Cover not available
Article published In:
Written Language & Literacy
Vol. 23:1 (2020) ► pp.59–91

Connective frequencies in child-directed texts

A corpus analysis in comparison to theorized orders of connective acquisition and to connective frequencies in adult-directed texts

| Radboud University
| Stichting Leerplanontwikkeling SLO
Starting from a usage-based perspective of language acquisition, the present study investigates the occurrence of connectives in BasiLex, an 11.5 million word corpus of texts Dutch children encounter during the primary school years (grades 1–6). Specifically, we investigate how connective frequencies change across grades, how these changes reflect the theorized orders of connective acquisition in the work of Bloom et al. (1980) and Evers-Vermeul & Sanders (2009), and we make a comparison with the frequencies of connectives in the adult written language corpus Celex. Briefly summarized, our findings show that the numbers of connectives increase sharply after grade 1 and then more steadily across grades 2 to 6; we see some reflection of the connective acquisition theory of Evers-Vermeul & Sanders in the connective frequencies in texts offered to children; and we see some remarkable similarities between connective frequencies in the adult corpus Celex as compared to connective frequencies in grade 1 and grade 6 texts in BasiLex. Our findings suggest that the written input offered to children harmonizes with theoretical approaches that emphasize the incremental growth of word knowledge in children as a function of exposure.
Keywords: connective frequency, theories of connective acquisition, child directed texts, corpus research
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Empirical findings about connective acquisition
  • 3.Theories of connective acquisition
  • 4.Research questions and hypotheses
  • 5.Method
    • 5.1Selection of data and descriptive statistics
    • 5.2Linguistic categorization of the connectives
  • 6.Results and discussion
    • 6.1Threshold for inclusion in analysis
    • 6.2Frequency distribution in relative frequency ranges for each grade
    • 6.3Frequency per semantic category for each grade
    • 6.4Frequency per grade for each semantic category
    • 6.5Frequencies based on cognitive complexity
    • 6.6Comparisons with Celex
  • 7.General discussion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 19 October 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/wll.00033.tel
References (48)
References
Alfonseca, Enrique, Slaven Bilac & Stefan Pharies. (2008). German Decompounding in a Difficult Corpus. In Alexander Gelbukh (ed.), Computational Linguistics and Intelligent Text Processing, 9th International Conference CICLing 2008 Proceedings, 128–139. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Arina, Sonia, Susan Gathercole & Giacomo Stella. (2015). The role of working memory in early phases of learning to read. Applied Psychology Bulletin 273(64): 31–52.Google Scholar
Baayen, R. Harald, Rudolf Piepenbrock & Leon Gulikers. (1995). CELEX2 LDC96L14. Web Download. Philadelphia: Linguistic Data Consortium.Google Scholar
Baques, Joseph & Dolores Saiz. (1999). Simple and complex measures of working memory related with learning to read. Psicotema 11(4): 737–745.Google Scholar
Bloom, Lois, Margaret Lahey, Lois Hood, Karin Lifter & Kathleen Fiess. (1980). Complex sentences: Acquisition of syntactic connectives and the semantic relations they encode. Journal of Child Language 7(02): 235–261. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brown, R. (1973). A first language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cain, Kate & Hannah M. Nash. (2011). The influence of connectives on young readers’ processing and comprehension of text. Journal of Educational Psychology 103(2): 429–441. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cain, Kate, Jane Oakhill & Kate Lemmon. (2004). Individual differences in the inference of word meanings from context: The influence of reading comprehension, vocabulary knowledge, and memory capacity. Journal of Educational Psychology 96(4): 671–681. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cain, Kate, Nikole Patson & Leanne Andrews. (2005). Age- and ability-related differences in young readers’ use of conjunctions. Journal of Child Language 32(04): 877–892. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Collins COBUILD English dictionary. (1995). London: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
Degand, Liesbeth & Ted J. Sanders. (2002). The impact of relational markers on expository text comprehension in L1 and L2. Reading and Writing 15(7/8): 739–757. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Zeeuw, Marlies, Franc Grootjen, Gerrit Jan Kootstra, & Agnes Tellings. (2019). Lexical characteristics of written language input across primary grades: An analysis of a Dutch corpus based lexicon. Linguistics and education, 491: 11–21. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diessel, Holger. (2004). The acquisition of complex sentences. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Divjak, Dagmar S., Ewa Dabrowska & Antti Arppe. (2016). Machine meets man. Evaluating the psychological reality of corpus-based probabilistic models. Cognitive Linguistics 27(1): 1–33. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
E-ANS. (2017). Algemene Nederlandse Spraakkunst, een grammatica van het Nederlands. [URL]
Evers-Vermeul, Jacqueline & Ted J. Sanders. (2009). The emergence of Dutch connectives; how cumulative cognitive complexity explains the order of acquisition. Journal of Child Language 36(04): 829–854. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2011). Discovering domains – On the acquisition of causal connectives. Journal of Pragmatics 43(6): 1645–1662. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fayol, Michel. (1991). Stories: A psycholinguistic and ontogenic approach to the acquisition of narrative abilities. In Gilberte Pierraut Le Bonniec & Marlene Dolitsky (eds), From basic language to discourse basis processing, 229–243. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fayol, Michel & Serge Mouchon. (1997). Production and comprehension of connectives in the written modality: A study of written French. In Clotilde Pontecorvo (ed.), Writing development: An interdisciplinary view, 193–204. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frishkoff, Gwen A., Charles A. Perfetti & Kevyn Collins-Thompson. (2011). Predicting robust vocabulary growth from measures of incremental learning. Scientific Studies of Reading 15(1): 71–91. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K. & Ruqaiya Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Kail, Michèle & Jürgen Weissenborn. (1984). A developmental cross-linguistic study of adversative connectives: French ‘mais’ and German ‘aber/sondern’. Journal of Child Language 11(01): 143–158. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Keller-Cohen, Deborah. (1986). Context and strategy in acquiring temporal connectives. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 16(2): 165–183. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Knoepke, Julia, Tobias Richter, Maj-Britt Isberner, Johannes Naumann, Yvonne Neeb & Sabine Weinert. (2017). Processing of positive-causal and negative-causal coherence relations in primary school children and adults: a test of the cumulative cognitive complexity approach in German. Journal of child language 44(2): 297–328. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Massaro, Dominic. (2015). Two different communication genres and implications for vocabulary development and learning to read. Journal of Literacy Research, 47(4): 505–527. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McCabe, Allyssa & Carole Peterson. (1985). A naturalistic study of the production of causal connectives by children. Journal of Child Language 12(01): 145–159. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McClure, Erica & Esther Geva. (1983). The development of the cohesive use of adversative conjunctions in discourse. Discourse Processes 6(4): 411–432. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McKee, Gerard, David Malvern & Brian Richards. (2000). Measuring vocabulary diversity using dedicated software. Literary and Linguistic Computing 15(3): 323–338. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Miller, Paul F. (2000). Syntactic and semantic processing in Hebrew readers with prelingual deafness. American Annals of the Deaf 145(5): 436–451. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Peterson, Carole. (1986). Semantic and pragmatic uses of ‘but’. Journal of Child Language 13(03): 583–590. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Peterson, Carole & Mccabe, Allyssa. (1987). The connective ‘and’: Do older children use it less as they learn other connectives? Journal of Child Language 14(02): 375–381. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sanders, Ted J., Spooren, W. P. & Leo G. Noordman. (1992). Toward a taxonomy of coherence relations. Discourse Processes 15(1): 1–35. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sanders, Ted J., Wilbert P. Spooren & Leo G. Noordman. (1993). Coherence relations in a cognitive theory of discourse representation. Cognitive Linguistics 4(2): 93–134. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Spooren, Wilbert P. & Ted J. Sanders. (2008). The acquisition order of coherence relations: On cognitive complexity in discourse. Journal of Pragmatics 40(12): 2003–2026. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stahl, Steven A. (2003). Words are learned incrementally over multiple exposures. American Educator 271(spring): 18–22.Google Scholar
Stevenson, Rosemary J. & Caroline Pollitt. (1987). The acquisition of temporal terms. Journal of Child Language 14(03): 533–545. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taylor, Talbot J. & Stuart Shanker. (2003). Rethinking language acquisition: what the child learns. In Hayley G. Davis & Talbot J. Taylor (eds.), Rethinking linguistics, 151–170. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Tellings, Agnes E. J. M., Micha Hulsbosch, Anne Vermeer & Antal van den Bosch. (2014). BasiLex: an 11.5 million word corpus of Dutch texts written for children. Computational Linguistics in the Netherlands, 41: 191–208.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M. (1999). The cultural origins of human cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Van Dale Groot Woordenboek van de Nederlandse Taal, 14e edition. (2005). Utrecht: Van Dale Lexicografie. [Van Dale Large Dictionary of the Dutch Language]Google Scholar
Van den Bosch, Antal, Bertjan Busser, Sander Canisius & Walter Daelemans. (2007). An efficient memory-based morphosyntactic tagger and parser for Dutch. In F. van Eynde, P. Dirix, Ineke Schuurman & Vincent Vandeghinste (eds.), Selected Papers of the 17th Computational Linguistics in the Netherlands Meeting, 99–114. Leuven, Belgium.Google Scholar
Van Veen, Rosie, Jacqueline Evers-Vermeul, Ted J. Sanders & Huub van den Bergh. (2009). Parental input and connective acquisition: A growth curve analysis. First Language 29(3): 266–288. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Verhoeven, Ludo, Jan van Leeuwe & Anne Vermeer. (2011). Vocabulary growth and reading development across the elementary school years. Scientific Studies of Reading 15(1): 8–25. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Verhoeven, Ludo & Anne Vermeer. (1992). Woordenschat van leerlingen in het basis- en MLK-onderwijs. Pedagogische Studieën 69(3): 218–234.Google Scholar
Vermeer, Anne. (2017). Acquisition order of connectives in stories of Dutch L1 and L2 children from 4 to 8. In Elena Tribushinina, Jacqueline Evers-Vermeul & Laurent Rasier (eds.), Usage-based approaches to language acquisition and language teaching, 191–206. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wald, Benji. (1986). Syntactic development after childhood: beyond the vernacular? In David Sankoff (ed.), Diversity and Diachrony, 153–172. Amsterdam; John Benjamins Publishing co.. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Whaley, Lindsay J. (1997). Introduction to typology: the unity and diversity of language. Newbury Park: Sage. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wing, Clara S. & Ellin Kofsky Scholnick. (1981). Children’s comprehension of pragmatic concepts expressed in ‘because’, ‘although’, ‘if’ and ‘unless’. Journal of Child Language 8(02): 347–365. DOI logoGoogle Scholar