Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-m8qmq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T07:48:51.124Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Adapting syntax in writing to varying audiences as a function of age and social cognitive ability*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 September 2008

Donald L. Rubin
Donald L. Rubin
Affiliation:
The University of Georgia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Fourth-, eighth-, twelfth-graders and expert adults each wrote persuasive messages to three audiences arrayed along a dimension of intimacy to writer. Measures of social cognitive ability were also obtained. Scripts were analysed for (1) fluency, (2) subordination, (3) clause length, (4) logical adverbial clauses, and (5) conjunctions of conclusion. In addition to general developmental trends, results indicated effects of audience adaptation and of mediation of social cognitive ability. Findings support the view that evidence of later language development must be interpreted in light of communicative demands of tasks and subjects' rhetorical skills.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 9 , Issue 2 , June 1982 , pp. 497 - 510
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1982

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.)

Footnotes

[*]

Portions of this research are based on the author's doctoral dissertation advised by Gene L. Piché. Partial funding was provided by a University of Minnesota Foundation Dissertation Research Grant and by the University of Georgia Educational Research Laboratories. Address for correspondence: Departments of Speech Communication and Language Education, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia 30602, U.S.A.

References

REFERENCES

Bates, E. (1976). Language and context: the acquisition of pragmatics. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Bloom, L. (1970). Language development: form and function in emerging grammars. Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T.Google Scholar
Brown, R. W. & Hanlon, C. (1970). Derivational complexity and order of acquisition in child speech. In Brown, R. W., Psycholinguistics: selected papers. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Bruner, J. S. (1974). From communication to language – a psychological perspective. Cognition 3. 255–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bryant, D. C. (1953). Rhetoric: its functions and scope. QJSP 39. 401–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crockett, W. H. (1965). Cognitive complexity and impression formation. In Maher, B. A. (ed.), Progress in experimental personality research. Vol. 2. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Crockett, W. H., Press, A. N., Delia, J. G. & Kenny, C. T. (1974). The structural analysis of the organization of written impressions. Unpublished paper, Department of Psychology, University of Kansas.Google Scholar
Crowhurst, M. (1979). On the misinterpretation of syntactic complexity data. English Education 11. 91–7.Google Scholar
Crowhurst, M. & Piché, G. L. (1979). Audience and mode of discourse effects on syntactic complexity in writing at two grade levels. Research in the Teaching of English 13. 101–9.Google Scholar
Delia, J. G. & Clark, R. A. (1977). Cognitive complexity, social perception and the development of listener-adapted communication in six-, eight-, ten-, and twelve-year-old boys. Comm. Monogs 44. 326–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Delia, J. G., Kline, S. L. & Burleson, B. R. (1979). The development of persuasive communication strategies in kindergarteners through twelfth-graders. Comm. Monogs 46. 241–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Delia, J. G. & O'Keefe, B. J. (1979). Constructivism: the development of communication in children. In Wartella, E. (ed.), Children communicating. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Edmunds, M. H. (1976). New directions in theories of language acquisition. HarvEdRev 46. 175–99.Google Scholar
Ervin-Tripp, S. (1972). On sociolinguistic rules: alternation and co-occurrence. In Gumperz, J. J. & Hymes, D. (eds), Directions in sociolinguistics. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Flavell, J. H., Botkin, P. T., Fry, C. L., Wright, J. W. & Jarvis, P. E. (1968). The development of role-taking and communication skills in children. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Glucksberg, S., Krauss, R. M. & Higgins, E. T. (1975). The development of communication skills in children. In Horrowitz, F. (ed.), Review of child development research, Vol. 4. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Harrell, L. E. (1957). A comparison of the development of oral and written language in school-age children. MonogrSocResChDev 22. No. 66.Google Scholar
Hunt, K. W. (1965). Grammatical structures written at three grade levels. Research Report No. 3. Champaign, Ill.: National Council of Teachers of English.Google Scholar
Hunt, K. W. (1970). Syntactic maturity in school children and adults. MonogrSocResChDev 35. No. 134.Google Scholar
Jensen, J. M. (1973). A comparative investigation of the casual and careful oral language styles of average and superior fifth grade boys and girls. Research in the Teaching of English 7. 338–5O.Google Scholar
Kelly, G. A. (1955). The psychology of personal constructs. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
Loban, W. (1976). Language development: kindergarten through grade twelve. Research Report No. 18. Urbana, Ill.: National Council of Teachers of English.Google Scholar
McCaleb, J. (1979). Measuring oral communication. English Education 11. 41–7.Google Scholar
Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self and society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
O'Donnell, R. C. (1976). A critique of some indices of syntactic maturity. Research in the Teaching of English 10. 31–8.Google Scholar
O'Donnell, R. C., Griffin, W. J. & Norris, R. C. (1967). Syntax of kindergarten and elementary school children: a transformational analysis. Research Report No. 8. Champaign, Ill.: National Council of Teachers of EnglishGoogle Scholar
O'Hare, F. (1973). Sentence-combining: improving student writing without formal grammar instruction. Research Report No. 15. Urbana, Ill.: National Council of Teachers of English.Google Scholar
Perelman, C. & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1969). The new rhetoric (tr. Wilhinsen, J. & Weaver, P.). Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
Perron, J. D. (1977). The impact of mode on written syntactic complexity, Parts I–III. Studies in Language Education, Reports Nos. 24, 25, 27. Athens, Georgia: The University of Georgia.Google Scholar
Piché, G. L., Michlin, M. L., Rubin, D. L. & Johnson, F. L. (1975). Relationships between fourth graders' performances on selected role-taking tasks and referential communication accuracy tasks. ChDev 46. 965–69.Google Scholar
Piché, G. L., Rubin, D. L. & Michlin, M. L. (1978). Age and social class in children's persuasive communication appeals. ChDev 48. 773–80.Google Scholar
Powers, W. G., Jordan, W. J. & Street, R. L. (1979). Language indices in the measurement of cognitive complexity: is complexity loquacity? Human Communication Research 6. 69–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quirk, R. & Greenbaum, S. (1973). A concise grammar of contemporary English. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
Richardson, K., Calnan, M., Essen, J. & Lambert, L. (1976). The linguistic maturity of eleven-year-olds: some analysis of the written compositions of children in the National Child Development Study. JChLang 3. 99–115.Google Scholar
Rubin, D. L. (1978). Development in syntactic and strategic aspects of audience adaptation skills in written persuasive communication. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota.Google Scholar
Rubin, D. L. & Piché, G. L. (1979). Development in syntactic and strategic aspects of audience adaptation skills in written persuasive communication. Research in the Teaching of English 13. 293–316.Google Scholar
San Jose, C. P. M. (1972). Grammatical structures in four modes of writing at fourth grade level. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Syracuse University (University Microfilms No. 73–7641).Google Scholar
Scarlett, W. G. (1974). A developmental study of modes of argumentation. Unpublished master's thesis, Clark University.Google Scholar
Shaughnessy, M. P. (1977). Errors and expectations: a guide for the teacher of basic writing. New York: O.U.P.Google Scholar
Smith, W. L. & Swan, M. B. (1978). Adjusting syntactic structures to varied levels of audience. JExpEd 46. 29–34.Google Scholar