Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T18:48:50.017Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Because in children's discourse

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Margherita Orsolini
Margherita Orsolini*
Affiliation:
University “G. D'Annunzio”
*
Istituto di Pcdagogia e Psicologia, Via Madonna degli Angeli 30, 66100 Chieti, Italy
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study explores the role of discourse functions in children's use of because (perchi). The disputes of 172 preschoolers were analyzed in terms of interactive move, argumentative strategies, and communicative acts. Occurrences of because were identified and described. Production of because by the same subjects in the context of teacher-children conversations was analyzed. Results showed that the causal connective tends to co-occur with justification acts and may work as a device that introduces new information and gives emphasis to the speaker's position without providing any reference to causes or motives. Besides working in this perhaps more basic way in discourse, because has the sentential function of linking events to conditions.

Type
Articles
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 14 , Issue 1 , January 1993 , pp. 89 - 120
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1993

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.)

References

REFERENCES

Bamberg, M. (1987). The acquisition of narratives. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Bamberg, M., Budwig, N., & Kaplan, B. (in press). A developmental approach to language acquisition: Two case studies. First Language.Google Scholar
Bamberg, M., & Damrad-Frye, R. (in press). On the ability to provide evaluative comments: Further explorations of children's narrative competencies. Journal of Child Language.Google Scholar
Barbieri, M. S., Colavita, F., & Scheuer, N. (1989). Aspetti pragmatici della capacita dispiegare. In Barbieri, M. S. (Ed.), La spiegazione nell'interazionesociale (pp. 119–137). Torino: Loescher.Google Scholar
Bates, E. (1976). Counterfactual conditionals. In Bates, E. (Ed.), Language and context (pp. 217–247). New York: Academic.Google Scholar
Bates, E., & MacWhinney, B. (1989). A cross-linguistic study of sentence processing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bebout, L. J., Segalowitz, S. J., & White, G. J. (1980). Children's comprehension of causal constructions with because and so. Child Development, 51, 565–568.Google Scholar
Brenneis, D., & Lein, L. (1977). ‘You fruithead”: A sociolinguistic approach to children's dispute settlement. In Ervin-Tripp, S. & Mitchell-Kernan, C. (Eds.), Child discourse (pp. 49–65). New York: Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Budwig, N. (1990). A functional approach to the acquisition of personal pronouns. In Conti-Ramsden, G. & Snow, C. E. (Eds.), Children's language (pp. 121–144). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Camaioni, L. (1986). Interazioni imitative e sviluppo communicative Giornale Italiano di Psicologia, 2, 297–309.Google Scholar
Castelfranchi, C., Devescovi, A., & Burani, C. (1989). La comprensione delle retazioni causali. In Barbieri, M. S. (Ed.), La spiegazione nell'interazione sociale (pp. 43–69). Torino, Italy: Loescher.Google Scholar
de Lemos, C. (1981). Interactional processes in the child's construction of language. In Deutsch, W. (Ed.), The child's construction of language (pp. 57–76). New York: Academic.Google Scholar
Donaldson, M. L. (1986). Children's explanations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dunn, J., & Munn, P. (1987). Development of justification in disputes with mother and sibling. Developmental Psychology, 6, 791–798.Google Scholar
Eisenberg, A., & Garvey, C. (1981). Children's use of verbal strategies in resolving conflicts. Discourse Processes, 4, 149–170.Google Scholar
Emerson, H. F. (1979). Children's comprehension of “because” in reversible and non-reversible sentences. Journal of Child Language, 6, 279–300.Google Scholar
Emerson, H. F., & Gekoski, W. L. (1980). Development of comprehension of sentences with “because” or “if”. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 29, 292–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flores D'Arcais, G. B. (1978). Levels of semantic knowledge in children's use of connectives. In Sinclair, A., Jarvella, R. J., & Levelt, W. J. M. (Eds.), The child's conception of language (pp. 133–153). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Grench, L. A., & Nelson, K. (1985). Young children's knowledge of relational terms. New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Garvey, C. (1984). Children's talk. London: Fontana.Google Scholar
Garvey, C. (1987, 04). Creation and avoidance of conflict in preschool children's play. Paper presented at the Biennial Meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Baltimore.Google Scholar
Gerhardt, J. (1988). From discourse to semantics: The development of verb morphology and forms of self-reference in the speech of a two-year-old. Journal of Child Language, 15, 337–393.Google Scholar
Givon, T. (1979). Discourse and syntax, syntax and semantics (Vol. 12). New York: Academic.Google Scholar
Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as social semiotic. The social interpretation of language and meaning. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Hood, L., & Bloom, L. (1979). What, when and how about why: A longitudinal study of early expressions of causality. Monographs of the Society of Research on Child Development, 44(6, Serial No. 181).Google Scholar
Karmiloff-Smith, A. (1979). A functional approach to child language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lumbelli, L. (1985). Psicologia dell'educazione. La comunicazione. Bologna: II Mulino.Google Scholar
Lyons, J. (1977). Deixis, anaphora and the universe-of-discourse. In Lyons, J. (Ed.), Semantics (Vol. 2, pp. 657–677). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (1989). Competition and connectionism. In Bates, E. & MacWhinney, B. (Eds.), A cross-linguistic study of sentence processing (pp. 422–457). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Maynard, D. (1985). How children start arguments. Language in Society, 14, 1–29.Google Scholar
McCabe, A., & Peterson, C. (1985). A naturalistic study of the production of causal connectives by children. Journal of Child Language, 12, 145–159.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Musatti, T., & Orsolini, M. (in press). Uses of past forms in Italian children's pretend play. Journal of Child Language.Google Scholar
Nelson, K. E. (1981). Toward a rare-event cognitive comparison theory of syntax acquisition: Insights from work with recasts. In Dale, P. & Ingram, D. (Eds.), Child language: Aninternational perspective (pp. 229–240). Baltimore, MD: University Park Press.Google Scholar
Orsolini, M. (1990). Episodic structure in children's fantasy narratives: “Breakthrough” to decontextualized discourse. Language and Cognitive Processes, 5, 53–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Orsolini, M., & Pontecorvo, C. (1992). Children's talk in classroom discussions. Cognitionand Instruction, 9 (2), 113–136.Google Scholar
Phinney, J. S. (1986). The structure of 5-year-olds’ verbal quarrels with peers and siblings. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 141, 47–60.Google Scholar
Piaget, J. (1924). Lejugement et le raisonnement chez I'enfant. Neuchãtel, Switzerland: Delachaux et Niestle.Google Scholar
Pierce, C. S. (1932). Collected papers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Pomerantz, A. (1984). Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In Atkinson, M. & Heritage, J. (Eds.), Structures of socialaction (pp. 57–101). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pontecorvo, C. (1985). Discutere per ragionare: La costruzione della conoscenza come argo-mentazione. Rassegna di Psicologia, 1-2, 23–45.Google Scholar
Scholnick, E. K., & Wing, C. S. (1991). Speaking deductively: Preschoolers’ use of “if inconversation and in conditional inference. Developmental Psychology, 2, 249–258.Google Scholar
Shantz, C. U. (1987). Conflicts between children. Child Development, 58, 283–305.Google Scholar
Shiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Snow, C. (1986). Conversations with children. In Fletcher, P. & Garman, M. (Eds.), Languageacquisition (pp. 69–89). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Snow, C., Perlmann, R., & Nathan, D. (1987). Why routines are different: Toward a multiple-factors model of the relation between input and language acquisition. In Nelson, K. E. & van Kleeck, A. (Eds.), Children's language (pp. 65–97). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Stein, N. L., & Glenn, C. G. (1979). An analysis of story comprehension in elementary schoolchildren. In Freedle, R. O. (Ed.), New directions in discourse processing (pp. 53–120). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Sylva, K., Roy, C., & Painter, M. (1980). Childyvatching at playgroup and nursery school. London: Grant Mclntyre.Google Scholar
Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Trabasso, T., Stein, N. L., & Johnson, L. R. (1981). Children's knowledge of events: A causalanalysis of story structure. In Bower, G. H. (Ed.), The psychology of learning andmotivation (Vol. 15, pp. 237–282). New York: Academic.Google Scholar
Volterra, V., & Antinucci, F. (1979). Negation in child language: A pragmatic study. In &, E.OchsSchieffelin, B. B. (Eds.), Developmental pragmatics (pp. 281–303). New York: Academic.Google Scholar