Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-rvbq7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-09T00:32:36.008Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

French concessive connectives and argumentation: an experimental study in eight- to ten-year-old children*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 September 2008

Christian Champaud  and
Dominique Bassano
Christian Champaud*
Affiliation:
C.N.R.S., E.P.H.E., Universite de Paris V
Dominique Bassano
Affiliation:
C.N.R.S., E.P.H.E., Universite de Paris V
*
Laboratoire de Psychologie Expérimentale, 28 rue Serpente, 75006, Paris, France. Email: champau@frmop22.cnusc.fr.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An experimental study examined the comprehension of sentences containing concessive connectives, considered from an argumentative-conclusive point of view, in eight- and ten-year-old French children (24 subjects in each age group). Two tasks were used; subjects had to choose between (1) opposite preceding contexts of sentences (context choice task), and (2) conclusions that could be drawn from the same sentences (conclusion choice task). Results indicated a clear developmental increase in performance. For all concessive items, except mais (‘but’), results of the context choice task were better than results of the conclusion choice task. Older children gave significantly better responses for mais in the conclusion choice task. The ambivalence of the connective mais is discussed; comparisons with production and crosslinguistic data are suggested.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 21 , Issue 2 , June 1994 , pp. 415 - 438
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1994

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

[*]

This research was supported by a grant from the C.N.R.S.: A.T.P. ‘Nouvelles Recherches sur le Langage’. Part of the data was presented at the Third European Conference on Developmental Psychology, Rome, Italy, 10–13 September 1986. We should like to thank Pierre Gréco, J. C. Anscombre, O. Ducrot, M. Kail and Paul Kay for helpful comments during the study. Françoise Roland provided technical assistance and Catherine Marlot contributed to the English version of the text. Harriet Jisa is also to be thanked for rereading it. Finally we are most grateful to the headmistresses and schoolteachers of the schools 80 Bd du Montparnasse and 24 rue Delambre, 75014 Paris.

References

REFERENCES

Anscombre, J. C. (1985). Grammaire traditionnelle et grammaire argumentative de la concession. Revue Internationale de Philosophie 155, 333–50.Google Scholar
Anscombre, J. C., Bassano, D., Champaud, C., Ducrot, O., Gréco, P. & Jayez, J. (1986). Aspects linguistiques et psycholinguistiques de l'argumentation; étude des marques et des orientations argumentatives. Paris: Unpublished C.N.R.S. Report.Google Scholar
Anscombre, J. C. & Ducrot, O. (1977). Deux ‘mais’ en français. Lingua 43, 23–40.Google Scholar
Anscombre, J. C. & Ducrot, O. (1983). L'argumentation dans la langue. Bruxelles: Mardaga.Google Scholar
Anscombre, J. C. & Ducrot, O. (1989). Argumentativity and informativity. In Meyer, M. (ed.), From metaphysics to rhetoric; essays in memory of Chaim Perelman. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Bassano, D. & Champaud, C. (1987 a). Fonctions argumentative et informative du langage: le traitement de modificateurs d'intensité ‘au moins’, ‘au plus’ et ‘bien’ chez l'enfant et chez l'adulte. Archives de Psychologie 55, 3–30.Google Scholar
Bassano, D. & Champaud, C. (1987 b). La fonction argumentative des marques de la langue. Argumentation 1, 175–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bassano, D. & Champaud, C. (1989). The argumentative connective ‘même’ in French; an experimental study in eight- to ten-year-old children. Journal of Child Language 16, 643–54.Google Scholar
Bloom, L., Lahey, M., Hood, L., Lifter, K. & Fiess, K. (1980). Complex sentences: acquisition of syntactic connectives and the semantic relations they encode. Journal of Child Language 7, 235–61.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Braunwald, S. R. (1985). The development of connectives. Journal of Pragmatics 9, 513–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Budwig, N. (1990). A functional approach to the acquisition of personal pronouns. In Conti-Ramsden, G. & Snow, C. (eds), Children's language, Vol. 7, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Chambaz, M., Leroy, C. & Messéant, G. (1975). Les ‘petits mots’ de coordination: étude diachronique de leur apparition chez quatre enfants entre 3 et 4 ans. Langue Française 27, 38–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Champaud, C. & Bassano, D. (1987 a). Argumentative and informative functions of French intensity modifiers ‘presque’ (almost), ‘à peine’ (just, barely), and ‘à peu près’ (about): an experimental study of children and adults. Cahiers de Psychologie Cognitive 7, 603–31.Google Scholar
Champaud, C. & Bassano, D. (eds), (1987 b). Argumentation and psycholinguistics; developmental studies. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Clancy, P., Jacobsen, T. & Silva, M. (1976). The acquisition of conjunction: a cross-linguistic study. Stanford Papers and Reports in Child Language Development 12, 71–80.Google Scholar
Clark, E. (1985). Acquisition of Romance, with special reference to French. In Slobin, D. I. (ed.), The cross-linguistic studies of language acquisition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Dascal, M. & Katriel, T. (1977). Between semantics and pragmatics: two types of ‘but’. Hebrew ‘aval’ and ‘ela’. Theoretical Linguistics 4, 143–72.Google Scholar
Descœudres, A. (1922). Le développement de l'enfant de deux à sept ans. Paris: Delachaux & Niestlé.Google Scholar
Dutka, A. (1993). Les connecteurs argumentatifs en polonais. In Dittmar, N. & Reich, A. (eds), Modality in language acquisition. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Eisenberg, A. R. (1980). A semantic, syntactic and pragmatic analysis of the acquisition of conjunction. Stanford Papers and Reports in Child Language Development 19, 60–78.Google Scholar
Flores D'arcais, G. B. (1982). The acquisition of the meaning of connectives. In Deutsch, W. (ed.), The child's construction of language. Cambridge: C.U.P.Google Scholar
French, L. (1981). But of course preschoolers understand the meaning of ‘but’. Paper presented at the 6th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development.Google Scholar
French, L. (1986). Acquiring and using words to express logical relationships. In Kuczaj, S. A. II & Barrett, M. D. (eds), The development of word meaning. Progress in cognitive development research. New York: Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
Grégoire, A. (1937, 1947). L'apprentissage du langage, vols I and II. Liège, Paris: Droz.Google Scholar
Horn, L. (1985). Metalinguistic negation and pragmatic ambiguity. Language 61, 121–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hudson, A. & Shub, J. (1975). Developmental factors involved in choice of conjunctions. Child Development 46, 46–52.Google Scholar
Jisa, H. (1987). Sentence connectors in French children's monologue performance. Journal of Pragmatics 11, 607–21.Google Scholar
Kail, M. & Weissenborn, J. (1984). A developmental cross-linguistic study of adversative connectives: French ‘mais’ and German ‘aber/sondern’. Journal of Child Language 11, 143–58.Google Scholar
Kail, M. & Weissenborn, J. (1991). Conjunctions: developmental issues. In Piérault-Le Bonniec, G. & Dolitsky, M. (eds), Language bases…discourse bases. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Katz-Walker, E. W. & firent, S. B. (1968). Understanding connectives. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 7, 501–9.Google Scholar
König, E. (1985 a). Where do concessives come from? On the development of concessive connectives. In Fisiak, J. (ed.), Historical semantics, historial world-formation. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.Google Scholar
König, E. (1985 b). On the history of concessive connectives in English. Diachronic and synchronic evidence. Lingua 66, 1–19.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B. & Snow, C. (1990). The Child Language Data Exchange System; an update. Journal of Child Language 17, 457–72.Google Scholar
Marconi, D. & Bertinetto, P. M. (1984). Analisi di ‘ma’. Lingua e Stile 19, 223–58 and 475–509.Google Scholar
McLure, E. & Geva, E. (1983). The development of the cohesive use of adversative conjunctions in discourse. Discourse Processes 16, 411–32.Google Scholar
Neves de Moura, M. H. (1984). O coordinador interfrasal ‘mas’ - invariancia e variantes. Alfa 28, 21–42.Google Scholar
Peterson, C. (1986). Semantic and pragmatic uses of ‘but’. Journal of Child Language 13, 583–90.Google Scholar
Piaget, J. (1924). Le jugement et le raisonnement chez l'enfant. Neuchâtel: Delachaux et Niestlé.Google Scholar
Pinker, S. (1989). Review of Slobin D. I., ‘Cross-linguistic evidence for the language-making capacity’ and Bowerman M., ‘What shapes children's grammar?’ Journal of Child Language 11, 423–52.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. I. (1977). Language change in childhood and history. In MacNamara, J. (ed.), Language learning and thought. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Wald, B. (1984). Some observations on the syntactic development of discourse beyond childhood. Stanford Papers and Reports on Child Language Development 23, 134–42.Google Scholar
Wing, C. S. & Scholnick, E. K. (1981). Children's comprehension of pragmatic concepts expressed in ‘because’, ‘although’, ‘if’ and ‘unless’. Journal of Child Language 8, 347–65.Google Scholar