Abstract
The paper focuses on tevelopmental relations between syntactical complexity, cohesion — especially conjuctional connection — and textual coherence in a sample of 150 argumentative texts written by school children (grades 4, 7, 10 and 12) and young adults (university students). In common sense and even in linguistics and psychology written text and especially written argument has been taken to be the prototype of syntactically complex, self-contained and explicit text over a long period of research on the topic. Thus it has been argued that syntactic connectedness and explicit cohesion of propositions were the most valuable indicators for a well-done contextualization and abstraction of content space and rhetorical space in writing. Empirical data show this common-sense position to be questionable. The discussion emphazises the role of argumentative ‘implicitness’ as a necessary condition for getting the reader involved in the discourse and thus for the emergence of coherence in argumentative texts.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Applebee, A. N.: 1984, ‘Writing and Reasoning’, Review of Educational Research 54(4), 577–596.
Augst, G. and P. Faigel: 1986, Von der Reihung zur Gestaltung. Untersuchungen zur Ontogenese der schriftsprachlichen Fähigkeiten von 13–23 Jahren, Unter Mitarbeit von Helmuth Feilke und Karin Müller, Frankfurt a.M., Bern, New York.
Beaman, K.: 1984, ‘Coordination and Subordination Revisited: Syntactic Complexity in Spoken and Written Narrative Discourse’, in D. Tannen (ed.), Coherence in Spoken and Written Discourse, Norwood, N.J.
Beckmann, H.: 1927, ‘Ein Beitrag zur Grammatischen Entwicklung der Schriftsprachlichen Darstellung im Schulalter’, Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie 28, 264–278.
Bereiter, C. and M. Scardamalia: 1987, The Psychology of Written Composition, Hillsdale, N.J.
Bonk, J. C.: 1990, ‘A Synthesis of Social Cognition and Writing Research’, Written Communication 7(1), 136–163.
Boscolo, P. (ed.): 1989, Writing: Trends in European Research (Proceedings of the international workshop on writing; Padova, Italy, 3–4 December 1988) Padova (UPSEL).
Carter, M.: 1988, ‘Problem-solving Reconsidered: a Pluralistic Theory of Problems’, College English 50(5), 551–565.
Chomsky, C.: 1969, The Acquisition of Syntax in Children from 5 to 10, Cambridge.
Crowhurst, M. and G. L. Piché: 1979, ‘Audience and Mode of Discourse Effects on Syntactic Complexity in Writing at Two Grade Levels’, Research in the Teaching of English 13(2), 101–109.
Crowhurst, M.: 1980, ‘Syntactic Complexity and Teachers’ Quality Ratings of Narrations and Arguments’, Research in the Teaching of English 14, 223–231.
Donaldson, M.: 1982, Wie Kinder Denken, Bern.
Feilke, H.: 1988, ‘Ordnung und Unordnung in Argumentativen Texten. Zur Entwicklung der Fähigkeit, Texte zu Strukturieren’, Der Deutschunterricht 3, 65–81.
Feilke, H.: 1989, ‘Some Aspects of Writing Development’, in Boscolo, P. (ed.), 91–102.
Feilke, H.: 1990, ‘Erörterung der Erörterung. Freies Schreiben und Musteranalyse’, Praxis Deutsch 99, 52–56.
Feilke, H.: 1993, ‘Schreibentwicklungsforschung. Ein Kurzer Überblick unter Besonderer Berücksichtigung der Entwicklung Prozeßorientierter Schreibfähigkeiten’, Diskussion Deutsch Heft 129, Februar, 17–34.
Feilke, H.: 1995 (forthcoming), ‘Die Entwicklung der Schreibfähigkeiten’, in Günther, H./Ludwig, O. (eds.), Schrift und Schriftlichkeit. Writing and its Use (Reihe Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft), Berlin, New York (De Cruyter).
Feilke, H. and G. Augst: 1989, ‘Zur Ontogenese der Schreibkompetenz’, in Antos, G. and H. P. Krings (eds.), 297–327.
Fitzgerald, J. and D. L. Spiegel: 1986, ‘Textual Cohesion and Coherence in Children's Writing’, Research in the Teaching of English 20, 263–280.
Harrell, L. E.: 1957, 1970, A Comparison of the Development of Oral and Written Language in School-Age Children (Reprint: New York, 1970), Chicago.
Hunt, K. W.: 1965, Grammatical Structures at Three Grades Level, Research Report No. 3 (National council of teachers of english), Champaign, IL.
Hunt, K. W.: 1970, Syntactic Maturity in School Children and Adults, Florida.
Hunt, K. W.: 1983, ‘Sentence Combining and the Teaching of Writing’, in Martlew, M. (ed.): The Psychology of Written Language, Developmental and Educational Perspectives Chichester et al., 99–126.
Huot, B.: 1990, ‘The Literature of Direct Writing Assessment: Major Concerns and Prevailing Trends’, Review of Educational Research 60(2), 237–263.
LaBrant, L. L.: 1933, ‘A Study of Certain Language Developments in Children’, Genetic Psychology Monographs 14, 387–491.
LaBrant, L. L.: 1934, ‘Changing Sentence Structure of Children’, Elem. Engligh Rev. 11, 59–65 u. 85–86.
Langer, J. A.: 1986, Children: Reading and Writing. Norwood, N.J.
Loban, W.: 1976, Language Development: Kindergarten Through Grade Twelve (National council of teachers of english, Research report No. 18), Urbana, Ill.
McCulley, G. A.: 1985, ‘Writing Quality, Coherence andCohesion’, Research in the Teaching of English 19, 269–282.
McCutchen, D.: 1986, ‘Domain Knowledge and Linguistic Knowledge in the Development of writing ability’, Journal of Memory and Language 25, 431–444.
Nystrand, M. (ed.): 1986, The Structure of Written Communication. Studies in Reciprocity Between Writers and Readers, Orlando et al.
Nystrand, M.: 1989, ‘A Social-Interactive Model of Writing’, Written Communication 6(1), 66–85.
Nystrand, M.: 1990, ‘Sharing Words. The Effects of Readers on Developing Writers’, Written Communication 7 (1), 3–24.
O'Donnell, R. C. et al.: 1967, Syntax of Kindergarten and Elementary School Children: A Transformational Analysis (NCTE Report No. 8), Champaign, Ill.
Olson, D. R. and N. Torrance.: 1981, ‘Learning to Meet the Requirements of Written text: Language Development in School Yers’, in Frederiksen, C. H. and Dominic, J. F. (eds.), Writing . Process, Development and Communication, 235–256.
Richardson, K., M. Calnan, J. Essen and L. Lambert.: 1976, ‘The Linguistic Maturity of 11-Year-Olds: some Analysis of the Written Compositions of Children in the National Child Development Study’, Journal of Child Language 3, 99–115.
Rosen, H.: 1973, ‘Written Language and the Sense of Audience’, Educational Research 15, 177–187.
Rubin, D. L.: 1982, ‘Adapting Syntax in Writing to Varying Audiences as a Function of Age and Social Cognitive Ability’, Journal of Child Language 9, 497–510.
Rubin, D. L. and G. L. Piché: 1979, ‘Development in Syntactic and Strategic Aspects of Audience Adaptation Skills in Written Persuasive Communication’, Research in The Teaching of English 13(4), 293–316.
Rutter, P. and B. Raban: 1982, ‘The Development of Cohesion in Children's Writing: a Preliminary Investigation’, First Language 3, 63–75.
Sampson, O. C.: 1964, ‘A Linguistic Study of the Written Compositions of Ten-Year Old Children’, British Journal of Educational Psychology 24, 176–182.
Schneuwly, B.: 1988, Le Langage Ecrit chez l'Enfant. La Production des Textes Informatifs et Argumentatifs, Paris.
Scinto, L. F. M.: 1986, Written Language and Psychological Development, Orlando et al.
Veal, L. R.: 1974, Syntactic Measures and Rated Quality in the Writing of Young Children (Studies in Language Education, Report No. 8). University of Georgia, Athens.
Watson, C.: 1983, ‘Syntactic Change: Writing Development and Rhetohetorical Context’, in M. Martlew (ed.), The Psychology of Written Language. Developmental and Educational Perspectives. Chichester, Ill., 127–140.
Witte, S. P. and J. A. Cherry: 1986, ‘Syntactic Complexity and Writing Quality’, in D. A. McQuade (ed.): The Territory of Language, Southern Illinouis University Press, Carbondale, IL, 150–164.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Feilke, H. From syntactical to textual strategies of argumentation. Argumentation 10, 197–212 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00180725
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00180725