Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-25wd4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T22:31:52.656Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Pragmatic factors in children's phrasal coordination*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 September 2008

Patricia M. Greenfield  and
Cathy H. Dent
Patricia M. Greenfield
Affiliation:
University of California, Los Angeles
Cathy H. Dent
Affiliation:
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study of children's conjunction reduction contrasted the syntactic view of forward and backward deletion of base structure elements with the idea that pragmatic factors of situational redundancy and perceptual grouping account for conjunction reduction. Ninety-four children described an action sequence (putting differently coloured beads into a cup) so that a listener positioned behind a screen could repeat them. Half the children communicated as the action was being carried out (SIMULTANEOUS condition), mitigating against perceptual grouping of beads in the cup. Half communicated after the action was completed (POST condition), permitting perceptual grouping. Backward deletion was more frequent in the post than in the simultaneous condition. Also, the overall high frequency of forward deletion reflected encoding of novelty and omission of repetitive elements. These results suggest syntax is pragmatically motivated.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 9 , Issue 2 , June 1982 , pp. 425 - 443
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

[*]

Research and preparation of this paper was supported by a grant from the Spencer Foundation to the senior author. A preliminary version of this analysis was presented at the 1979 Stanford Language Research Forum. A critique of that paper was subsequently presented by Lust, Flynn, Chien and Clifford at the 1980 Forum. The interpretation of our study, as presented in this article, was very much influenced by this critique, to which we therefore owe an intellectual debt. Comments on the original paper made by members of the psycholinguistics research group, Laboratoire de Psychologie Expérimentale, Paris, France, also contributed to a reconceptualization of the results incorporated into this article. We also thank Juan Segui for his careful criticism of an earlier draft. Address for correspondence: Dr P. M. Greenfield, Psychology Department, UCLA, 405 Hilgard Ave., Los Angeles, Ca. 90024, U.S.A.

References

REFERENCES

Ardery, G. (1979). The development of coordination in child language. JVLVB 18. 745–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ardery, G. (1980). On coordination in child language. JChLang 7. 305–21.Google ScholarPubMed
Beilin, H. & Lust, B. (1975). A study of the development of logical and linguistic connections. In Beilin, H. (ed), Studies in the cognitive basis of language development. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Bloom, L. (1970). Language development: form andfunction in emerging grammars. Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T.Google Scholar
Bloom, L., Lahey, M., Hood, L., Lifter, L. & Fiess, K. (1980). Complex sentences: acquisition of syntactic connectives and the semantic relations they encode. JChLang 7. 235–61.Google ScholarPubMed
Bowerman, M. (1979). The acquisition of complex sentences. In Fletcher, P. & Garman, M. (eds), Language acquisition. Cambridge: C.U.P.Google Scholar
Delis, D. & Slater, A. (1977). Toward a functional theory of reduction transformations. Cognition 5. 119–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Villiers, J., Flusberg, H. T. & Hakuta, K. (1976). The roots of coordination of child speech. Paper presented at the First Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development.Google Scholar
de Villiers, J. (1977). Deciding among theories of the development of coordination in child speech. Paper presented at the Stanford Child Language Research Forum.Google Scholar
Ervin-Tripp, S. (1977). From conversation to syntax. PRCLD 13.Google Scholar
Fodor, J. D. (1980). Semantics: theories of meaning in generative grammar. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Fravenfelder, U., Segui, J. & Mehler, J. (1980). Monitoring around the relative clause. JVLVB 19. 328–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenfield, P. (1978). Informativeness, presupposition, and semantic choice in single-word utterances. In Waterson, N. & Snow, C. (eds), Development of communication: social and pragmatic factors in language acquisition. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Greenfield, P. & Dent, C. (1979). A developmental study of the communication of meaning: the role of uncertainty and information. In French, P. (ed.), The development of meaning. Tokyo: Bunka Hyoron.Google Scholar
Greenfield, P. & Smith, J. (1976). The structure of communication in early language development. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Greenfield, P. & Westerman, M. A. (1978). Some psychological relations between action and language structure. JPsycholingRes 7. 453–75.Google ScholarPubMed
Greenfield, P. & Zukow, P. (1978). why do children say what they say when they say it? An experimental approach to the psychogenesis of presupposition. In Nelson, K. (ed.), Children's language, Vol. 1. New York: Gardner Press.Google Scholar
Keenan, E. & Bennett, T. (1977). Discourse across time and space. Southern California Occasional Papers in Linguistics, 5. Department of Linguistics, University of Southern California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Lust, B. (1977). Conjunction reduction in child language. JChLang 4. 257–88.Google Scholar
Lust, B. & Wayakama, T. (1979). The structure of coordination in first language acquisition of Japanese. In Ekman, F. & Hastings, A. (eds), First and second language learning. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Lust, B. & Mervis, C. (1980). Development of coordination in the natural speech of young children. JChLang 7. 279–305.Google ScholarPubMed
Lust, B., Flynn, S., Chien, Y. & Clifford, T. (1981). Coordination: the role of syntactic, pragmatic and processing factors in its first language acquisition. PRCLD 17.Google Scholar
Marslen-Wilson, W. & Tyler, L. K. (1980). The temporal structure of spoken language understanding. Cognition 8. 1–75.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Osgood, C. (1971). Where do sentences come from? In Steinberg, D. D. & Jakobovits, L. A. (eds), Semantics: an interdisciplinary reader in philosophy, linguistics, and psychology. Cambridge: C.U.P.Google Scholar
Rappe du Cher, E. L. (no date). A comparative genetic study of children's comprehension of derived sentences. Unpublished paper, University of Geneva.Google Scholar
Ross, J. (1970). Gapping and the order of constituents. In Bierswich, M. & Heidolph, K. (eds), Progress in linguistics. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. & Welsh, C. (1973). Elicited imitation as a research tool in developmental psycholinguistics. In Ferguson, C. & Slobin, D. (eds), Studies of child language development. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar