Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-j7khd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-31T07:30:24.642Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Unravelling competence, performance and pragmatics in the speech of young children*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 September 2008

John Limber
John Limber
Affiliation:
University of New Hampshire
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Inferences about linguistic competence in children are typically based on spontaneous speech. This poses a problem since we know that other factors are also involved in speech production. Children who may use complex object and adverbial NPs do not use complex subject NPs. Is this a competence deficit, a performance problem, or simply a reflection of pragmatic factors? Evidence presented here suggests that children probably do not need complex subjects. An extensive use of pronouns in subject but not object position indicates that pragmatics may account for the distribution of clauses in their speech. A similar pattern in adult speech indicates there is no warrant to conclude children's lack of subject clauses reflects anything more than the nature of spontaneous speech.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 3 , Issue 3 , October 1976 , pp. 309 - 318
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1976

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

Barron, C. W. (ed.) (1940). Studies in the psychology of the deaf. PsychMonog 52. 1–153.Google Scholar
Chafe, W. L. (1972). Discourse structure and human knowledge. In Carroll, John B. & Freedle, Roy O. (eds), Language comprehension and the acquisition of knowledge. Washington: Winston.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge: M.I.T.Google Scholar
Fodor, J., Bever, T. & Garrett, M. (1974). The psychology of language. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Laing, R. D. & Esterson, A. (1964). Sanity, madness and the family. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
Lees, R. B. (1960). The grammar of English nominalizations. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Leopold, W. F. (1949). Speech development of a bilingual child: a linguist's record. Vol. IV. Evanston: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
Limber, J. (1970). Some observations on language acquisition: the development of words. QPR, M.I.T. Research Laboratory of Electronics, 96.Google Scholar
Limber, J. (1973). The genesis of complex sentences. In Moore, T. (ed.), Cognitive development and the acquisition of language. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Sheldon, A. (1974). The role of parallel function in the acquisition of relative clauses in English. JVLVB 13. 272–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sinclair-de-Zwart, H. (1973). Language acquisition and cognitive development. In Moore, T. (ed.), Cognitive development and the acquisition of language. New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soskin, W. F. & John, V. P. (1963). The study of spontaneous speech. In Barker, R. G. (ed.), The stream of behavior. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar
Yngve, V. (1960). A model and an hypothesis for language structure. ProcAmPhilosSoc 104. 444–66.Google Scholar