This study examined Italian 7- to 9-year-olds’ understanding of the connective but when used to relate two events in sentences embedded in short stories. Performance was largely accounted for by the cognitive complexity of the sentence that included the connective and the salience of its meaning (confirmed in a second study with adults). Additional influences on children’s performance were the category of the story in which the critical sentence was embedded and the child’s text comprehension abilities. Further, by 9 years of age, performance resembled that of adults. These findings make an advance in explaining the role of information presented in a text at different levels and an individual’s linguistic abilities in children’s understanding of the connective but in stories and its development.
AikenL. S.WestS. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
2.
BishopD. (1982). Test for reception of grammar. Manchester, UK: Chapel Press.
3.
BisiacchiP. S.CendronM.GugliottaM.TressoldiP. E.VioC. (2005). BVN 5-11 Batteria di valutazione neuropsicologica per l’età evolutiva [BVN 5-11 test battery for neuropsychological assessment in childhood]. Trento, Italy: Erickson.
4.
CainK. (2003). Text comprehension and its relation to coherence and cohesion in children’s fictional narratives. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 21, 335–351. doi:10.1348/026151003322277739
5.
CainK.NashH. M. (2011). The influence of connectives on young readers’ processing and comprehension of text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103, 424–441. doi:10.1037/a0022824
6.
CainK.PatsonN.AndrewsL. (2005). Age- and ability- related differences in young readers’ use of conjunctions. Journal of Child Language, 32, 877–892. doi:10.1017/S0305000905007014
7.
CarrettiB.MottaE.ReA. M. (2016). Oral and written expression in children with reading comprehension difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 49, 65–76. doi:10.1177/0022219414528539
8.
CornoldiC.ColpoG. (2011). Prove di lettura MT-2 per la scuola primaria [MT-2 reading test for primary school children]. Florence, Italy: Giunti O.S. Organizzazioni Speciali.
9.
CrossonA. C.LesauxN. K. (2013). Does knowledge of connectives play a unique role in the reading comprehension of English learners and English-only students?Journal of Research in Reading, 36, 241–260. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9817.2011.01501.x
10.
CrossonA. C.LesauxN. K.MartinielloM. (2008). Factors that influence comprehension of connectives among language minority children form Spanish-speaking backgrounds. Applied Psycholinguistics, 29, 603–625. doi:10.1017/S0142716408080260
11.
FloritE.CainK. (2011). The simple view of reading: Is it valid for different types of alphabetic orthographies?Educational Psychology Review, 24, 553–576. doi:10.1007/s10648-011-9175-6
12.
FloritE.RochM.LevoratoM. C. (2011). Listening text comprehension of explicit and implicit information in preschoolers: The role of verbal and inferential skills. Discourse Processes, 48, 119–138. doi:10.1080/0163853X.2010.494244
13.
FloritE.RochM.LevoratoM. C. (2013). The relationship between listening comprehension of text and sentences in preschoolers: Specific or mediated by lower- and higher-level components?Applied Psycholinguistics, 34, 395–415. doi:10.1017/S0142716411000749
14.
GraesserA. C.McNamaraD. S.LouwerseM. M. (2003). What do readers need to learn in order to process coherence relations in narrative and expository text? In SweetA. P.SnowC. E. (Eds.), Rethinking reading comprehension (pp. 82–98). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
15.
HallidayM. A. K.HasanR. (1976). Cohesion in English. London, UK: Longman.
16.
KailM.WeissenbornJ. (1984). A developmental cross-linguistic study of adversative connectives: French ‘mais’ and German ‘aber/sondern’. Journal of Child Language, 2, 143–158.
17.
LakoffR. (1971). If’s, and’s and but’s about conjunction. In FillmoreC. J.LangendoenD. T. (Eds.), Studies in linguistic semantics (pp. 115–150). New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
18.
LevoratoM. C.ZammunerV. (1985). La comprensione e ristrutturazione di storie nei bambini [Children’s comprehension and memory for stories]. Padua, Italy: Cleup.
19.
MakW. M.TribushininaE.LomakoJ.GagarinaN.AbrosovaE.SandersT. (2016). Connective processing by bilingual children and monolinguals with specific language impairment: Distinct profiles. Journal of Child Language. Advance online publication. doi:10.1017/S0305000915000860
20.
McClureE.GevaE. (1983). The development of the cohesive use of adversative conjunctions in discourse. Discourse Processes, 6, 411–432.
21.
NunnallyJ. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
22.
PetersonC. (1986). Semantic and pragmatic uses of ‘but’. Journal of Child Language, 13, 583–590.
23.
PetersonC.McCabeA. (1987). The connective ‘and’: Do older children use it less as they learn other connectives?Journal of Child Language, 14, 375–381.
24.
RustioniM. L. D.Associazione ‘La Nostra Famiglia’. (1994). Prove di valutazione della comprensione linguistica [Test for the evaluation of linguistic comprehension]. Florence, Italy: Giunti O.S. Organizzazioni Speciali.
25.
SandersT. J. M.NoordmanL. G. M. (2000). The role of coherence relations and their linguistic markers in text processing. Discourses Processes, 29, 37–60. doi:10.1207/S15326950dp2901_3
26.
SartoriG.JobR.TressoldiP. E. (2007). Batteria per la valutazione della dislessia e disortografia evolutiva (DDE-2) [Test battery for the assessment of developmental dyslexia and dysorthographia]. Florence, Italy: Giunti O.S. Organizzazioni Speciali.
27.
SilvaM.CainK. (2015). The relations between lower and higher level comprehension skills and their role in prediction of early reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107, 321–331. doi:10.1037/a0037769
28.
SpoorenW. (1997). The processing of underspecified coherence relations. Discourse Processes, 24, 149–168.
29.
SpoorenW.SandersT. (2008). The acquisition order of coherence relations: On cognitive complexity in discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 40, 2003–2026. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2008.04.021
30.
SteinN. L.GlennC. G. (1979). An analysis of story comprehension in elementary school children. In FreedleR. O. (Ed.), New directions in discourse processing (Vol. 2, pp. 53–120). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
31.
Treccani. (2015). Vocabolario Treccani online. Istituto dell’Enciclopedia Italiana [Online Treccani vocabulary. Institute of the Italian Encyclopaedia].
32.
TribushininaE.DubinkinaE.SandersT. (2015). Can connective use differentiate between children with and without specific language impairment?First Language, 35, 3–26. doi:10.1177/0142723714566334
33.
Van SilfhoutG.Evers-VermeulJ.SandersT. (2015). Connectives as processing signals: How students benefit in processing narrative and expository texts. Discourse Processes, 52, 47–76. doi:10.1080/0163853X.2014.905237
34.
VionM.ColasA. (2005). Using connectives in oral French narratives: Cognitive constraints and development of narrative skills. First Language, 25, 39–66. doi:10.1177/0142723705046899
35.
WimmerH.MayringerH.LanderlK. (1998). Poor reading: A deficit in skill-automatization or a phonological deficit?Scientific Studies of Reading, 2, 321–340.
