Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T16:07:15.125Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The argumentative connective même in French: an experimental study in eight- to ten-year-old children*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 February 2009

Dominique Bassano  and
Christian Champaud
Dominique Bassano*
Affiliation:
C.N.R.S. – Laboratoire de Psychologie Expérimentale, Paris
Christian Champaud
Affiliation:
C.N.R.S. – Laboratoire de Psychologie Expérimentale, Paris
*
Laboratoire de Psychologie Expérimentale, 54 Boulevard Raspail, 75270 Paris Cedex 06, France.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study examines how children understand the argumentative function of the French connective même (‘even’). Two completion tasks, related to the argumentative properties of the morpheme, were used: (1) to infer the conclusion of an ‘even’ sentence, and (2) to infer the argument position. Two main factors likely to influence the comprehension were investigated: the semantic context, and the syntactic form – affirmative vs negative. The argumentative function of même was globally mastered at the age of eight, but comprehension depends on semantic context. Performances were better for negative sentences, which suggests that negation plays a facilitating role; the specific properties of the negative expression pas même/même pas (‘not even’) in discourse are discussed.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 16 , Issue 3 , October 1989 , pp. 643 - 664
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.)

Footnotes

*

This research was supported by a grant from the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique. The authors acknowledge helpful comments offered by J. C. Anscombre, O. Ducrot, P. Gréco, J. Jayez, H. Jisa, M. Kail, P. Kay and F. Roland. They wish to thank C. Marlot for the translation of the text, H. Jisa for rereading it and D. Boussin for technical assistance. They are also most grateful to the headmistresses and schoolteachers for their cooperation during this study (80 Bld du Montparnasse and 24 rue Delambre, 75014 Paris.

References

REFERENCES

Anderson, S. R. (1972). How to get ‘even’. Language 48. 893–906.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anscombre, J. C. (1973). Même le roi de France est sage: un essai de description sémantique. Communications 20. 40–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anscombre, J. C. & Ducrot, O. (1983). L'argumentation dans la langue. Bruxelles: Mardaga.Google Scholar
Bacri, N. (1976). Le fonctionnement de la négation. Paris – La Haye: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bassano, D. (1986). Focusing in statement interpretation. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 15. 345–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bassano, D. & Champaud, C. (1987 a). Fonctions argumentative et informative du langage: le traitement des 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. In Champaud, C. & Bassano, D. (eds), Argumentation and psycholinguistics: developmental studies. Special issue of the review Argumentation. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Bassano, D., Champaud, C. & Kail, M. (1988). Présuppositions et fonctions argumentatives dans le traitement des connecteurs. (Presuppositions and argumentative functions in the processing of connectives). Przeglad Psychologiczny. 31. 17–39.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
Bowerman, M. (1979). The acquisition of complex sentences. In Fletcher, P. & Garman, M. (eds), Language Acquisition. Cambridge: C.U.P.Google Scholar
Champaud, C. (1984). Etude logique et linguistique des connecteurs binaires et des inferences chez l'enfant et l'adolescent. Unpublished doctoral thesis, E.H.E.S.S.-C.E.P.C.L., Paris.Google Scholar
Champaud, C. & Bassano, D. (1987). 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. 605–31.Google Scholar
Clark, E. V. (1985). The acquisition of Romance, with special reference to French. In Slobin, D. I. (ed.), The crosslinguistic study of language acquisition. Vol. 1: The data. Hillsdale NJ, London: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Clark, H. (1970). How we understand negation, COBRE workshop on cognitive organization and psychological processes. Huntington Beach: California.Google Scholar
Ducrot, O. (1973). La preuve et le dire. Paris: Marne.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, G. (1975). Pragmatic scales and logical structures. Linguistic Inquiry 4. 353–75.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, G. (1976). Remarques sur la théorie des phénomènes scalaires. Semantikos i. 13–36.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (1965). Entailment rules in a semantic theory. Project on Linguistic Analysis Report 10. Ohio State University.Google Scholar
Fraser, B. (1971). An analysis of ‘even’ in English. In Fillmore, C. J. & Langendoen, D. T. (eds), Studies in Linguistic Semantics. New York: Holt.Google Scholar
Frédérix, M. (1985). Adéquation contextuelle des indicateurs ‘même’, ‘aussi’ et ‘surtout’. Cahiers de Psychologie Cognitive 5. 565–80.Google Scholar
Horn, L. (1969). A presuppositional approach of ‘only’ and ‘even’. Papers from the fifth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Hupet, M. & Mayerus, P. (1984). Compréhension des indicateurs pragmatiques: ‘même’, ‘aussi’ et ‘surtout’. L'Année Psychologique 2, 171–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hupet, M., Seron, X. & Frédérix, M. (1986). Aphasies' sensitivity to contextual appropriateness conditions for pragmatic indicators. Brain and Language 28, 126–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kail, M. (1979). Compréhension de ‘seul’, ‘même’ et ‘aussi’ chez l'enfant. Bulletin de Psychologie 32, 763–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kail, M. (1985). Codage mnémonique d'opérateurs présuppositionnels et argumentatifs. Etude chez l'enfant et chez l'adulte. In Bideaud, J. & Richelle, M. (eds). Psychologie développementale – problèmes et réalités – Hommage à Pierre Oléron. Bruxelles: Mardaga.Google Scholar
Kail, M. & Weissenborn, J. (1984). L'acquisition des connecteurs: critiques et perspectives. In Moscato, M. & Le Bonniec, G. (eds), Le langage: construction et actualisation.Google Scholar
Karttunen, F. & Karttunen, L. (1977). ‘Even’ questions. In NELS 7: Proceedings of the Seventh Annual Meeting of the North Eastern Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Karttunen, L. & Peters, S. (1979). Conventional implicature. In Oh, C.-K. & Dinnen, D. A. (eds), Syntax and Semantics. Vol. 11. Presupposition. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Kay, P. (in press). Even. Linguistics and Philosophy.Google Scholar
Kempson, R. M. (1975). Presupposition and the delimitation of semantics. Cambridge: C.U.P.Google Scholar
König, E. (1981). The Meaning of Scalar Particles in German. In Eikmayer, H. J. & Rieser, H. (eds), Words, Worlds, and Contexts: new Approaches in Word Semantics. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B. & Snow, C. E. (1985). The child language data exchange system. Journal of Child Language 12, 271–96.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Martin, R. (1975). Sur l'unité du mot ‘même’. Travaux de Linguistique et de Littérature. 13, 227–43.Google Scholar
Wason, P. C. (1965). The context of plausible denial. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 4, 7–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar