Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-45l2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T06:28:29.968Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Semantic and pragmatic uses of ‘but’*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 September 2008

Carole Peterson
Carole Peterson
Affiliation:
Memorial University of Newfoundland
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

All uses of the connective but by narrating children 3; 6 to 9; 6 were classified as having primarily semantic function, pragmatic function, or as errors. The youngest children make the majority of errors, mistakenly using but when causal or precausal relationships exist. All children most commonly use but to signal semantic relationships such as semantic opposition or violation of expectation, although the oldest children use but proportionately more to encode more complex contrasts. However, children at all ages also use but for primarily pragmatic functions, to interrupt the flow of their narrative in order to insert relevant comments, monitor the listener's attention, or change topic. If discourse can be conceptualized as having multiple levels, but signals a change in level within a speaker's turn.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 13 , Issue 3 , October 1986 , pp. 583 - 590
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1986

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

Bloom, L., Lahey, M., Hood, L., Lifter, K. & Fiess, K. (1980). Complex sentences: acquisition of syntactic connectives and the semantic relations they encode. JChLang 7. 235–61.Google ScholarPubMed
Clancy, P., Jacobsen, T. & Silva, M. (1976). The acquisition of conjunction: a cross-linguistic study. PRCLD 12. 71–80.Google Scholar
Eisenberg, A. (1980). A syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic analysis of conjunction. PRCLD 19. 70–8.Google Scholar
Flavell, J. (1985). Cognitive development (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.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
Peterson, C. & McCabe, A. (1983). Developmental psycholinguistics: three ways of looking at a child's narrative. New York: Plenum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Dijk, T. (1979). Pragmatic connectives. JPrag 3. 447–56.Google Scholar
van Dijk, T. (1981). Studies in the pragmatics of discourse. New York: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar