Abstract
The goal of this study was to analyze the development of the relationship between conceptual and linguistic processes as regards idea ordering and structuring (linearizing), when composing a text. Participants (from 7th graders to University students) were required to compose a text using a list of eleven scrambled ideas. Conceptual rules allow to a priori determine an optimal ordering of these ideas. Results showed a significant increase, with grade level, in the establishment of the postulated conceptual order, and in the linguistic elaboration of the text structure. A large autonomy was observed between conceptual and linguistic processes. The discussion considers the following points: The relevance of the notion of text optimal order; the unequal development with grade level of the varied linguistic skills; the dissymmetry in conceptual-linguistic relationships; the usefulness of the experimental paradigm; some consequences for education.
Résumé
Le but de cette étude consistait à analyser le développement de la relation entre facteurs conceptuels et facteurs linguistiques dans la mise en ordre et la structuration des idées d’un texte (processus de linéarisation). Les participants (élèves de 5ème à étudiants) devaient composer un texte à partir de 11 idées dont les relations avaient été préalablement choisies de façon à déterminer un ordre optimal du texte. Les résultats indiquent l’instauration progressive, avec le niveau scolaire, de l’ordre conceptuel optimal, ainsi qu’un accroissement significatif de l’élaboration linguistique. On observe par ailleurs une large autonomie entre processus conceptuels et processus linguistiques. La discussion examine les points suivants: la pertinence de la notion d’ordre textuel optimal; le développement inégal avec l’âge des différentes compétences linguistiques; la dissymétrie de la relation conceptuel-linguistique; l’utilité du paradigme expérimental; quelques conséquences dans le domaine de l’éducation.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Adam, J.M. (1992).Les textes: Types et prototypes — Récit, description, argumentation et dialogue. Paris: Nathan.
Akiguet, S., & Piolat, A. (1996). Insertion of connectives by 9-to 11-year-old children in an argumentative text.Argumentation, 10, 253–270.
Alamargot, D., & Chanquoy, L. (2001).Through the Models of Writing. Dordrecht, Boston, London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Andriessen, J. (1991).Minimal Strategies for Coherent Text Production. Utrecht: ISOR
Andriessen, J., Coirier, P., Roos, L., Passerault, J.M., & Bert-Erboul, A. (1996). Thematic and structural planning in constrained argumentative text production. In R. Rijlaarsdam, H. van den Berg, & M. Couzijn (Eds.),Theories, Models and Methodology in Writing Research (pp. 237–251). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
Apotheloz, D. (1990). The development of cohesion in writing: Preliminary research on anaphoric procedures and thematic planning in texts by children. In M. Spoelders (Ed.),A contribution of C&C to the International Litteracy Year (pp. 57–70). Lier: Van In and C & C.
Ausubel, D.P. (1960). The use of advance organizers in the learning and retention of meaningful verbal material.Journal of Educational Psychology, 51, 267–272.
Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987).The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Berninger, V.W., & Swanson, H.L. (1994). Modification of the Hayes and Flower model to explain beginning and developing writing. In E. Butterfield (Ed.),Advances in cognition and Educational Practice. Vol. 2: Children’s writing: Toward a process theory of development of skilled writing (pp. 57–82). Greenwich: CT: JAI Press.
Bock, J.K. (1982). Toward a cognitive psychology of syntax.Psychological Review, 89, 1–47.
Boscolo, P. (1995). The cognitive approach to writing and writing instruction: A contribution to a critical appraisal.Current Psychology of Cognition, 14(4), 343–366.
Bronckart, J.P., Bain, D., Schneuwly, B., Davaud, C., & Pasquier, A. (1985).Le fonctionnement du discours. Neuchâtel: Delachaux et Niestlé.
Caccamise, D.J. (1987). Idea generation in writing. In A. Matsuhashi (Ed.),Writing in real time (pp. 224–253). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Chanquoy, L. (1999). The use of connectives in different textual genres: A developmental analysis in a “thinking skills” perspective. In J.H.M. Hamers, J.E.H. van Luit, & B. Csapo (Eds.),Teaching and learning thinking skills. Contexts of learning (pp. 259–282). Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger.
Chanquoy, L., & Fayol, M. (1995). Analyse de l’évolution de l’utilisation de la ponctuation et des connecteurs, dans deux types de texte. Etude longitudinale du C.P. au C.E.2.Enfance, 2, 227–241.
Chanquoy, L., Foulin, J.N., & Fayol, M. (1990). Temporal management of short text writing by children and adults.European Bulletin of Cognitive Psychology, 10(5), 513–540.
Coirier, P. (1999). Les types de textes: Une approche de psychologie cognitive. In G. Skytte & F. Sabatini (Eds.),Linguistica testuale comparativa (pp. 11–36). Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum.
Coirier P., Broggio E., & De Bernardi, B. (1996). Systemic relations between compositional skills in 12-to 18-years-olds: Some empirical data. Oral communication to theE.A.R.L.I. SIG Writing Conference, Barcelona, Spain, October 23–25.
Coirier, P., & Favart, M. (2000). The development of conceptual-linguistic relationships in text composition: A replication. Oral communication to theE.A.R.L.I. SIG Writing Conference, Verona, September 7.
Dellerman, P., Coirier, P., & Marchand, E. (1996). Planning and expertise in argumentative composition. In R. Rijlaarsdam, H. van den Berg, & M. Couzijn (Eds.),Theories, Models and Methodology in Writing Research (pp. 182–195). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
De Weck, G. (1991).La cohésion dans les textes d’enfants. Etude du développement des processus anaphoriques. Neuchâtel: Delachaux et Niestlé.
Favart, M., & Chanquoy, L. (1998). How children ensure cohesion in written narrative and descriptive texts, with or without AND connective. Oral communication to theEARLI SIG Writing Conference, Poitiers, July 2–4.
Favart, M., & Coirier, P. (2000). Evolution of the linearization process in three types of texts. Oral communication to theE.A.R.L.I. SIG Writing Conference, Verona, September 7.
Favart, M., & Passerault, J.M. (1996). Functionality of cohesion devices in the management of local and global coherence: Two studies in children’s written production of narratives. In R. Rijlaarsdam, H. van den Bergh, & M. Couzijn (Eds.),Theories, Models and Methodology in Writing Research (pp. 349–365). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
Favart, M., & Passerault, J.M. (1999). Aspects textuels du fonctionnement et du développement des connecteurs: Approche en production.L’Année Psychologique, 99, 149–173.
Favart, M., & Passerault, J.M. (2000). Aspects fonctionnels du point et de la virgule dans l’évolution de la planification du récit écrit.Enfance, 2, 187–205.
Fayol, M. (1985).Le récit et sa construction. Neuchâtel: Delachaux & Niestlé.
Fayol, M. (1986). Les connecteurs dans les récits écrits. Etude chez l’enfant de 6 à 10 ans.Pratiques, 49, 101–113.
Fayol, M. (1989). Une approche psycholinguistique de la ponctuation. Etude en production et en compréhension.Langue Française, 81, 21–39.
Fayol, M. (1991). Text typologies: A cognitive approach. In G. Denhière & J.P. Rossi (Eds.),Texts and text processing (pp. 61–76). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Feilke, H. (1996). From syntactical to textual strategies of argumentation. Syntactical development in written argumentative texts by students aged 11 to 22.Argumentation, 10, 197–212.
Gombert, A., & Roussey A. (1994). Computer-assisted training effects on argumentative text writing skills in children. In G. Eigler & T. Jechle (Eds.),Writing: Current Trends in European Research (pp. 183–196). Freiburg: Hochschul Verlag.
Hayes, J.R., & Flower, L.S. (1980a). Identifying the organization of writing processes. In L.W. Gregg & E.R. Steinberg (Eds.),Cognitive process in writing: An interdisciplinary approach (pp. 3–30). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Hayes, J.R., & Flower, L.S. (1980b). Writing as problem solving.Visible Language, 4, 388–399.
Isnard, N, & Piolat, A., (1994). The effects of different types of planning on the writing of argumentative text. In G. Eigler & T. Jechle (Eds.),Writing: Current trends in European Research (pp. 121–132). Freiburg: Hochsehul Verlag.
Karmiloff-Smith, A. (1992).Beyond Modularity: A developmental perspective on cognitive Science. Cambridge, London: M.I.T. Press.
Kellog, R.T. (1987). Effects of topic knowledge on the allocation of processing time and cognitive effort to writing processes.Memory and Cognition, 15, 256–266.
Kellogg, R.T. (1990). Effectiveness of prewriting strategies as a function of task demands.American Journal of Psychology, 103(3), 327–342.
Kieras, D.E. (1980). Initial mention as a signal to thematic content in technical passages.Memory and Cognition, 8, 345–353.
Kintsch, W. (1977). On comprehending stories. In M. Just & P. Carpenter (Eds.),Cognitive Processes in comprehension (pp. 37–54). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Kozminsky, E. (1977). Altering comprehension: The effect of biasing titles on text comprehension.Memory and Cognition, 5, 482–490.
Leitao, S. (2000). Evaluation and selection of ideas in argumentative writing. Oral communication to theThird International Workshop on Argumentative Text Processing, Verona, September 6.
Levelt, W.J.M. (1981).The speaker’s linearization problem. Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. London, B295, 305–315.
Lorch, R.F., & Lorch, E.P. (1985). Topic structure representation and text recall.Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 137–148.
MacLure, E., & Geva, E. (1983). The development of the cohesive use of adversative conjunctions in discourse.Discourse Processes, 6, 411–432.
McCutchen, D. (1986). Domain knowledge in the development of writing ability.Journal of Memory and Language, 25, 2043–2058.
McCutchen, D. (1994). The magical number three plus or minus two: Working memory in writing. In J.S. Carlson & E.C. Butterfly (Eds.),Advances in Cognition and Educational Practice, Vol. 2: Children’s Writing: Toward a Process Theory of the Development of Skilled Writing (pp. 1–30). Greenwich, CT: J.A.I. Press.
McCutchen, D. (1996). A capacity theory of writing: Working memory in composition.Educational Psychology Review, 8(3), 299–325.
Matsuhashi, A. (1981). Pausing and planning: The tempo of written discourse production.Research in the teaching of English, 15, 113–134.
Passerault, J.M. (1986). Organisation du texte et stratégies d’intégration.Revue Canadienne de Psychologie, 40, 263–271.
Passerault, J.M. (1991). La ponctuation: Recherches en psychologie du langage.Pratiques, 70, 85–106.
Roussey, J.Y., & Gombert, A. (1996). Improving argumentative writing skills: Effect of two types of aids.Argumentation, 12–28.
Schneuwly, B. (1988).Le langage écrit chez l’enfant. Neuchâtel: Delachaux et Niestlé.
Scinto, L.F.M. (1984). Architectonics of texts produced by children and the development of higher cognitive function.Discourse Processes, 7, 371–418.
Stein, N., & Nezworski, T. (1978). The effects of organization and instructional set on story memory.Discourse Processes, 1, 178–193.
Voss, J., Perkins, D.N., & Segal, J.W. (Eds.). (1991).Informal reasoning and education. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Coirier, P., Favart, M. & Chanquoy, L. Ordering and structuring ideas in text: From conceptual organization to linguistic formulation. Eur J Psychol Educ 17, 157–175 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03173256
Received:
Revised:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03173256