Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-kwt9d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-14T08:27:44.227Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Development of informational adequacy in speech and writing

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Donald L. Rubin*
Affiliation:
The University of Georgia
Lee Galda
Affiliation:
The University of Georgia
Anthony D. Pellegrini
Affiliation:
The University of Georgia
*
Donald L. Rubin, Departments of Language Education and Speech Communication, The University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602

Abstract

Theory and research pertaining to relationships between oral and written communication offer support to seemingly contrary hypotheses regarding the development of informational adequacy in speech and in writing. Because the social cognitive demands of face-to-face interaction are less complex than those of prototypical written communication, younger children might be expected to display greater audience adaptation in speech. On the other hand, the process of encoding in writing facilitates certain cognitive operations, and, therefore, children might be expected to communicate more effectively in writing. Empirical studies warranting conflicting conclusions, however, have administered tasks that tap different communication functions, either explanatory or referential. The present study replicates and extends this previous research by administering referential and explanatory communication tasks in both speech and writing to children at three grade levels. In addition, an independent measure of social cognitive ability was administered. Results confirmed increasing differentiation with age between speech and writing, with fifth graders displaying greater informational adequacy in writing. Children's performance in written communication, rather than speech, revealed a dependency on social cognitive ability. Differences between referential and explanatory communication suggested by previous research were confirmed.

Information

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1989

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable