Article published In:
Narrative Inquiry: Online-First Articles

How do Mandarin-speaking children relate events in personal narratives?

ORCID logo | Nanjing Normal University
ORCID logo | University of Massachusetts Lowell
ORCID logo | University of Massachusetts Lowell
This study explored Mandarin-speaking children’s independent ability in using conjunctions to relate events in personal narration. Twenty three-year-olds, twenty four-year-olds, twenty five-year-olds and twenty six-year-olds participated, and they were prompted to tell personal stories. Conjunctions were assessed in terms of the use of seven types of connectives. With age, Mandarin-speaking children used more diversified conjunctions and produced more conjunctions in their personal narratives. Significant differences were found across age groups in the frequency of sequential, temporal, and simple connectives, but the proportional use of these three connectives did not differ across age groups. No gender differences were found in the use of any of the connectives. Mandarin-speaking children relied on sequential, temporal and simple connectives to relate events in their narratives, and the use of causal, additive, adversative and conditional connectives were rare. Chinese mothers’ greater emphasis on knowledge, social rules and moral standards may contribute to this.
Keywords: Chinese narration, conjunctions, personal narratives, gender differences
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • Literature review on conjunction usage
  • The present study
  • Method
    • Participants
    • Procedures
    • Language talkativity of children aged 3 to 6
    • Coding of conjunctions used
    • Statistical analyses
  • Results
    • Language talkativity of children aged 3 to 6
    • The overall development of conjunction usage
    • The specific characteristics of conjunction usage for each age group
    • Gender differences in conjunction usage
  • Discussion
    • Overall development
    • The specific characteristics of conjunction usage for each age group
    • Gender differences in conjunction usage?
  • Educational implications
  • Limitations
  • Conclusion
  • Note
  • References
Published online: 28 April 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ni.22031.zha
References (39)
References
Bayat, N., Cetin, M., & Temizkol, S. (2014). Children’s levels of comprehending connectives. 5th World Conference on Learning, Teaching and Educational Leadership.
Berk, L. E. (2013). Child Development (9th edition). Pearson.Google Scholar
Berman, R. A. (1995). Narrative Competence and Storytelling Performance: How Children Tell Stories in Different Contexts. Journal of Narrative and Life History, 5 1, 285–313. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berman, R. A., & Slobin, D. I. (1994). Relating events in narrative: A crosslinguistic developmental study. Lawrence Erlbaum.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 1, 235–261. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2000). Narrative performance across contexts and over time: Preschool Chinese children and mothers [Doctoral Dissertation]. Harvard University.
(2004). Telling stories of experiences: Narrative development of young Chinese children. Applied Psycholinguistics, 25 (1), 83–104. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cicchetti, D. V., & Feinstein, A. R. (1990). High agreement but low kappa: II. Resolving the paradoxes. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 43 (6), 551–558. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diessel, H. (2004). The acquisition of complex sentences. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Duggleby, S., Tang, W., & Kuo-Newhouse, A. (2015). Does the use of connective words in written assessments predict high school students’ reading and writing achievement? Reading psychology, 37 1, 511–532. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Evers-Vermeul, J., & Sanders, T. (2008). The emergence of Dutch and English connectives: How cumulative complexity explains the order of acquisition. Journal of Child Language, 36 (4), 829–854. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Feinstein, A. R., & Cicchetti, D. V. (1990). High agreement but low kappa: I. The problems of two paradoxes. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 43 (6), 543–549. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fivush, R., Haden, C., & Adam, S. (1995). Structure and coherence of preschoolers’ personal narratives over time: Implications for childhood amnesia. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 60 1, 32–56. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Glenn-Applegate, K., Breit-Smith, A., Justice, L. M., & Piasta, S. B. (2010). Artfulness in young children’s spoken narratives. Early Education and Development, 21 (3), 468–493. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Glória, Y. A. L., Hanauer, L. P., Wiethan, F. M., Nóro, L. A., & Mota, H. B. (2016). The use of conjunctions by children with typical language development. CoDAS 28 (3), 221–225. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Griffith, P. L., Ripich, D. N., & Dastoli, S. L. (1986). Story structure, cohesion, and propositions in story recalls by learning-disabled and nondisabled children. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 15 (6), 539–555. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gulzow, I., Bartlitz, V., Kuehnast, M., Golcher, F., and Bittner, D. (2018). The adversative connectives aber and but in conversational corpora. Journal of Child Language, 45 (5), 1212–1226. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Labov, W. (1972). Language in the inner city. University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (2000). The CHILDES project: tools for analyzing talk (3rd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
McCabe, A., & Bliss, S. L. (2003). Patterns of narrative discourse: a multicultural, life span approach. Pearson Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
McCabe, A., & Peterson, C. (1997). Meaningful ‘mistakes’: The systematicity of children’s connectives in narrative discourse and the social origins of this usage about the past. In J. Costermans & M. Fayol (Eds.), Processing interclausal relationships: Studies in the production and comprehension of text (pp. 139–154). Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
McCabe, A. (1997). Developmental and cross-cultural aspects of children’s narration. In M. Bamberg (ed.), Narrative development: Six approaches (pp.137–174). Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Miller, J. F., & Chapman, R. S. (1981). The relation between age and mean length of utterance in morphemes. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 24 (2), 154–161. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Miller, P. J., Wiley, A. R., Fung, H., & Liang, C. (1997). Personal storytelling as a medium of socialization in Chinese and American families. Child Development, 68 (3), 557–568. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Minami, M. (1996). Japanese preschool children’s narrative development. First Language, 16 1, 339–363. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Peterson, C., & McCabe, A. (1983). Developmental psycholinguistics: Three ways of looking at a child’s narrative. Plenum Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1991a). Children’s connective use and narrative macrostructure. In A. McCabe & C. Peterson (Eds.), Developing narrative structure (pp. 29–53). Erlbaum.Google Scholar
(1991b). On the threshold of the storyrealm: Semantic versus pragmatic use of connectives in narratives. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 37 (3), 445–464.Google Scholar
Preece, A. (1987). The range of narrative forms conversationally produced by young children. Journal of Child Language, 14 (2), 353–373. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sah, W. H. (2013). Global and local connections in Mandarin-speaking children’s narratives: A developmental study based on the frog story. In A. McCabe & C. J. Chang (Eds.), Chinese Language Narration: Culture, cognition, and emotion. John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sanders, T. J. M. (1997). Semantic and pragmatic sources of coherence: On the categorization of coherence relations in context. Discourse Processes 24 1, 119–47. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language: a usage-based theory of language acquisition. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Van Veen, R., Evers-Vermeul, J., Sanders, T., & Van Den Bergh, H. (2013). The influence of input on connective acquisition: a growth curve analysis of English ‘because’ and German weil’. Journal of Child Language, 40 (5), 1003–1031. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Veen, R., Evers-Vermeul, J., Sanders, T., & Van den Bergh, H. (2009). Parental input and connective acquisition: a growth curve analysis. First Language, 29 (3), 266–288. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Viera, A. J., & Garrett, J. M. (2005). Understanding interobserver agreement: the kappa statistic. Family Medicine, 37 (5), 360–363.Google Scholar
Wang, Q., & Leichtman, M. D. (2000). Same beginning, different stories: A comparison of American and Chinese children’s narratives. Child Development, 71 (5), 1329–1346. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yue, G. A., Freedman, D. G., & Parker, C. (1997). The pattern of mother-child relationship and cultural transfer in China. Journal of Tianjing Normal University, 3 1, 34–41.Google Scholar
Zhang, F. F., McCabe, A., Ye, J. Q., Wang, Y. (2019). A Developmental Study of the Narrative Components and Patterns of Chinese Children Aged Three to Six Years. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 48 (2): 477–500. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Li, Huan, Hongyu Wu, Li Deng, Shuo Zeng, Jing Yu, Yueling Luo & Congyun Guo
2024. A personal narrative intervention combined with self‐monitoring strategies: Outcomes for Mandarin‐speaking adolescents with Down syndrome. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities 37:4 DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 july 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.