Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T19:11:28.608Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Complex sentences: acquisition of syntactic connectives and the semantic relations they encode*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 September 2008

Lois Bloom
Affiliation:
Teacher's College, Columbia University
Margaret Lahey
Affiliation:
Teacher's College, Columbia University
Lois Hood
Affiliation:
Teacher's College, Columbia University
Karin Lifter
Affiliation:
Teacher's College, Columbia University
Kathleen Fiess
Affiliation:
Teacher's College, Columbia University

Abstract

The acquisition of connective forms and the meaning relations between connected clauses in the development of complex sentences is described for four children from two to three years of age. The major results of the study include the developmental interactions between syntactic connectives and meaning relations, and between these interactions and the discourse environments in which they occurred. The first syntactic connective the children learned, and, was the most general: semantically, and was used to encode conjunction with all of the different conjunction meaning relations in the order Additive < Temporal < Causal < Adversative. Other connectives were semantically more specific, and were learned subsequently with different syntactic structures in the order Conjunction < Complementation < Relativization. These results are discussed in terms of FORM, relative linguistic complexity; CONTENT, the intersection of form with conceptual and semantic factors affecting acquisition; and USE, discourse cohesion.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1980

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

[*]

Margaret Lahey is Associate Professor at Hunter College of the City University of New York; Lois Hood is Assistant Professor at the Empire State College in New York City. We are grateful to Owen Whitby for advice on statistical problems. Preliminary reports of the results of this study were presented to the Conference on Applications of Observational/Ethological Methodology to the Study of Mental Retardation, June 1976, Lake Wilderness, Washington; a Colloquium at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York; and the American Speech and Hearing Association Annual Convention, November 1977. Financial support for the research was provided by Research Grants from the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health. Address for correspondence: Lois Bloom, Teachers College, Columbia University, New York, N.Y. 10027, USA.

References

REFERENCES

Bates, E. (1976). Language in context. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Bever, T. (1970). The cognitive basis for linguistic structures. In Hayes, J. (ed.), Cognition and the development of language. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Bloom, L. (1970). Language development: form and function in emerging grammars. Cambridge, Mass. M.I.T. PressGoogle Scholar
Bloom, L. (1978). The semantics of verbs in child language. Invited address, E.P.A.Google Scholar
Bloom, L. & Lahey, M. (1978). Language development and language disorders. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Bloom, L., Lahey, M., Hood, L. & Tackeff, J. (in preparation). Learning to.Google Scholar
Bloom, L., Lifter, K. & Hafitz, J. (1980). Semantics of verbs and the development of verb inflection in child language. Lg. 56.Google Scholar
Bloom, L., Lightbown, P. & Hood, L. (1975). Structure and variation in child language. Monogr.Soc.Res.Ch.Devel. No. 160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bloom, L., Hafitz, J., Tackeff, J. & Gartner, B. (in preparation). Complex sentences: complementation in child language.Google Scholar
Brainerd, C. (1978). The stage question in cognitive-developmental theory. The Behavioural and Brain Sciences 2. 173213.Google Scholar
Brown, R. (1973). A first language: the early stages. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Brown, R. & Hanlon, C. (1970). Derivational complexity and order of acquisition in child speech. In Hayes, J. (ed.), Cognition and the development of language. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clancy, P., Jacobsen, T. & Silva, M. (1976). The acquisition of conjunction: a cross linguistic study. Paper presented at the Stanford Child Language Research Forum.Google Scholar
Clark, E. V. (1970). How young children describe events in time. In d'Arcais, G. B. Flores & Levelt, W. J. M. (eds), Advances in psycholinguistics. New York: American Elsevier.Google Scholar
Clark, E. V. (1973). How children describe time and order. In Ferguson, C. A. & Slobin, D. I. (eds), Studies of child language development. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
de Villiers, J., Tager-Flusberg, H. & Hakuta, K. (1976). The roots of coordination in child speech. Paper presented at the First Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development.Google Scholar
Ferreiro, E. & Sinclair, H. (1971). Temporal relationships in language. IjPsychol 6. 3947.Google Scholar
Fiess, K., Bitetti-Capatides, J. & Bloom, L. (1979). The origin of complex sentences in language acquisition. Paper presented at the Biennial meetings of the Society for Research in Child Development,San Francisco.Google Scholar
Gleitman, L. R. (1965). Coordinating conjunctions in English. Lg 41. 260–93.Google Scholar
Greenfield, P. & Smith, J. (1976). The structure of communication in early language development. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Harris, Z. (1957). Cooccurrence and transformations in linguistic structure. Lg 33. 283340.Google Scholar
Hood, L. & Bloom, L. (1979). What, when, and how about why: a longitudinal study of expressions of causality in the language development of two-year-old children. Monogr. Soc. Res. Ch. Devel. 181.Google Scholar
Hood, L., Lahey, M., Lifter, K. & Bloom, L. (1978). Observational descriptive methodology in studying child language: preliminary results on the development of complex sentences. In Sackett, G. P. (ed.), Observing behavior, Vol. 1: Theory and applications in mental retardation. Baltimore: University Park Press.Google Scholar
Inhelder, B. & Piaget, J. (1964). The early growth of logic in the child. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Jesperson, O. (1969). Essentials of English Grammar. University of Alabama Press.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
Lust, B. (1976). Conjunction reduction in the language of young children. Paper presented at the Second Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development.Google Scholar
Lust, B. & Mervis, C. A. (1980). Development of coordination in the natural speech of young children. JChLang 7. 279304.Google ScholarPubMed
Menyuk, P. (1969). Sentences children use. Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T.Google Scholar
Rosenbaum, P. S. (1967). The grammar of English predicate complement constructions. Research Monograph 47. Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press.Google Scholar
Schlesinger, I. (1971). Production of utterances and language acquisition. In Slobin, D. (ed.), The ontogenesis of grammar. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Sinclair, H. (1970). The transition from sensory-motor behavior to symbolic activity. Interchange, 1. 119–26.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. & Welsh, C. (1973). Elicited imitation as a research tool in developmental psycholinguistics. In Ferguson, C. A. & Slobin, D. I. (eds), Readings in child language acquisition. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Stockwell, R., Schachter, P. & Partee, B. (1973). The major syntactic structures of English. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Wootten, J., Merkin, S., Hood, L. & Bloom, L. (1979). Wh-questions: linguistic evidence to explain the sequence of acquisition. Paper presented at the Biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development,San Francisco.Google Scholar