See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/286158475

Joining Clauses with Subordinate Conjunctions: One Type of Complex Syntax

Article  in  Perspectives on Language Learning and Education · November 2014

DOI: 10.1044/lle21.4.182

CITATIONS READS
2 1,240

2 authors:

Brian Weiler Melanie Schuele

Western Kentucky University Vanderbilt University
4 PUBLICATIONS   13 CITATIONS    63 PUBLICATIONS   970 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

LSHSS Editor View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Melanie Schuele on 16 January 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Joining Clauses with Subordinate Conjunctions:
One Type of Complex Syntax
Brian K. Weiler
Department of Speech and Hearing Sciences, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine
Nashville, TN

C. Melanie Schuele
Department of Speech and Hearing Sciences, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine
Nashville, TN
Financial Disclosure: Brian K. Weiler is a PhD student in the Department of Hearing and Speech
Sciences at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine. C. Melanie Schuele is the director of the
Child and Language Literacy Lab and is an associate professor in the Department of Hearing and
Speech Sciences at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine. Our research in complex syntax has
been supported by US Department of Education (H325D080075), NIDCD of the National Institute
of Health (DC007329), the American Speech-Language-Hearing Foundation, and the Schubert
Center for Child Development at Case Western Reserve University. The content is solely the
responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National
Institutes of Health, the Department of Education, or our other funding sources.
Nonfinancial Disclosure: Brian K. Weiler has no nonfinancial interests related to the content of
this article. C. Melanie Schuele has previously published in the subject area.

Abstract
The purpose of this article is to enhance clinicians’ knowledge and skills about one complex
syntax type, subordinate conjunction clauses. Children’s complex syntax skills are critical
to the expression of increasingly elaborate ideas and to meeting the demands of academic
tasks. Complex syntax development begins in the preschool years. It is essential for
clinicians to support young children’s complex syntax development. To this end, the present
article offers a framework to support a clinician’s consideration of the range of subordinate
conjunction clauses that appear in the spoken language of young children.

Joining Clauses with Subordinate Conjunctions:

One Type of Complex Syntax
Want cookie. Me want cookie. I want two cookies. Yesterday I eated the cookies. There are
no cookies because you ate them all. Why did you eat all the cookies? When the cookies are all
gone, I think we’ll need to go to the store to buy more cookies.
The acquisition of grammatical skills enables children to use longer and more complex
utterances to convey increasingly complex thoughts and ideas. The developmental course reveals
children moving from production of only simple, single, main-clause utterances, to production of
a range of dependent clause and multi-clausal utterances alongside simple utterances (Barako
Arndt & Schuele, 2013). During this period of syntactic development, simple sentences containing
a single clause (i.e., subject + predicate) such as I want two cookies may be extended through the
inclusion of additional clauses that are embedded within (e.g., I want two cookies that are big) or
subordinate to (e.g., I want two cookies because I’m hungry) the main clause.
Unfortunately, the “scale” of assessment and intervention literature in speech-language
pathology has been tipped toward a narrow slice of grammatical development (e.g., grammatical
morphology). Thus, many clinicians are ill-equipped to assure that the children they work with

182

Downloaded From: http://sig1perspectives.pubs.asha.org/ by a ReadCube User on 05/12/2016

Terms of Use: http://pubs.asha.org/ss/rights_and_permissions.aspx
 develop sufficient skill in complex syntax. The motivation underlying our work in complex syntax
is two-fold. First, the acquisition of complex syntax is a preschool developmental achievement,
with continued development in the school years relating to increasingly proficient use of complex
syntax. Second, complex syntax proficiency is critical to children’s academic success; the demands
of school discourse draw heavily on complex syntax proficiency.
In this article, we focus on one type of complex syntax, namely subordinate conjunction
clauses, in order to facilitate clinician’s complex syntax knowledge and skills. We first present a
brief overview of the grammatical, lexical, and pragmatic functions served by subordinate conjunctions.
Table 1 provides examples of individual subordinate conjunctions and some of the relational meanings
they convey. An overarching purpose of this article is to highlight the range of spoken language
structures and functions that subordinate conjunction clauses appear in and serve. Toward this
end, we offer some evidence and examples illustrating that “not all subordinate conjunction clauses
are created equally.” As such, we propose a categorical framework for the consideration of children’s
use of subordinate conjunction clauses. Our hope is that this framework may provide a lens for more
clearly capturing the ways in which children may or may not be using this type of complex syntax to
effectively link conversational discourse. We conclude with a brief discussion of how young children’s
increasing skill in using subordinate conjunction clauses as discourse cohesion devices can be taken
as an important step in complex syntax development.

Table 1. Some Subordinate Conjunctions.

Subordinate Meaning - Relation Example Sentence
Conjunction

AFTER Temporal-time after He went to the ice cream parlor after he ate dinner at
the new restaurant.
ALTHOUGH Concessive-result Although he was their best hitter, Jim failed to get on
base at the crucial moment.
AS Temporal-same time As it grew dark, we could hear the croaking of the frogs.
Causal As you are the class valedictorian, you will give the
commencement speech.
BECAUSE Causal Mary knew the answers because she had studied for
weeks and weeks.
IF Conditional If you want the plants to grow, you’ll have to water
them daily.
ONCE Temporal-time after Jim bought the new house once the loan was approved.
SINCE Temporal-time after Since George came to live with us, we have only
vacationed in the summer.
Causal Since we live near the lake we often go canoeing.
SO (THAT) Conditional He bought the car insurance policy so that he was
compliant with the law.
THOUGH Concessive Though I am a good student, I was not able to pass
that course.
(continued)

183

Downloaded From: http://sig1perspectives.pubs.asha.org/ by a ReadCube User on 05/12/2016

Terms of Use: http://pubs.asha.org/ss/rights_and_permissions.aspx
 UNTIL Temporal-time before I looked for the lost puppy until it got too dark to see.
WHEN Temporal-time after When you start school, you’ll make a lot of new friends.
Temporal-recurrent When I’m sick, I take medicine.
contingency
WHILE Temporal-same time Bill and Steve ate the appetizer while they waited for
the Jane to arrive.

Note: So that is a conjunction with the inclusion of that as optional. In the sentence above, that
can be elided and the meaning remains the same. So, when it stands as a single word, can be a
conjunct, for example, He chose to skip school. So the punishment of suspension is appropriate.
Note that the substitution of so that renders a sentence that is not meaningful (i.e., He chose to
skip school so that the punishment of suspension is appropriate.). The meaning-relation categories
in this table were adapted from Quirk, Greenbaum, Leech, and Svartik (1985).

Subordinate Conjunctions Link Clauses within Utterances and

across Utterances
From a grammatical standpoint, a subordinate conjunction joins clauses to create a
hierarchical grammatical relation between clauses. The dependent clause is grammatically
subordinate to the main clause. From a lexical standpoint the subordinate conjunction creates
a particular meaning relation between the dependent and independent clauses—for example,
because relates a cause-effect relation, after relates a temporal relation1 (see Table 1 for more
examples). From a use standpoint, it is perhaps most common to think of a speaker or a writer
using a subordinate conjunction to join two clauses within a sentence. However, utterances (not
sentences) are the unit of conversation or talk. Thus, it is common for speakers to use subordinate
conjunctions in discourse to link utterances across speakers and to link their own utterances
across turns—that is, speakers form grammatical relations across utterances. When we endeavor
to target the complex syntax type of “subordinate conjunction clauses,” it is critical that we realize
that a child’s initial learning encompasses grammatical knowledge, lexical knowledge, and use
or pragmatic knowledge. Critically, this “knowledge” for young children is not metalinguistic
knowledge, but primary language knowledge (i.e., not language at a conscious level). To be sure,
instruction in elementary school and beyond develops children’s metalinguistic knowledge about
subordinate conjunctions.
In a recent clinical forum lead article in the journal Language, Speech, and Hearing, Services
in Schools, Alan Kamhi shared his general approach for complex syntax intervention as targeting
“the meaning and/or functions conveyed by the syntactic structure rather than the structure itself ”
(2014, p. 94). He goes on to clarify this approach as it relates specifically to subordinate conjunctions
(e.g., because, if, so[that], before, when) by reiterating that in treatments aimed at increasing
children’s use of dependent clauses, the focus should be on expressing the meanings created by
subordinate conjunction clauses. Thus, it is critical for speech-language pathologists (SLPs) to
have explicit knowledge about subordinate conjunctions in order to facilitate children’s learning.
From the perspective of the SLP or educator, subordinate conjunctions are likely to be
associated with their function of marking hierarchical meaning relations between two or more

1
Conjunctions contrast with conjuncts and disjuncts (and there can be some confusion between the
two). THEN is a common conjunct: I went to the store. Then I came home. HOWEVER is a common
disjunct: I wanted to win the lottery. However, that never happened (Quirk & Greenbaum, 1973).
184

Downloaded From: http://sig1perspectives.pubs.asha.org/ by a ReadCube User on 05/12/2016

Terms of Use: http://pubs.asha.org/ss/rights_and_permissions.aspx
 clauses within the same sentence (i.e., intrasententially). Such an association is logical, particularly
in light of the attention that researchers from the fields of education and communication disorders
have paid to the role of subordinate conjunctions in written academic language tasks such as
sentence combining. For a discussion of the clinical applications of targeting subordinate
conjunctions via sentence combining, the reader is referred to Scott and Nelson’s (2009) article
in Perspectives on Language and Learning.
The purpose of the present article is to present a clinically-useful framework for the
consideration of subordinate conjunctions as they appear in the spoken language of preschoolers,
prior to written language demands. There are two primary levels from which to consider the meaning
instantiated by subordinate conjunctions: (a) content (i.e., semantic relations between propositions)
and (b) use (i.e., discourse cohesion; Bloom, Lahey, Hood, Lifter, & Fiess, 1980). The level of meaning
that is particularly salient to subordinate conjunctions as they appear in written language is
content. When subordinate conjunctions appear as intrasentential clausal cohesion devices, they
typically express one of three distinct semantic meanings that convey a dependency between events
and/or states. As summarized by Nippold (1998), these meanings can express causal relations
(e.g., because, since, so [that] ), temporal relations (e.g., after, before, until ), and conditional relations
(e.g., provided that, unless, although, in case) within a sentence that includes an independent clause
and at least one dependent clause, connected by a subordinate conjunction intrasententially.
In addition to satisfying message-specific requirements for content meaning, subordinate
conjunctions, when used in spoken language, must also meet the usage requirements of the
discourse environment (Bloom et al., 1980). Whereas the presence of subordinate conjunctions in
written language largely conforms to an intrasentential cohesion structure, subordinate conjunctions
in spoken language can appear across a range of structures and functions that support meaning at
the discourse cohesion level. It is not at all uncommon and in fact expected that child and adult
speakers will use subordinate conjunctions to connect discourse intersententially, that is, across
different utterances and across the conversational turns of speakers. This expectation is reflected
in child language samples collected in our lab for a separate study of the complex syntax skills of
preschool children between the ages of three and five with typical language (TL) and young school-
aged children between the ages of five and seven with specific language impairment (SLI; Schuele,
2002). In this study, conversational language samples were gathered using the Hadley (1998)
protocol. All children were monolingual English speakers. Subordinate conjunction clauses were
examined in the language samples of 29 children in the TL group and 22 children in the SLI group.
A cursory glance at the production of subordinate conjunction tokens in these language samples
revealed that approximately half the occurrences for each group (TL: 47% [198/421]; SLI: 45%
[160/352]) fell outside of the prototypical intrasentential written language context. In other words,
children from both groups often used subordinate conjunctions for functions other than joining
clauses together within the same utterance. To illustrate, consider the following adult-child verbal
interchange taken from a routine conversational language sample:
e (examiner) why did you bring your umbrella?
c (child) because it was raining.
Here it is obvious that the pragmatic expectation created by the conversational discourse
is that the child elide the independent clause (I brought my umbrella) prior to the subordinate
conjunction because. In contrast to the limitations of written language, the absence of a main (or
independent clause) in spoken language utterances like the above example is not only allowable
but also potentially indicative of complex syntax (Quirk & Greenbaum, 1973).
Note that the term complex syntax is not completely synonymous with the term “complex
sentence,” which is typically used to describe only those sentences or utterances that contain both
dependent and main clauses. Instead, we argue that whereas the sentence is the unit of analysis
for written language, the utterance should be the unit of analysis for spoken language. A spoken
utterance, in contrast to a written sentence, may demonstrate complex syntax through clausal

185

Downloaded From: http://sig1perspectives.pubs.asha.org/ by a ReadCube User on 05/12/2016

Terms of Use: http://pubs.asha.org/ss/rights_and_permissions.aspx
 dependencies linked to preceding utterances. We believe that non-sentential utterances (e.g., those
containing only a dependent clause) can provide consequential information for the characterization
of complex syntax development in children. Restricting analysis of subordinate conjunctions and
other grammatical structures to only sentence-level utterances can be misleading when exploring
the emergence and development of complex syntax.
The developmental schedule for complex syntax in spoken language begins around the
ages of two to three years, thus occurring much earlier than the school-aged years during which
children encounter complex sentences in written language. We have no reason to believe that the
production of dependent clauses emerges and develops primarily in the context of production of
complete sentences. That is, as children learn to produce complex syntax, they may initially produce
utterances which include the dependent clause, but not necessarily the main (independent clause)
and the dependent clause. Considering the language sample data reported above, this certainly
appears to be the case for utterances containing subordinate conjunctions. Yet simply assuming
that the presence of a subordinate conjunction in a language sample is reflective of complex syntax
is misguided. We are reminded by Schleppegrell (1992) that:
While subordinate conjunctions such as because may enable a speaker to embed one clause
within another, they also enable a speaker to connect discourse in non-subordinating
relationships. In order to analyze whether clauses are linked in subordinating relationships,
a deeper analysis than just the identification of particular conjunctions as subordinating or
coordinating is necessary. (p. 119–120)

Coding Subordinate Conjunction Clauses in Spoken Language Samples

In keeping with Schleppegrell’s perspective, we have developed for the purposes of language
sample analysis a subordinate conjunction clause categorical coding scheme with the intent of better
capturing the emerging range and proficiency with which young children (i.e., toddlers, preschoolers,
and kindergarteners) use these structures at the discourse level (Schuele, 2009). Table 2 (see on
page 186) lays out the coding scheme; each category is provided with a definition or explanation
and one or more examples. These examples have been drawn from coded language samples
in our lab (c = child; e = examiner; g = gloss). When we code samples, all instances of subordinate
conjunctions, including complete and intelligible utterances, complete utterances with unintelligible
words, and abandoned or interrupted utterances are categorized.
Of particular interest in the clinical application of this analysis is the extent to which
children are using subordinate conjunctions linked syntactically to the discourse (Table 2;
Categories 1–4) and the extent to which they are using these conjunctions in non-subordinating
ways (Table 2; Categories 5–7). Our rationale for this division is that the “end-state” (or adult level)
use of subordinate conjunctions in verbal discourse is overwhelmingly as a syntactic cohesion
device consistent with the first group of categories. We further believe that such use is the expectation
of academic oral language situations (e.g., responses to questions, dialogue with teachers) beginning
in the elementary grades. If a child’s language sample reflects a pattern of subordinate conjunction
usage falling within the latter group of categories where no logical syntactic discourse cohesion
attempt on the part of the child is apparent, then modeling and/or training on this skill may be
required. Based on the individual child’s pattern of use, training may broadly apply to all subordinate
conjunctions. More likely, however, the child’s knowledge gap will extend only to specific subordinate
conjunction clusters (e.g., temporal, causal, conditional) or to individual, low parental input-frequency
subordinate conjunctions identified by Diessel (2004) such as since, until, and while. We emphasize
that although traditional “sentence combining” exercises may be a part of such training, there
should also be a focus on modeling and scaffolding appropriate syntactic cohesion use at the
conversational discourse level. Storybooks that model subordinate conjunctions as part of dialogue
between characters might be also serve as a good resource in this regard.

186

Downloaded From: http://sig1perspectives.pubs.asha.org/ by a ReadCube User on 05/12/2016

Terms of Use: http://pubs.asha.org/ss/rights_and_permissions.aspx
 “Hannah Banana”: An Case Illustration
To further illustrate how the semantic and syntactic features of a specific subordinate
conjunction interact with the discourse environment, we now examine some examples that come
from a child we affectionately call “Hannah Banana” (HB). HB is a typical language learner and
had recently turned three years old at the time the play-based language sample was collected.
The examples are divided according to the subordinate conjunction clause coding categories, with
corresponding category numbers, as defined in Table 2.

Table 2. Subordinate Conjunction Clause Coding Scheme.

Category Explanation

Examples from Language Samples of Typical Preschoolers (subordinate conjunctions bolded)

(1) Joins 2 clauses Utterances in this category include two clauses joined by a subordinate conjunction.
A “clause” will be defined as having a subject (if appropriate) and a verb.
c how about let’s put that right there so they can dump that way.
c when me and dad were camping I went in the back of his truck.
(2) Response to The child utterance is in response to a conversational partner’s question that
question obligates an answer that includes a subordinate clause (e.g., why question, how
come questions). The utterance includes only the subordinate clause and not a
main clause.
e how come you like the bath?
c because you get to put toys in there and play with them.
———————
e why are they sleepy?
c because they have to go to sleep.
(3) Builds off own The child utterance is a subordinate conjunction clause only (no independent
dialogue clause) that relates to a prior utterance of the child. The prior utterance can
immediately precede the subordinate clause or there may be an intervening
conversational partner utterance(s).
c and then simba’s dad protects simba and simba’s dad throwed scar down there.
e oh no!
c because scar’s bad.
———————
c no because it says roads completely closed.
e oh, that’s good.
c because there’s someone standing.
(4) Builds off other’s The child utterance is a subordinate clause only (no independent clause) in
dialogue which the child’s subordinate clause relates to a prior utterance, yes/no
questions, or clarifying questions of the conversational partner(s). The prior
utterance can immediate precede the subordinate clause or there may be an
intervening conversational partner utterance(s). The preceding utterance may in
effect be a request for clarification that the child responds to and in doing so
provides additional information.
(continued)

187

Downloaded From: http://sig1perspectives.pubs.asha.org/ by a ReadCube User on 05/12/2016

Terms of Use: http://pubs.asha.org/ss/rights_and_permissions.aspx
 c but only some.
e only some ok.
e that’s a good idea because some people need to stay downstairs.
c because there’s not enough room.
———————
c but I didn’t get to finish the book.
e you didn’t?
c uhuh because my brother wouldn’t let me.
———————
c the first time I milked a cow I was shocked
e the first time you milked a cow you were shocked?
c uhhuh when I was done.
(5) Stands alone The child utterance is a dependent clause with a subordinate conjunction that
has no link to the discourse.
e that looks like a baby bed to me.
c if I can find the baby.
———————
c what’s this?
e just another little cupboard.
c if we can put right here.
(6) Scaffolded The child utterance is a dependent clause with a subordinate conjunction that
has no link to the discourse and the examiner has subsequently tied it into the
discourse.
c if I see tomatoes.
e if you see tomatoes?
c yeah.
e then you might eat them.
(7) Incomplete This category includes unintelligible and abandoned utterances or utterances in
utterance which the clause is not complete and thus, cannot be coded into one of the
above categories. A clause needs to include a (subject) and a verb.
c because he just (um)>
———————
c and it was really really hot in there because the superman guy>

(1) Joins 2 clauses

In the example below, we see how HB appears to broadly understand the conditional
semantic relations conveyed by the subordinate conjunction “if.” Her breakdown seems to occur
with the specific lexical requirements of this structure as she marks the non-obligatory conjunct
“then” erroneously with the word “and.”
c if you’re sick and [err] you get the doctors.
= g if you’re sick (then) you get the doctors.
(5) Stands alone
Subordinate conjunctions clauses are assigned to the stand-alone category when they
cannot be syntactically linked to a main clause in the discourse environment. HB’s stand-alone
examples involving the subordinate conjunction “if” indicate a dynamic interaction between
semantics, syntax, and discourse. By considering subordinate conjunction use at all three levels,
one is better equipped to partial out the potential source behind HB’s apparent misuses of “if.”

188

Downloaded From: http://sig1perspectives.pubs.asha.org/ by a ReadCube User on 05/12/2016

Terms of Use: http://pubs.asha.org/ss/rights_and_permissions.aspx
 Example (a), shown below, suggests a grasp of the pragmatic demands of linking discourse
as well as a basic understanding of the conditional semantic meaning of “if.” The problem lies in
HB’s failure to fulfill the specific lexical requirements of the syntax. Lexical substitution of the
conjunct “then” for the conjunction “if,” as shown in the gloss, results in an utterance transformation
that successfully joins clauses in a hierarchical syntactic relationship.
(a) e what happens if you touch the oven?
c if you get burn.
= g then you get burned.
HB’s erred use of a single-clause “if ” statements in the above example hints at incomplete
knowledge of the syntactic requirements of this particular subordinate conjunction. Although
single-clause “if ” statements can be syntactically appropriate on their own (e.g., if only it would
rain) or as part of discourse (e.g., if I have to in response to the question will you clean up your
room? ), HB’s stand-alone utterance if you get burn is syntactically incomplete. To HB’s credit, the
syntactic requirements for other subordinate conjunctions conveying conditional semantic relations
are consistent with the basic structure of her stand-alone “if ” statements. To illustrate, consider
the syntactic structure of the following interchange between HB and the examiner in which she
appropriately uses the conjunction “when” in a single clause to express condition with time:
e you have medicine at home?
c yeah when I’m sick.
= g I have medicine at home when I’m sick.
Examples (b) and (c) below reveal a potentially different error source. Like in example (a), we
see HB again produce stand-alone “if ” clauses that, although pragmatically linked to the discourse
environment, are not syntactically linked to a main clause. In contrast to example (a), the issue in
(b) and (c) appears to relate to HB’s underspecified understanding of the proper contexts to use the
semantic meaning relations conveyed by “if.” In the examples below, HB seems to be overextending
the subordinate conjunction “if ” to clauses that do not convey conditional hierarchical dependencies.
(b) e that looks like a babybed to me.
c if I can find the baby.
= g then I can find the baby.
———————
(c) c what’s this?
e just another little cupboard.
c if we can put it right here.
=g then we can put it right here.
These three examiner-child interchanges illustrate how the dependent clauses that HB
introduces with the subordinate conjunction “if ” are not syntactically linked to a main clause in the
discourse environment. As such, they are categorized as “stand alone.” Upon closer examination,
though, we see that HB’s errors appear to have more to do with the specific lexical requirements of
the conditional relationship conveyed by “if ” than they do with an inability to grasp the pragmatic
demands of linking discourse. In all three examples, the substitution of the conjunct “then” for
the conjunction “if ” results in an utterance transformation that successfully joins clauses in a
hierarchical relationship.
As a three-year-old typical language learner, we would certainly not expect HB to wield
full command over the nuanced interplay between semantics, syntax, and discourse specific to

189

Downloaded From: http://sig1perspectives.pubs.asha.org/ by a ReadCube User on 05/12/2016

Terms of Use: http://pubs.asha.org/ss/rights_and_permissions.aspx
 individual subordinate conjunctions such as “if.” We certainly would not intervene with written
sentence combination exercises either. Instead, as noted by Clark (2009), young children’s
“occasional confusions” of specific conjunctions belonging to the same broad semantic relations
category “suggest that they take some time to work out the meanings of such conjunctions” (p. 244).
What we do recommend, particularly for preschoolers with language delays, is naturalistic
scaffolding that overtly models for the child the syntactic structure required to convey the semantic
meaning expressed by the subordinate conjunction in the discourse context. The following example
from HB’s language sample nicely illustrates this point:
(6) Scaffolded
c if I see tomatoes.
e if you see tomatoes?
c yeah
e then you might eat them.

Coding Subordinate Conjunction Clauses: A Potential Window into

Discourse Development
Another level of analysis afforded by the subordinate conjunction coding guide relates
specifically to those instances where syntactic cohesion is identifiable (i.e., categories 1–4). This
analysis relates to the findings from a longitudinal study of four children’s acquisitional development
of subordinate conjunctions between approximately one-and-a-half to three years of age (Bloom et al.,
1980). Bloom and colleagues reported that, in the course of development, the informational content
(i.e., semantic relations) requirements for the form of the message and the discourse environment
requirements of the message “interact with and mutually influence one another” (p. 259). Specifically,
the authors note that the informational requirement initially appears to “exert the greater influence”
as children first learn to talk about subordinating relationships. Evidence for this developmental
trend was cited in the children’s tendency to initially use certain subordinate conjunctions (e.g., so)
only to express what is referred to as “child-child” cohesion. In other words, the subordinate
conjunctions were rarely used to syntactically link the child’s utterance to an adult utterance. Instead,
they were used to link two child-produced clauses. The authors posit that this observation reflects
the young child’s early focus on learning the informational/semantic relations requirements of
complex meanings. Over time, however, the children were noted to increase their of use subordinate
conjunctions (e.g., so) as “adult-child” cohesive devices.
Bloom and colleagues (1980) thus offered that “the development of adult-child cohesion
appeared to reflect the children’s increasing ability to participate in discourse, using newly or
already learned linguistic forms, rather than learning the linguistic forms through discourse” (p. 258).
Applying this developmental perspective to the present coding scheme, one might therefore consider
examining not only the child’s proficiency in using subordinate conjunctions to syntactically link
discourse, but also whether the child exhibits the ability to successfully do so across speakers. This
capability can be viewed as a young speaker’s increasing skill in coordinating the interactions
between syntax, semantics, and discourse required for successful oral and written communication
starting in elementary school. Moreover, analyzing subordinate conjunction use at the discourse
level opens a window into syntactic development consistent with the views of others (e.g., Bates,
2003; Loban, 1976; as quoted by Nippold, Hesketh, Duthie, & Mansfield, 2005) that:
. . .later syntactic development is not primarily a matter of acquiring new grammatical
structures. Rather, it seems to be more a process of learning how to use existing structures
with greater efficiency and dexterity to communicate complex thoughts in a way that is clear
and informative. (p. 1058)

190

Downloaded From: http://sig1perspectives.pubs.asha.org/ by a ReadCube User on 05/12/2016

Terms of Use: http://pubs.asha.org/ss/rights_and_permissions.aspx
 In sum, we believe that one important component of complex syntax development in young
children is their use of an increasingly diverse range of subordinate conjunction clauses to express
meaning relations within and across utterances. This ability helps to facilitate cohesive and rich
conversations that, in turn, extend language learning opportunities critical to preparing young
children for school discourse demands. Clinicians should therefore feel equipped with sufficient
knowledge and skill of subordinate conjunction clauses to ensure that the children they work worth
are developing in this area of complex syntax. We hope that this article has added something valuable
to clinicians’ toolkits in this regard.

References
Barako Arndt, K., & Schuele, C. M. (2013). Multiclausal utterances aren’t just for big kids: A framework for
analysis of complex syntax production in spoken language of preschool and early school-age children. Topics
in Language Disorders, 33, 125–139.
Bates, E. (2003). On the nature and nurture of language. In R. Levi-Montalcini, D. Baltimore, R. Dulbecco,
F. Jacob, E. Bizzi, P. Calissano, & V. Volterra (Eds.), Frontiers of biology: The brain of Homo sapiens (pp. 241–265).
Rome: Instuto della Enciclopedia Italiana fondata da Giovanni Trecanni.
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, 235–261.
Clark, Eve V. (2009). First language acquisition (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Diessel, H. (2004). The acquisition of complex sentences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hadley, P. (1998). Language sampling protocols for eliciting text-level discourse. Language, Speech, and
Hearing Services in Schools, 29, 132–147.
Kamhi, A. G. (2014). Improving clinical practices for children with language and learning disorders. Language,
Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 45, 92–103.
Loban, W. (1976). Language development: Kindergarten through grade twelve (Vol. 18): National Council of
Teachers of English Urbana, IL.
Nippold, M. A. (1998). Later language development (2nd ed.). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
Nippold, M. A., Hesketh, L. J., Duthie, J. K., & Mansfield, T. C. (2005). Conversational versus expository
discourse: A study of syntactic development in children, adolescents, and adults. Journal of Speech, Language,
and Hearing Research, 48, 1048–1064.
Quirk, R., & Greenbaum, S. (1973). A concise grammar of contemporary English. New York: Harcourt, Brace,
Jovanovich.
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartik, J. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language.
London: Longman.
Schleppegrell, M. J. (1992). Subordination and linguistic complexity. Discourse Processes, 15, 117–131.
Schuele, C. M. (2002). Achival database of spontanous language samples of children with SLI and children
with typical language skills. [Unpublished data].
Schuele, C. M. (2009). Complex syntax coding manual. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University.
Scott, C. M., & Nelson, N. W. (2009). Sentence combining: Assessment and intervention applications. SIG 1
Perspectives on Language Learning and Education, 16, 14–20.

191

Downloaded From: http://sig1perspectives.pubs.asha.org/ by a ReadCube User on 05/12/2016

Terms of Use: http://pubs.asha.org/ss/rights_and_permissions.aspx
View publication stats