This study examines referent introductions in narratives produced by French children of 6, 9, and 11 years in two situations where they either could or could not assume mutual knowledge. In one situation (MK) the children and their interlocutor were looking at a picture book together; in the other (NMK) the interlocutor was blindfolded. Children in all age groups used more indefinite determiners in Situation NMK than in MK. However, some clear developmental changes were also found: the 6-year-olds used both definite and indefinite determiners in NMK; the 9-year-olds selected indefinite determiners in NMK and definite ones in MK; the 11-year-olds produced indefinite determiners not only in NMK, but also in MK. These results show that children acquire the rules governing referent introductions in three steps: (a) they have no systematic rule in the absence of mutual knowledge; (b) they acquire a rule associating appropriately different linguistic devices with the presence versus absence of mutual knowledge; (c) they acquire an additional rule that generalizes indefinite forms to all narrative situations, regardless of mutual knowledge conditions.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Anderson, A.H., Yule, G. & Brown, G. (1984). Hearer-effects on speaker performances: the influence of the hearer on speakers' effectiveness in oral communication tasks. First Language, 5, 23-40.
2.
Atkinson, M. (1979). Prerequisites for reference. In E. Ochs and B. B. Schieffelin (eds), Developmental Pragmatics (London : Academic Press), 229-249.
3.
Bamberg, M.G.W. (1986). A functional approach to the acquisition of anaphoric relationships. Linguistics, 24, 227-284.
4.
—( 1987). The Acquisition of Narratives: Learning to Use Language (Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter).
5.
Bates, E. (1976). Language and Context: The Acquisition of Pragmatics (London: Academic Press).
6.
Bonitatibus, G., Godshall, S., Kelley, M., Levering, T. & Lynch, E. (1988). The role of social cognition in comprehension monitoring. First Language, 8, 287-298.
7.
Bronckart, J.P., Bain, D., Schneuwly, B., Davaud, C. & Pasquier, A. (1985). Le Fonctionnement des Discours. Un Modèle psychologique et une méthode d'analyse (Paris: Delachaux et Niestlé).
8.
Brown, R. (1973). A First Language (Cambndge, MA: Harvard University Press).
9.
Brownell, M.D., Trehub, S.E. & Gartner, G.M. (1988). Children's understanding of referential messages produced by deaf and hearing speakers. First Language, 8, 271-286.
10.
Chafe, W. (1976). Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics and point of view. In C. N. Li (ed.), Subject and Topic (New York: Academic Press), 25-55.
11.
Clark, H. & Clark, E. (1977). Psychology and Language. An Introduction to Psycholinguistics (New York: Harcourt Brace & Jovanovich).
12.
De Weck, G. (1989). La cohésion dans les narrations d'enfants. Doctoral dissertation, University of Geneva.
13.
Emslie, H.C. & Stevenson, R.J. (1981). Pre-school children's use of the articles in definite and indefinite referring expressions. Journal of Child Language, 8, 313-328.
14.
Halliday, M.A.K. & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English (London : Longmans).
15.
Hickmann, M. (1980). Creating referents in discourse: a developmental analysis of linguistic cohesion. In J. Kreiman and E. Ojeda (eds), Papers from the Parasession on Pronouns and Anaphora ( Chicago Linguistic Society), 192-203.
16.
—( 1982). The development of narrative skills: pragmatic and metapragmatic aspects of discourse cohesion. Doctoral dissertation, University of Chicago.
17.
—( 1987). The pragmatics of reference in child language: some issues in developmental theory. In M. Hickmann (ed.), Social and Functional Approaches to Language and Thought (Orlando, FL: Academic Press), 165-184.
18.
—( 1991a). The development of discourse cohesion: some functional and cross-linguistic issues. In G. Piéraut-Le Bonmec & M. Dolitsky (eds), Language Bases ... Discourse Bases (Amsterdam: Benjamins).
19.
—( 1991b). Review of The Acquisition of Narratives: Learning to Use Language by M. G. W. Bamberg. Language, 67 (1),111-114.
20.
Hickmann, M., Kail, M. & Roland, F. (1989). The referential organization of children's narrative discourse as a function of mutual knowledge. Presented at the Tenth Biennial Meeting of the International Society for the Study of Behavioural Development, Jyväskylä, Finland.
21.
Hickmann, M., Liang, J. & van Crevel, M. (1989). The given/new distinction in children's narratives: a crosslinguistic analysis. Presented at the Tenth Biennial Meeting of the International Society for the Study of Behavioural Development, Jyväskylä, Finland.
22.
Hickmann, M. & Liang, J. (1990). Clause-structure variation in Chinese narrative discourse: a developmental analysis. Linguistics, 28, 1167-1200.
23.
Karmiloff-Smith, A. (1979). A Functional Approach to Child Language: A Study of Determiners and Reference (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
24.
Karmiloff-Smith, A. (1981). The grammatical marking of thematic structure in the development of language production. In W. Deutsch (ed.), The Child's Construction of Language (New York: Academic Press), 121-147.
25.
—( 1987). Function and process in comparing language and cognition . In M. Hickmann (ed.), Social and Functional Approaches to Language and Thought ( Orlando, FL: Academic Press), 185-202.
26.
Keenan, E.O. & Klem, E. (1975). Coherency in children's discourse. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 4 (4), 365-380.
27.
Keenan, E.O. & Schieffelin, B.B. (1976). Topic as a discourse notion: a study of topic in the conversations of children and adults. In C. N. Li (ed.), Subject and Topic (New York: Academic Press), 335-384.
28.
Lambrecht, K. (1981). Topic, Antitopic, and Verb Agreement in Non-standard French (Series title Pragmatics and Beyond. Amsterdam: Benjamins).
29.
MacWhinney, B. & Bates, E. (1978). Sentential devices for conveying givenness and newness: a cross-cultural developmental study. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 17, 539-558.
30.
Maratsos, M.P. (1974). Preschool children's use of definite and indefinite articles. Child Development, 45, 446-455.
31.
—( 1976). The Use of Definite and Indefinite Reference in Young Children (Cambridge: Cambndge University Press).
32.
Power, R.J.D. & Dal Martello, M.F. (1986). The use of the definite and indefinite articles by Italian preschool children. Journal of Child Language, 13, 145-154.
33.
Schneuwly, B. & Bronckart, J.P. (1986). Connexion et cohésion dans quatre types de textes d'enfants. Cahiers de linguistique française, 7, 279-294.
34.
Vion, M. & Colas, A. (1987). La présentation du caractère ancien ou nouveau d'une information en français: une étude génétique. Archives de Psychologie, 55, 243-264.
35.
Warden, D. (1976a). Review of The Use of Definite and Indefinite Reference in Young Children by M. P. Maratsos. Journal of Child Language, 3, 123-127.
36.
—( 1976b). The influence of context on children's uses of identifying expressions and reference. British Journal of Psychology, 67, 101-112.
37.
—( 1981). Learning to identify referents. British Journal of Psychology, 72, 93-99.
38.
Wigglesworth, G. (1990). Children's narrative acquisition: a study of some aspects of reference and anaphora. First Language, 10, 105-125.
