Cover not available
Article published In:
Interactional Linguistics
Vol. 1:2 (2021) ► pp.216–240

Early collaborations

Adult-child and child-adult co-construction of ‘but’-clauses

ORCID logo | San José State University
The present study examines the development of ‘but’-introduced clauses in adult-toddler conversations, distinguishing between autonomous productions (I wanna stay but we need to go) and adult-child co-constructed uses (Adult: we’re going home, Child: but I wanna stay). Analyses covered all adult and child aval ‘but’ uses in three longitudinal Hebrew corpora (age-range: 1;5–3;3), showing that: (1) both adults and children mostly use aval ‘but’ in co-construction rather than autonomously; (2) adults begin co-constructing ‘but’-clauses with children months before the children start using ‘but’, mostly by elaborating on single-word child productions before adding the ‘but’-clause (Child: cup , Adult: that’s a cup, but you don’t like juice); (3) as children start combining more clauses, adults gradually conjoin more ‘but’-clauses directly with the children’s productions, without elaboration (Child: let’s go. Adult: but first put on your shoes). These patterns suggest that the main function of ‘but’-clauses in adult-child discourse is co-constructing ideas contributed by two (or more) interlocutors. Such co-constructions are initially scaffolded by the adults, until the children are able to contribute full-fledged propositions to co-constructions. These findings provide further evidence of the role of adult-child interaction in introducing and familiarizing children with new linguistic structures, and advancing their developing grammar.
Keywords: clause combining, adult-child conversations, co-construction, developmental phases, scaffolding
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Method
    • 2.1Data-base
    • 2.2Categories of analysis
      • 2.2.1Coding of child uses
      • 2.2.2Coding of adult uses
  • 3.Results
    • 3.1Excerpt analyses: Adult-child and child-adult contingencies
    • 3.2Quantitative analyses of aval ‘but’ uses in adult-child conversations
      • 3.2.1General breakdown
      • 3.2.2Developments in adult-child and child-adult contingency trends
  • 4.Discussion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Note
  • References
Published online: 11 June 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/il.20007.lus
References (41)
References
Berman, R. A. (2004). Between emergence and mastery: The long developmental route of language acquisition. In R. A. Berman (Ed.), Language development across childhood and adolescence. (Trends in Language Acquisition Research, Vol. 3) (pp. 9–34). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2009). Beyond the sentence: Language development in narrative contexts. In E. Bavin (Ed.), Handbook of Child Language (pp. 354–375). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berman, R. A. & Lustigman, L. (2014). Emergent clause-combining in adult-child interactional contexts. In I. Arnon, M. Casillas, C. Kurumada, & B. Estigarribia (Eds.), Language in interaction: studies in honor of Eve V. Clark (pp. 281–300). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berman, R. A. & Nir-Sagiv, B. (2009). Clause-packaging in narratives: A crosslinguistic developmental study. In J. Guo, et al. (Eds.), Crosslinguistic Approaches to the Psychology of Language: Research in the Tradition of Dan I. Slobin (pp. 149–162). New York: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
Berman, R. A. & Slobin, D. I. (1994). Relating events in narrative: A crosslinguistic developmental study. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Bernstein Ratner, N. (2013). Why talk with children matters: clinical implications of infant- and child-directed speech research. Seminars in Speech and Language, 34 (4), 131–142.Google Scholar
Bloom, L. (1973). One word at a time. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
(1991). Language development from two to three. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Brown, R. (1973). A first language: The early stages. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chouinard, M. M., & Clark, E. V. (2003). Adult reformulations of child errors as negative evidence. Journal of Child Language, 301, 637–669. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clark, E. V. (2001). Emergent categories in first language acquisition. In M. Bowerman & S. C. Levinson (Eds.), Language acquisition and conceptual development (pp. 379–405). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2016). First language acquisition (3rd edn). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clark, E. V. & de Marneffe, M.-C. (2012). Constructing verb paradigms in French: adult construals and emerging grammatical contrasts. Morphology, 221, 89–120. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clark, H. H. (1996). Using language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diessel, H. (2004). The acquisition of complex sentences. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diessel, H. & Tomasello, M. (2000). The development of relative clauses in English. Cognitive Linguistics, 111, 131–151.Google Scholar
(2001). The acquisition of finite complement clauses in English: A corpus-based analysis. Cognitive Linguistics, 121, 97–141. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dromi, E. & Berman, R. A. (1986). Language-general and language-specific in developing syntax. Journal of Child Language, 141, 371–387. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Farrar, M. J. (1992). Negative evidence and grammatical morpheme acquisition. Developmental Psychology, 28(1), 90–98. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fernald, A., Marchman, V. A., & Weisleder, A. (2013). SES differences in language processing skill and vocabulary are evident at 18 months. Developmental Science, 161, 234–48. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gleitman, L., Newport, E., & Gleitman, H. (1984). The Current Status of the Motherese Hypothesis. Journal of Child Language, 111, 43–79. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haiman, J. & Thompson, S. A. (Eds.) (1988). Clause combining in grammar and discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hoff-Ginsberg, E. (1985). Some contributions of mothers’ speech to their children’s syntactic growth. Journal of child language, 12(2), 367–385. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Karmiloff-Smith, A. (1992). Beyond modularity: A developmental perspective on cognitive science. Bradford, UK: Bradford Books, MIT Press.Google Scholar
Karmiloff, K. & Karmiloff-Smith, A. (2001). Pathways to language: From fetus to adolescent. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Katzenberger, I. (2004). The development of clause packaging in spoken and written texts. Journal of Pragmatics, 361, 1921–1948. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kidd, E., Brandt, S., Lieven, E. V. M., & Tomasello, M. (2007). Object relatives made easy: A cross-linguistic comparison of the constraints influencing young children’s processing of relative clauses. Language and Cognitive Processes, 221, 860–897. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lustigman, L. & Berman, R. A. (2016). Form and function in early clause-combining. Journal of Child Language, 431, 157–185. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lustigman, L. & Clark, E. V. (2019). Exposure and feedback in language acquisition: adult construals of children’s early verb-form use in Hebrew. Journal of Child Language, 461, 241–264. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (2000). The CHILDES Project: Tools for Analyzing Talk. (3rd edn). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Schiff, D. & Ravid, D. (2012). Linguistic processing in Hebrew-speaking children from low and high SES backgrounds. Reading & Writing, 251, 1427–1448. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Scollon, R. (1976). Conversations with a one year old. A case study of the developmental foundation of syntax. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.Google Scholar
(1979). A real early stage: an unzippered condensation of a dissertation on child language. In E. Ochs & B. Schieffelin (Eds.), Developmental pragmatics (pp. 215–227). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. I. (1982). Universal and particular in language acquisition. In L. R. Gleitman & E. Wanner (Eds.), Language acquisition: The state of the art (pp. 128–170). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a Language: A Usage-based Theory of Language Acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Veneziano, E. (1999). Early lexical, morphological and syntactic development in French: Some complex relations. International Journal of Bilingualism, 31, 183–217. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2005). Effects of conversational functioning on early language acquisition: When both caregivers and children matter. In B. Bokus (Ed.), Studies in the psychology of child language (pp. 47–69). Warsaw: Matrix.Google Scholar
(2014). Conversation and language acquisition: Unique properties and effects. In I. Arnon, M. Casillas, C. Kurumada, & B. Estigarribia (Eds.), Language in interaction: Studies in honor of Eve V. Clark. (pp. 83–100). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Veneziano, E., & Parisse, C. (2010). The acquisition of early verbs in French: Assessing the role of conversation and child-directed speech. First Language, 301, 287–311. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Pekarek Doehler, Simona
2024. How grammar-for-interaction emerges over time. In New Perspectives in Interactional Linguistic Research [Studies in Language and Social Interaction, 36], ► pp. 334 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 12 september 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.