCall, J. R.Sex differences in intelligence: A comparative factor study. Washington: Catholic University Press, 1955.Google Scholar
McKinney, J. D.Problem solving strategies in reflective and impulsive children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1975, 67, 807–820.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mellon, J.Transformational sentence combining: A method for enhancing the development of syntactic fluency in English composition. NCTE Research Report #10. Champaign, Ill.: National Council of Teachers of English, 1969.Google Scholar
Messick, S., & Kogan, N.Differentiation and compartmentalization in object-sorting measures of categorizing style. Perception and Motor Skills. 1963, 16, 47–51.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Neimark, E. D. Intellectual development during adolescence. In Horowitz, F. (Ed.), Review of research in child development, Vol. 5, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1974.Google Scholar
O'Donnell, R. C., Griffin, W. J., & Norris, R. C.Syntax of kindergarten and elementary school children: A transformational analysis. NCTE Research Report #8. Champaign, Ill.: National Council of Teachers of English, 1967:Google Scholar
O'Hare, F.Sentence combining: Improving student writing without formal grammar. NCTE Report #15. Champaign, Ill.: National Council of Teachers of English, 1973.Google Scholar
Pascual-Leone, J.Cognitive development and cognitive style. Lexington, Mass.: Heath, 1973.Google Scholar
Pettigrew, T. F.The measurement and correlates of category width as a cognitive variable. Journal of Personality, 1958, 26, 532–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piaget, J.The language and thought of the child. N.Y.: Harcourt, Brace, 1926.Google Scholar
Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B.The psychology of the child. N.Y.: Basic Books, 1969.Google Scholar
Roff, M.Some properties of the communality in multiple factor theory. Psychometrika, 1936, 1, 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vygotsky, L. S.Thought and language. Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press, 1962 (Originally published 1934).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Witkin, H. A., Dyk, R. B., Faterson, H. F., Goodenough, D. R., & Karp, S. A.Psychological differentiation. New York: Wiley, 1962.Google Scholar
Witkin, H. A., Oltman, P. K., Raskin, E., & Karp, S. A.Manual for the embedded figures test. Palo Alto, Ca.: Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc., 1971.Google Scholar
Witkin, H. A., Moore, C. A., Goodenough, D. R., & Cox, P. W.Field-dependent and field-independent cognitive styles and their educational implications. Review of Educational Research, 1977, 47, 1–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar