Hostname: page-component-6d856f89d9-gndc8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-16T07:43:34.298Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A naturalistic study of the production of causal connectives by children*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 September 2008

Allyssa McCabe  and
Carole Peterson
Allyssa McCabe
Affiliation:
Southeastern Louisiana University
Carole Peterson
Affiliation:
Memorial University, St. John's, Newfoundland
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study analysed the naturalistic productions of because and so by 96 children, vaged 3; 6–9; 6, vwhile vnarrating real, vpersonal events. Few semantic errors could be construed as evidence of confused thinking; none is a confusion vdescribed by Piaget. Of the vsemantically correct causal uses, 81 % encode psychological causality, mostly statements of other people's intentions. Other analyses revealed: (1) many of the relationships encoded are highly predictable, (2) virtually all causality occurred prior to the time of narration, (3) age trends are remarkably absent, (4) because and so are used in significantly different ways even by the youngest children, (5) only eight sentences showed a vreversal of the appropriate order of cause and effect. The discrepancy between the last finding and many other laboratory studies vwhich find many such reversals may be due to the fact that children are causally linking strictly successive events only 32 % of the time; for the rest, they are encoding events that partially or completely overlap in time.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 12 , Issue 1 , February 1985 , pp. 145 - 159
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1985

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

Bebout, L., Segalowitz, S. & White, G. (1980). Children's comprehension of causal constructions with ‘because’ and ‘so’. ChDev 51. 565–8.Google Scholar
Corrigan, R. (1975). A scalogram analysis of the development of the use and comprehension of ‘because’ in children. ChDev 46. 195–201.Google Scholar
Emerson, H. (1978). Children's comprehension of ‘because’ in reversible and non-reversible sentences. JChLang 6. 279–300.Google Scholar
Fein, D. A. (1973). Judgments of causality to physical and social picture sequences. DevPsychol 8. 147.Google Scholar
Homzie, M. & Gravitt, C. (1976). Children's reproductions: effects of event order and implied vs. directly stated causation. JChLang 4. 237–46.Google Scholar
Hood, L. & Bloom, L. (1979). What, when, and how about why: a longitudinal study of early expressions of causality. Monogr.Soc.Res.Ch.Devel. 44, No. 6.Google Scholar
Johnson, H. & Chapman, R. (1980). Children's judgment and recall of causal connectives: a developmental study of ‘because’, ‘so’, and ‘and‘. JPsycholingRes 9. 243–60.Google Scholar
Katz, E. & Brent, S. (1968). Understanding connectives. JVLVB 7. 501–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuhn, D. & Phelps, H. (1976). The development of children's comprehension of causal direction. ChDev 47. 248–51.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1972). Language in the inner city. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
McCarthy, D. (1954). Language development in children. In Carmichael, L. (ed.), Manual of child psychology (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Menig-Peterson, C. & McCabe, A. (1978). Children's orientation of a listener to the context of their narratives. DevPsychol 14. 582–92.Google Scholar
Peterson, C. & McCabe, A. (1983). Developmental psycholinguistics: three ways of looking at a child's narrative. New York: Plenum Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piaget, J. (1928/1972). Judgment and reasoning in the child. New Jersey: Littlefield, Adams.Google Scholar
Piaget, J. (1930/1972). The child's conception of physical causality. New Jersey: Littlefield, Adams.Google Scholar
Piaget, J. (1955). The language and thought of the child. Cleveland: Meridian Books.Google Scholar
Scholnick, E. K. & Wing, C. S. v(1982). The pragmatics of subordinating conjunctions: a second look. JChLang 9. 461–79.Google ScholarPubMed
Schultz, T. R., Butkowsky, I., Pearce, J. W. & Shanfield, H. (1975). The development of schemes for the attribution of multiple psychological causes. DevPsychol 11. 502–10.Google Scholar
Whiteman, M. (1967). Children's conception of psychology. ChDev 38. 143–55.Google Scholar
Wing, C. S. & Scholnick, E. K. (1981). Children's comprehension of pragmatic concepts expressed in because, although, if and unless. JChLang 8. 347–65.Google ScholarPubMed