Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T07:10:40.705Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cohesion and predication in child narrative*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 September 2008

Tina L. Bennett-Kastor
Tina L. Bennett-Kastor
Affiliation:
Wichita State University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study traces the development of predicate use for genre and cohesion in the narratives of children aged 2 to 5, examining predicate structures and types and their linkages via three types of parallelism and by means of explicit connectives. After age 2, bivalent (transitive) active verbs were dominant; semantically, verbs of the DO and then GO categories dominated until age 5, when BE verbs ranked second. The dominant type of parallelism was reiteration of grammatical structure alone; reiteration of both predicate structure and lexical content decreased with age. Concerning connectives, 2-year-olds used the smallest number – primarily ‘and’ – while 5-year-olds used the greatest variety. However, by age 5, children used parallelism as the second most common connective device after ‘and’.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 13 , Issue 2 , June 1986 , pp. 353 - 370
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1986

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

Ames, L. (1979). Children as storytellers. Early Years 10. 36–7.Google Scholar
de Beaugrande, R. & Dressier, W. (1981). Introduction to text linguistics. London: Longman.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bennett-Kastor, T. (1983). Noun phrases and coherence in child narratives. JChLang 10. 135–49.Google ScholarPubMed
Bennett-Kastor, T. & Edwards, H. (in prep.). Text cohesion structure and recallability.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. JChLang 7. 235–61.Google ScholarPubMed
Bloom, L., Lifter, K. & Hafitz, J. (1980). Semantics of verbs and the development of verb inflection in child language. Lg 56. 386–412.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. (1968). The case for case. In Bach, E. & Harms, R. (eds), Universals in linguistic theory. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics, Vol. 2. Cambridge: C.U.P.Google Scholar
Palmer, F. (1965). A linguistic study of the English verb. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Potter, B. (1902). The tale of Peter Rabbit. London: Warne.Google Scholar
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G. & Svartvik, J. (1972). A grammar of contemporary English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Roemer, D. (1982). Semantic and syntactic parallelism in children's storytelling. Sociolinguistic Working Paper no. 102. Austin, Texas: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.Google Scholar
Scott, C. (1984). Adverbial connectivity in conversations of children 6 to 12. JChhang 11. 423–52.Google Scholar
Umiker-Sebeok, D. J. (1979). Preschool children's intraconversational narratives. JChLang 6. 91–109.Google Scholar