Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-m8s7h Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-24T14:58:41.171Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

How to make young children produce cleft sentences

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 February 2009

Michel Hupet  and
Brigitte Tilmant
Michel Hupet*
Affiliation:
University of Louvain
Brigitte Tilmant
Affiliation:
University of Louvain
*
Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Louvain, Voie du Roman Pays, 20, B 1348, Louvain La Neuve, Belgium
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The present study focuses on the effects of contextual demands on the selection of a particular syntactic device, in asking whether French-speaking children from 4 to 10 years old will spontaneously produce it-cleft sentences if there is a functional necessity arising from the context. Taking into account recent studies that have specified the discourse function(s) served by this marked sentence form, it was hypothesized that the cleft formulation would be more likely than its uncleft counterpart whenever the child's intention was to contrast their own belief or knowledge with that of their addressee. The study showed this to be the case when the matter of the disagreement concerned the agent of an action: that situation elicited an overwhelming majority (from 80% to 97%) of cleft constructions, even from the youngest children. On the other hand, when the matter of the disagreement concerned the patient, there were only a few cleft constructions, even with the oldest children; contrastive stress on the object constituent was the predominant device employed for marking information in that situation. The high proportion of clefts in the Agent condition, and the high proportion of stressed object constituents in the Patient condition, both differ from previously reported data. These differences are discussed with reference to differences in task requirements and to differences between the prosodie constraints of French and English.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 16 , Issue 2 , June 1989 , pp. 251 - 261
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1989

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

Bates, E. & MacWhinney, B. (1982). Functionalist approaches to grammar. In Gleitman, L. & Wanner, E. (eds), Language acquisition: the state of the art. Cambridge: C.U.P.Google Scholar
Borkin, A. (1984). Problems in form and function. Norwood NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Bromser, B. (1984). Towards a functional description of cleft constructions. Lingua 62. 325–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chafe, W. L. (1976). Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics and points of view. In Li, C. N. (ed.), Subject and topic. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Greenfield, P. (1978). Informativeness, presupposition, and semantic choice in single-word utterances. In Waterson, N. & Snow, C. (eds), The development of communication. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Hornby, P. (1971). Surface structure and the topic-comment distinction: a developmental study. Child Development 42. 1975–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hornby, P. & Hass, W. (1970). Use of contrastive stress by preschool children. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 13. 395–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hupet, M. & Kreit, B. (1983). L'articulation d'informations connue et ancienne dans le langage d'enfants de 3 à 12 ans. Archives de Psychologie 51. 189–204.Google Scholar
Hupet, M. & Tilmant, B. (1986). What are clefts good for? Some consequences for comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language 25. 419–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jespersen, O. (1949). A modern English grammar on historical principles. Copenhagen: Munksgaard.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B. & Bates, E. (1978). Sentential devices for conveying givenness and newness: a cross-cultural developmental study. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 17. 539–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paul, R. (1985). The emergence of pragmatic comprehension: a study of children's understanding of sentence-structure cues to given/new information. Journal of Child Language 12. 161–79.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Prince, E. F. (1978). A comparison of Wh-clefts and it-clefts in discourse. Language 54. 883–906.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weiman, L. (1976). Stress patterns in early child language. Journal of Child Language 3. 283–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar