Skip to main content
    • Aa
    • Aa
  • Get access
    Check if you have access via personal or institutional login
  • Cited by 14
  • Cited by
    This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by CrossRef.

    Duggleby, Sandra J. Tang, Wei and Kuo-Newhouse, Amy 2016. Does the Use of Connective Words in Written Assessments Predict High School Students’ Reading and Writing Achievement?. Reading Psychology, Vol. 37, Issue. 4, p. 511.

    Re, Anna Maria and Carretti, Barbara 2016. Further evidence of poor comprehenders’ difficulty with expressive writing: Exploring the role of inferences. Research in Developmental Disabilities, Vol. 51-52, p. 145.

    Blything, Liam P. Davies, Robert and Cain, Kate 2015. Young Children's Comprehension of Temporal Relations in Complex Sentences: The Influence of Memory on Performance. Child Development, Vol. 86, Issue. 6, p. 1922.

    Dragon, Nina Berendes, Karin Weinert, Sabine Heppt, Birgit and Stanat, Petra 2015. Ignorieren Grundschulkinder Konnektoren? — Untersuchung einer bildungssprachlichen Komponente. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, Vol. 18, Issue. 4, p. 803.

    García, J. Ricardo Bustos, Andrea and Sánchez, Emilio 2015. The contribution of knowledge about anaphors, organisational signals and refutations to reading comprehension. Journal of Research in Reading, Vol. 38, Issue. 4, p. 405.

    Mikhail, David Visscher, Kari L. Chen, Nancy Wang, Joy Emara, Barry Y. and Hutnik, Cindy M. 2015. Patient-appropriate health literacy educational materials in ophthalmology. Canadian Journal of Ophthalmology / Journal Canadien d'Ophtalmologie, Vol. 50, Issue. 1, p. 19.

    Shon, Jung-Jin Hwang, Mina and Choi, Kyung Soon 2015. Connective Processing in Children with Poor Reading Comprehension: Focusing on Causal and Additive Connectives. Communication Sciences & Disorders, Vol. 20, Issue. 4, p. 510.

    Crosson, Amy C. and Lesaux, Nonie K. 2013. Does knowledge of connectives play a unique role in the reading comprehension of English learners and English-only students?. Journal of Research in Reading, Vol. 36, Issue. 3, p. 241.

    Fajardo, Inmaculada Tavares, Gema Ávila, Vicenta and Ferrer, Antonio 2013. Towards text simplification for poor readers with intellectual disability: When do connectives enhance text cohesion?. Research in Developmental Disabilities, Vol. 34, Issue. 4, p. 1267.

    FLORIT, ELENA ROCH, MAJA and LEVORATO, M. CHIARA 2013. The relationship between listening comprehension of text and sentences in preschoolers: Specific or mediated by lower and higher level components?. Applied Psycholinguistics, Vol. 34, Issue. 02, p. 395.

    강정숙, 이금희, and Heegyu KIm, 2012. The Effects of The Whole Language Practice Approach on The Understanding and Calculation of Conjunctive Adverb by Slow Learners. The Journal of Special Children Education, Vol. 14, Issue. 2, p. 115.

    Morera, Yurena Vega, Manuel De and Camacho, Juan 2010. Differences in continuity of force dynamics and emotional valence in sentences with causal and adversative connectives. Cognitive Linguistics, Vol. 21, Issue. 3,

    Sánchez, Emilio and García, J. Ricardo 2009. The relation of knowledge of textual integration devices to expository text comprehension under different assessment conditions. Reading and Writing, Vol. 22, Issue. 9, p. 1081.

    CROSSON, AMY C. LESAUX, NONIE K. and MARTINIELLO, MARIA 2008. Factors that influence comprehension of connectives among language minority children from Spanish-speaking backgrounds. Applied Psycholinguistics, Vol. 29, Issue. 04,


Age- and ability-related differences in young readers' use of conjunctions

  • DOI:
  • Published online: 13 December 2005

Two studies investigating young readers' use of conjunctions are reported. In Study One, 145 eight- to ten-year-olds completed one of two narrative cloze tasks in which different types of conjunction were deleted. Performance for additive conjunctions was not affected by age in this study, but older children were more likely to select the target conjunction than were younger children for temporal, causal, and adversative terms. Performance was superior in the cloze task in which they were given a restricted choice of responses (three vs. seven). In Study Two, 35 eight- and nine-year-old good and poor comprehenders completed the three-choice cloze task. The poor comprehenders were less likely to select the target terms in general. Sentence-level comprehension skills did not account for their poor performance. The results indicate that understanding of the semantic relations expressed by conjunctions is still developing long after these terms are used correctly in children's speech. The findings are discussed in relation to the role of conjunctions in text comprehension.

Corresponding author
Department of Psychology, University of Essex, Wivenhoe Park, Colchester, CO4 3SQ, UK. tel: +44 1206 873533; fax: +44 1206 873598; e-mail:
Hide All
Study One was supported by British Academy grant no. SG-34207 awarded to the first author. Study Two was supported by a University of Michigan-Flint Honors Scholar Program Study Abroad Grant, a UM-F Office of Research Undergraduate Research Grant, and a UM-F Office of Development Grant awarded to the second author. We would like to record our thanks to the staff and pupils at the following schools in Essex for their co-operation: John Bunyan Junior, John Ray Junior, Millfield Primary, North Primary, to Simon Bignell and Sharon O'Donnell for acting as blind scorers for the error analysis, and to two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Journal of Child Language
  • ISSN: 0305-0009
  • EISSN: 1469-7602
  • URL: /core/journals/journal-of-child-language
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *