Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T02:26:44.987Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The pragmatics of subordinating conjunctions: a second look*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 September 2008

Ellin Kofsky Scholnick  and
Clara S. Wing
Ellin Kofsky Scholnick
Affiliation:
University of Maryland
Clara S. Wing
Affiliation:
University of Maryland
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Some subordinating conjunctions reveal whether speakers believe the propositions the conjunctions connect and how speakers believe propositions are connected. Because and although express belief; if + indicative and unless uncertainty, and if + subjunctive, disbelief. Because, if + indicative and if + subjunctive express a positive entailment relation between clauses while although and unless express negative entailment. To validate this analysis a comprehension task was administered to 96 subjects divided among 9-, 11- and 19-year-olds. Nine-year-olds understood although and because while adults also comprehended unless and if + indicative. Generally the more positive beliefs the conjunction embodied, the easier its comprehension. The order of difficulty was because, although, if + indicative, unless, and if + subjunctive. Older subjects more often confused if + subjunctive with if + indicative. Understanding of the uncertainty conveyed by if + indicative and unless was linked to performance on a task of detecting uncertain outcomes.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 9 , Issue 2 , June 1982 , pp. 461 - 479
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1982

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

[*]

The co-operation of the directors, campers, and counsellors of Potomac Day Camp is gratefully acknowledged. Additionally we appreciated the assistance of Myron I. Scholnick, who tape recorded the verbal material. Address for correspondence: Ellin K. Scholnick, Department of Psychology, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland 20742, U.S.A.

References

REFERENCES

Bates, E. (1976). Language in context: the acquisition of pragmatics. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Clark, H. H. & Chase, W. G., (1972). On the process of comparing sentences against pictures. CogPsych 3. 474–517.Google Scholar
Clark, H. H. & Clark, E. V. (1977). Psychology and language. New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich.Google Scholar
Green, M. G. (1979). The developmental relation between cognitive stage and comprehension of speaker uncertainty. ChDev 50. 666–74.Google Scholar
Harris, R. (1975). Children's comprehension of complex sentences. JExpChPsychol 19. 420–33.Google Scholar
Haviland, S. E. & Clark, H. H. (1974). What's new? Acquiring new information as a process in comprehension. JVLVB 13. 512–21.Google Scholar
Kartunnen, L. (1971). Counterfactual conditionals. LI 2. 556–69.Google Scholar
von Kutchera, F. (1974). Indicative conditionals. TheorLing 1. 257–69.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1970). Linguistics and natural logic. Studies in generative semantics, No. I. Phonetics Laboratory, University of Michigan.Google Scholar
MacNamara, J., Baker, E. & Olson, C. L. (1976). Four-year-olds' understanding of pretend, forget and know: evidence for propositional operations. ChDev 47. 62–70.Google Scholar
Piaget, J. & Inhelder, B. (1975). The origins of the idea of chance in the child. New York: Norton..Google Scholar
Piéraut-Le Bonniec, G. (1980). The development of modal reasoning. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Schultz, T. R. & Pilon, R. (1973). Development of the ability to detect linguistic ambiguity. ChDev 44. 728–33.Google Scholar
Taplin, J. E., Staudenmayer, H. & Taddonio, J. L. (1974). Developmental changes in conditional reasoning: linguistic or logical. JExpChPsychol 17. 360–73.Google Scholar
Trabasso, T., Rollins, H. & Shaughnessy, E. (1971). Storage and verification in processing concepts. CogPsychol 2. 239–89.Google Scholar
Visser, F. T. (1966). An historical syntax of the English language. Leiden: E. J. Brill.Google Scholar
Winer, B. J. (1962). Statistical principles in experimental design. New York: McGraw-Hill.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