Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This study investigates the development of metapragmatic awareness in preschool children through the lens of Talmy’s Force-Dynamics Model. Using conversation data from 60 Mandarin-speaking children aged 4 to 6, obtained from the International Child Language Data Exchange System (CHILDES), the research employs a custom coding framework to analyze how children’s interactions reflect seven core force-schemata. These schemata are examined in relation to the three dimensions of metapragmatic awareness: metacognitive, metarepresentational, and metacommunicative awareness. Quantitative and qualitative analyses, conducted with AntConc and SPSS 25.0, reveal developmental patterns, correlations, and age-related differences in schema usage and awareness levels. The findings demonstrate: (1) a progression from egocentric to socially responsive communication, reflected in children’s evolving use of force-schemata; (2) distinct developmental trajectories across the three awareness dimensions, with metacognitive and metacommunicative skills showing significant age-related improvements, while metarepresentational awareness develops more gradually; and (3) strong positive correlations between force-schema usage and metapragmatic awareness, suggesting that as children learn to monitor and adjust their language, they also become more skilled at using specific language strategies (force-schemata) in different social situations. These findings illustrate how children’s pragmatic skills grow with age, particularly in their ability to adapt language use to fit the social context. The study also provides practical recommendations for educators, speech therapists, and parents, highlighting how targeted interventions can foster children’s communicative competence.

Plain language summary

The development of preschool children’s pragmatic consciousness was studied using the force-dynamics model

This study explores how preschool children aged 4 to 6 develop their communication skills, focusing on their ability to understand and reflect on the social rules that shape conversations. The research applies a framework called the Force-Dynamics Model, which examines how language works like forces to influence interactions—such as using commands, asking questions, or responding to others. The study used conversation data from 60 Mandarin-speaking children to identify patterns in their use of different communication strategies, called force-schemata. These include actions like expressing curiosity, offering help, or resisting another child’s idea. The research also looked at the development of three types of metapragmatic awareness: Metacognitive awareness—understanding what others know or expect in a conversation. Metarepresentational awareness – reflecting on others’ thoughts and intentions. Metacommunicative awareness—adjusting language based on how the conversation is going. The findings show that children’s communication becomes more socially responsive with age, as they move from self-centered talk to more collaborative exchanges. The ability to manage conversations—like taking turns and resolving disagreements—improves significantly between ages 4 and 6. This study highlights how children develop these skills gradually and offers practical recommendations for educators, speech therapists, and parents. Educators can use activities like group games to encourage better communication, while therapists can create targeted exercises to support children with language challenges. The research suggests future studies should include more diverse groups of children and explore how these communication patterns evolve in older age groups and across different cultures.

Keywords

force-dynamics model metapragmatic awareness preschool children pragmatic development

Introduction

Children’s communication evolves significantly during the preschool years, shifting from egocentric speech to more socially attuned interactions. A key part of this development is the acquisition of metapragmatic awareness, or the ability to reflect on and adjust one’s language use based on the social context (Bates, 1976; L. Cheng et al., 2024). This awareness is crucial for children to engage in meaningful conversations, interpret others’ intentions, and manage complex social exchanges. However, the process through which metapragmatic awareness develops—and how it interacts with children’s use of linguistic strategies—remains underexplored. Addressing this gap, the present study examines the development of metapragmatic awareness using Talmy’s (2000) Force-Dynamics Model, which provides a framework for understanding how linguistic force operates within interactions. Talmy suggested that this cognitive process occurs through the interaction of two force entities, the Agonist and the Antagonist.

Many scholars have done research on speech acts by the Force-Dynamic Model. First, the Force-Dynamic Model’s explanatory and application value in the field of narrative discourse analysis has been investigated (Duan, 2011; G. Y. Jiang & Sun, 2018; Kimmel, 2011; Wolff, 2007); Second, the construction of force-dynamic representation of modal verbs in speech communication has been examined (Kaleta, 2020; Mei, 2021). Third, L. L. Cheng and Shang (2017) first extended this model to preschool children’s pragmatic development, but their research focused narrowly on perlocutionary acts, leaving a gap in understanding how force dynamics shape broader dimensions of metapragmatic awareness. However, the dynamic interaction between children’s evolving awareness of these rules and their use of forceful language strategies remains insufficiently explored. Specifically, there is also a lack of focus on how contextual factors influencing force-dynamic interactions at different developmental stages. The Force-Dynamics Model offers a novel lens for examining children’s communication by framing language as a system of forces—such as compulsion, attraction, and removal of restraint—used to influence social interactions. The model allows us to analyze how children’s language choices reflect their cognitive and social development, making it particularly relevant for understanding how metapragmatic awareness emerges in real-time interactions.

Moreover, prior research often treats force-schemata and metapragmatic awareness as independent constructs, rather than exploring the dynamic interplay between them. This study seeks to bridge that gap by investigating how children’s use of force-schemata corresponds to different dimensions of metapragmatic awareness and how these relationships evolve across developmental stages.

The primary objective of this study is to analyze how children’s use of force-schemata reflects the development of their metapragmatic awareness and to identify the age-related patterns in this process. Specifically, the research examines the dynamic interaction between children’s linguistic strategies (i.e., force-schemata) and their ability to reflect on and adjust their language in social contexts (i.e., metapragmatic awareness). This dual focus offers new insights into how children transition from egocentric speech to collaborative communication.

The research questions guiding this study are as follows:

(1) What are the characteristics of preschool children’s force-schema representation?

(2) How does metapragmatic awareness develop across different age groups?

(3) What is the relationship between children’s use of force-schemata and their metapragmatic awareness?

These questions aim to clarify the relationship between language strategies and reflective awareness while identifying the developmental trajectory of these abilities in preschool children. Through this approach, the study addresses critical gaps in the literature by demonstrating how linguistic force is shaped by children’s ability to reflect on social dynamics.

In summary, this study explores the intersection of force dynamics and metapragmatic awareness, emphasizing how children’s use of linguistic force reflects their growing social competence. It seeks to provide a comprehensive understanding of the developmental trajectory from egocentric to socially adaptive communication, advancing research on both pragmatic development and child language acquisition.

Theoretical Framework

This study draws on Talmy’s Force-Dynamics Model to analyze how children’s communication strategies reflect their metapragmatic awareness. Talmy’s model, initially developed to describe how language encodes physical and psychological forces (e.g., compulsion, resistance, attraction), provides a useful lens for understanding the linguistic strategies children employ to navigate social interactions. This model conceptualizes interaction as the interplay of two forces: the Agonist, who initiates or drives the conversation, and the Antagonist, who responds by either aligning with or resisting the Agonist’s intent. During communication, these roles are not fixed but shift fluidly depending on the participants’ contributions. However, understanding these strategies requires not only a description of the force-schemata children use but also insight into their metapragmatic reflection—their ability to monitor, adjust, and reason about communication.

To frame this interaction, the study integrates metapragmatic awareness across three dimensions: metacognitive, metacommunicative, and metarepresentational awareness. Metacognitive awareness, which refers to an individual’s reflection on the status of information, such as whether it is known, new, or expected for those involved in the conversation; Metarepresentational awareness, this involves reflecting on the intentions and mental states (beliefs, thoughts, desires, attitudes) of oneself and others; Metacommunicative awareness, this focuses on how people interpret and evaluate conversations, considering both themselves and others as social beings. (Culpeper & Haugh, 2014, p. 242). These dimensions align with children’s cognitive development and provide a foundation for interpreting how force-schemata support the transition from egocentric to socially responsive communication.

Building on Johnson’s (1987) work on force-schemata, this study identifies seven core schemata that characterize children’s communication: compulsion, blockage, counterforce, diversion, removal of restraint, enablement, and attraction. Table 1 presents these force-schemata with examples drawn from children’s conversations, illustrating how these schemata shape interactions. For example, the counterforce schema occurs when a child contradicts another’s statement, as in a disagreement over role-play roles:

Child 1: “I’m the doctor.”

Child 2: “No, I’m the doctor.”

Table 1.

Classification of Force-schema.

Serial Number	Force schemata	Examples	Examples in children’s conversations	Code
1	Compulsion schema	Being blown along in a very strong wind	*CH1: Who is it for?	CFP
1	Compulsion schema	Being blown along in a very strong wind	*CH2: For you.	CFP
2	Blockage schema	A car crashes into an obstacle like a tree	*CH1: I’ll make a call.	BFK
2	Blockage schema	A car crashes into an obstacle like a tree	*CH2: Why is it off?	BFK
3	Counterforce schema	We bump into someone in the street	*CH1: I am a doctor.	CFF
3	Counterforce schema	We bump into someone in the street	*CH2: No! I am the doctor.	CFF
4	Diversion schema	The ricochet of a bullet	*CH1: Will you hug me?	DFV
4	Diversion schema	The ricochet of a bullet	*CH2: I’ll open the door.	DFV
5	Removal of restraint schema	Leaning on a door that suddenly opens	*CH1: Give me more water.	RFR
5	Removal of restraint schema	Leaning on a door that suddenly opens	*CH2: Hehe(smiling).	RFR
6	Enablement schema	While most people who are fit and well feel able to pick up a bag of grocery shopping	*CH1: Put it there.	EFB
6	Enablement schema		*CH2: 0 (no response)	EFB
7	Attraction schema	Magnets, vacuum cleaners and gravity	*CH1: Do you water the flowers?	AFR
7	Attraction schema	Magnets, vacuum cleaners and gravity	*CH2: What?	AFR

Source: Johnson (1987, Adapted from Johnson to better suit the study of children’s metapragmatic awareness).

This schema reflects metapragmatic development, as the child demonstrates an emerging awareness of roles and intentions within a social context. Similarly, the attraction schema becomes evident when children express curiosity, signaling their interest and engaging others in extended dialogue. This interactional pattern highlights their growing metacommunicative awareness as they adjust their speech to sustain conversation.

Research Design and Methodology

This study adopts a mixed-methods design, integrating quantitative and qualitative approaches to investigate the relationship between force-schemata and metapragmatic awareness in preschool children. The methodological framework involves custom coding of naturalistic conversation data to capture children’s use of force-schemata, followed by statistical analysis to assess developmental patterns and correlations between schema use and awareness levels.

Research Subjects

The data for this study were collected from the International Child Language Data Exchange System (CHILDES) “Mandarin Chinese Children’s Peer Conversation Database,” focusing on 60 Mandarin-speaking children aged 4, 5, and 6. Each age group comprised 20 participants (10 conversation pairs). The children come from similar socio-economic backgrounds, with no significant differences in parental education or income, and all participants have normal language development with no speech or hearing impairments. The analysis was conducted in compliance with the data-sharing policies of the CHILDES database. While the sample size is relatively small (n = 60), the grouping by age allows for focused comparisons between developmental stages. A power analysis confirmed that this sample size is sufficient to detect statistically significant differences in force-schema use across the three age groups. Extreme values, defined as those beyond ±2.5 standard deviations, were removed to maintain data validity. This ensures that the findings are not skewed by outliers and reflect meaningful developmental trends.

Research Methods

This study employed a systematic approach to code the data based on seven types of force-schemata and three levels of metapragmatic awareness, ensuring a rigorous and transparent analysis of children’s conversations. The custom coding framework was developed through a combination of force-dynamics and pragmatic language use (INCA-A coding system: Categories of Illocutionary Force Distinguished in the Proposed System), and adapted to suit Chinese contextual nuances observed in the data. The INCA-A coding system is a condensed and adapted version of the coding system originally developed by Ninio and Wheeler. INCA-A is designed to encode face-to-face interactive behaviors, including communicative intentions at both the discourse level and the social interaction level. We categorized the “Categories of Illocutionary Force Distinguished in the Proposed System” from the INCA-A coding system based on the three dimensions of metapragmatic awareness: metacognitive, metarepresentational, and metacommunicative. Two experts in the field then evaluated and rated the classification results. Each conversation was manually coded by two independent researchers who underwent extensive training in the application of the coding scheme to ensure consistency.

Intercoder Reliability

To address the concern of intercoder reliability, several measures were put in place. First, prior to the full coding process, the two coders conducted an initial round of coding on a subset of the data (10% of the total conversations). This allowed for calibration and refinement of the coding categories, ensuring that both coders had a clear and shared understanding of how to apply the force-schema framework and categorize levels of metapragmatic awareness. Cohen’s Kappa was then calculated to assess intercoder reliability for the initial coding yielding a Kappa value of 0.85, which is considered to represent strong agreement (Landis & Koch, 1977).

In instances where discrepancies occurred between the two coders, a third senior researcher was consulted to mediate and resolve differences through discussion and consensus. This process helped to further refine the coding scheme and ensured a consistent and reliable approach throughout the analysis. Once the full dataset was coded, an additional round of reliability testing was conducted on a different 10% subset, again resulting in a high intercoder reliability score (Kappa = 0.87), confirming the consistency and accuracy of the coding process.

By integrating these methodological safeguards, the study ensures that the force-schema coding and pragmatic language use are both transparent and reliable, reducing potential biases and improving the overall validity of the findings. Furthermore, the use of mixed-methods approaches, including quantitative analysis with AntConc and SPSS 25.0, strengthens the study’s capacity to uncover meaningful patterns and differences in metapragmatic awareness across age groups, providing robust insights into children’s pragmatic development.

Data Statistics and Analysis

After the data analysis, based on the age grouping of subjects, extreme value beyond ±2.5 standard deviations were removed.

Analysis at the Force-Schema Level

Descriptive statistics of the force-schema of children at different ages can be seen in Table 2, Children’s force-schema scores increase with age. The 6-year-old group’s force-schema value is higher than the 5-year-old group, and the 5-year-old group’s force-schema value is higher than the 4-year-old group, showing a clear age difference.

Table 2.

Descriptive Statistics of the Force-schema of Children at Different Ages (M ± SD).

n / Mean ± SD	4 Years old	5 Years old	6 Years old
n (paris)	10	10	10
M ± SD	105.3 ± 45.3	155.1 ± 62.8	168.3 ± 51.9

The differences in the use of the seven force-schemata by children of different age groups can be seen in Table 3. It can be observed that the scores of children of all age groups in the blockage schema, counterforce schema, removal of restraint schema, and attraction schema are proportional to age, while children’s possibility schema scores decrease with age.

Table 3.

Seven Force-Schema Value by Children of Different Age Groups (M ± SD).

Force-schema	4 Years old		5 Years old		6 Years old
Force-schema	n (pairs)	M ± SD	n (pairs)	M ± SD	n (pairs)	M ± SD
Compulsion schema	10	42.6 ± 26.3	10	86.5 ± 41.1	10	79.1 ± 37.7
Blockage schema	10	5.6 ± 5.0	10	6.4 ± 4.2	10	10.6 ± 8.6
Counterforce schema	10	13.3 ± 9.1	10	13.7 ± 12.0	10	22.7 ± 10.2
Diversion schema	10	27.9 ± 13.4	10	21.1 ± 8.4	10	28.2 ± 13.7
Removal of restraint schema	10	2.3 ± 1.6	10	7.4 ± 7.3	9	11.1 ± 9.7
Enablement schema	10	15.3 ± 8.7	10	9.5 ± 4.9	10	9.2 ± 6.4
Attraction schema	10	0.3 ± 0.48	10	10.5 ± 7.9	10	8.2 ± 2.6

After testing, the compulsion schema, blockage schema, counterforce schema, diversion schema, removal of restraint schema, and enablement schema all conform to normal distribution and homogeneity of variance. To further explore the differences in the use of different force-schemata by children of different age groups, the six dimensions of force-schemata that comply with the normal distribution and homogeneity of variance were taken as dependent variables and age as an independent variable, and ANOVA single-factor variance analysis was conducted. Age has a significant main effect on the compulsion schema and the removal of restraint schema (Compulsion schema: η² = 0.15, p = .023 < .05, Removal of restraint schema, η² = 0.12, p = .033 < .05), and the main effect on the blockage schema, counterforce schema, and diversion schema is not significant (Blockage schema: η² = 0.03, p = .173 > .05, Counterforce schema: η² = 0.06, p = .094 > .05, Diversion schema: η² = 0.01, p = .346 > .05, Enablement schema: η² = 0.04, p = .099 > .05). Although these results do not reach statistical significance, the small effect sizes (η² < 0.06) suggest limited practical impact of age on these force-schemata. As the data for the attraction schema follows the normal distribution but does not meet the homogeneity of variance, the Kruskal-Wallis H non-parametric test was used, and the main effect of age on the attraction schema is significant (H(2) = 16.92, p = .00 < .05).

To compare the differences between children of different age groups, the main effects on each dimension at each age group were further validated, and post-hoc tests were performed on the results, as shown in Table 4.

Table 4.

Age Differences in Children’s 7 Force—Schema Scores: ANOVA Results and Post-hoc Comparisons.

Force schemata	F	p	Post-hoc test
Compulsion schema	4.360	.023	M5 > M6 > M4
Blockage schema	1.871	.173	―
Counterforce schema	2.587	.094	―
Diversion schema	1.106	.346	―
Removal of restraint schema	3.889	.033	M6 > M5 > M4
Enablement schema	2.517	.099	―
Attraction schema	―	―	M5 > M6 > M4

For the compulsion schema, the value difference between children of the 5-year-old group and the 6-year-old group is not significant (M5-M6 = 7.40, p = .646 > .05, η² = 0.01), the value difference between the 6-year-old group and the 4-year-old group is also not significant (M6-M4 = 36.5, p = .09 > .05, η² = 0.04), but the value of the 5-year-old group is significantly higher than that of the 4-year-old group (M5-M4 = 43.9, p = .04 < .05, η² = 0.10). Therefore, children in the younger stages have weaker abilities to use and control the compulsion schema. A substantial increase in this ability is observed between the ages of 4 and 5. However, after the age of 5, children’s abilities to use and control the compulsion schema decline, as indicated by the small effect size (η² = 0.01) between the 5- and 6-year-old groups.

For the removal of restraint schema, there is no significant difference between the adjacent groups (M6-M5 = 3.7, p = .53 > .05, η² = 0.01; M5-M4 = 5.1, p = .90 > .05, η² = 0.01), but there is a significant difference between the 6-year-old group and the 4-year-old group (M6-M4 = 8.8, p = .01 < .05, η² = 0.12). Therefore, it can be seen that the development of children’s abilities to control and use the removal of restraint schema gradually increases, and there is a significant change in the older group stage compared to the young age group.

Using the Mann-Whitney U test method for post-hoc testing of the attraction schema, and using the Bonferroni correction method to set the probability level to .0167, it was found that there were significant differences among children aged 4, 5, and 6 years (Z = −3.403, p = .000 < .0167; Z = −3.784, p = .000 < .0167). However, there was no significant difference between 5-year-old group and 6-year-old (Z = −0.532, p = .595 > .0167). It can be seen that children’s ability to use and regulate attraction schema is weak at the young age, and significantly increases during the age of 4 and 5. However, after the age of 5, the growth rate of children’s ability to use and regulate attraction schema slows down, which is as reflected by the smaller effect size (r = 0.12) in later comparisons.

Analysis of Metapragmatic Awareness Level

A statistical analysis of metapragmatic awareness of children at different age groups was carried out, and the results are shown in Table 5. The level of metapragmatic awareness increases with age, and the difference in age is significant.

Table 5.

Metapragmatic Awareness of Children at Different Age Groups.

n / Mean±SD	4 Years old	5 Years old	6 Years old
n (pairs)	10	10	10
M ± SD	388.8 ± 141.1	519.4 ± 151.8	692.8 ± 157.2

Based on the three dimensions of metapragmatic awareness, the differences in the metapragmatic levels of children were examined (See Table 6). The value of children at all age stages in the three dimensions of metapragmatic awareness is proportional to age.

Table 6.

Descriptive Statistics (Mean ± SD) of Three Dimensions of Metapragmatic Awareness of Children at Different Age Groups.

Metapragmatic Awareness	4 years old		5 years old		6 years old
Metapragmatic Awareness	n (pairs)	M ± SD	n (pairs)	M ± SD	n (pairs)	M ± SD
Metacognitive awareness	10	156.0 ± 66.9	10	210.4 ± 57.1	10	284.6 ± 100.1
Metarepresentational awareness	10	80.6 ± 19.1	10	94.2 ± 28.7	10	102.6 ± 22.3
Metacommunicative awareness	10	152.2 ± 73.8	10	214.8 ± 85.9	10	305.6 ± 82.1

The three dimensions of metapragmatic awareness were taken as dependent variables and age as an independent variable, and ANOVA single-factor variance analysis was conducted (See Table 7). It was found that age has a significant main effect on the dimensions of metacognitive awareness and metacommunicative awareness. However, the main effect on the dimension of metarepresentational awareness is not significant.

Table 7.

ANOVA Results for Age Differences in Children’s Metapragmatic Awareness Across Three Dimensions.

Metapragmatic Awareness	F	p	Post-hoc test
Metacognitive awareness	6.974	.004	M6 > M5 > M4
Metarepresentational awareness	2.189	.132	―
Metacommunicative awareness	9.123	.001	M6 > M5 > M4

To further verify the main effects of different age groups on different dimensions, a post-hoc test was carried out on the results, comparing the differences between children at different age groups with pairwise testing, as shown in Table 7. From the perspective of metacognitive awareness and metacommunicative awareness, the scores of the 6-year-old group are significantly higher than those of the 5-year-old group (M6-M5 = 74.2, p = .041 < .05, η² = 0.09; M6-M5 = 90.8, p = .018 < .05; η² = 0.11). These results indicate medium to large effect sizes, suggesting that cognitive and communicative development accelerates after the age of 5, but compared to the 4-year-old group, the scores of the 5-year-old group are not significant (M5-M4 = 54.4, p = .127 > .05, η² = 0.04; M5-M4 = 60.6, p = .094 > .05, η² = 0.05), reflecting small effect sizes. It can be seen that children at a young age group have lower levels of metacognitive awareness and metacommunicative awareness, but both have significantly improved after the age of 5.

The Relationship Between Metapragmatic Awareness and Force-Schema

As shown in Table 8, Pearson correlation analysis indicates that there is a significant positive correlation between metapragmatic awareness and force-schema (r = .86, p = .000 < .05). According to Cohen’s (1988) criteria, this effect size indicates a strong correlation, suggesting that the more frequently children employ force-schemata, the higher their level of metapragmatic awareness. In other words, the greater the force-schema demonstrated by children when communicating with peers, the stronger their metapragmatic awareness.

Table 8.

Pearson Correlations between Children’s Metapragmatic Awareness and Force-Schema.

Pearson r and p-value	Force-schema	Metapragmatic awareness
Pearson correlation	1	0.86**
Sig. (two-tailed)		.000

At the 0.01 level (two-tailed), the correlation is significant.

Table 9 shows that there is a significant positive correlation between the force-schema and metacognitive awareness, metarepresentational awareness, and metacommunicative awareness. That is, the greater the force-schema demonstrated by children when communicating with peers, the more significantly enhanced are the metacognitive awareness, metarepresentational awareness, and metacommunicative awareness that they mobilize.

Table 9.

Pearson Correlations Between Children’s Metapragmatic Awareness Dimensions and Force-Schemas.

Pearson r and p-value	Force-schema	Metacognitive awareness	Metarepresentational awareness	Metacommunicative awareness
Pearson correlation	1	0.84**	0.65**	0.72**
Sig. (two-tailed)		<.001	<.001	<.001

At the 0.01 level (two-tailed), the correlation is significant.

Table 10 shows the relationships between the three dimensions of metacognitive awareness, metarepresentational awareness, and metacommunicative awareness, and the seven force-schemata using Pearson correlation analysis. The results show that metapragmatic awareness is significantly positively correlated with the compulsory schema, attraction schema, blockage schema, counterforce schema, and diversion schema. Metacognitive awareness is significantly positively correlated with compulsory schema, attraction schema, blockage schema, counterforce schema, and diversion schema, but not significantly positively correlated with the removal of restraint schema and enablement schema. Metarepresentational awareness is significantly positively correlated with the compulsory schema, removal of restraint schema, blockage schema, counterforce schema, and diversion schema, but not significantly positively correlated with attraction schema, enablement schema, and diversion schema. Metacommunicative awareness is significantly positively correlated with the compulsory schema, attraction schema, blockage schema, and counterforce schema, but not significantly positively correlated with the removal of restraint schema, diversion schema, and enablement schema.

Table 10.

Pearson Correlations of Different Levels of Children’s Metapragmatic Awareness and Different Types of Force-schemata.

Force schemata	Metapragmatic awareness		Metacognitive awareness		Metarepresentational awareness		Metacommunicative awareness
Force schemata	Pearson correlation	Sig. (two-tailed)	Pearson correlation	Sig. (two-tailed)	Pearson correlation	Sig. (two-tailed)	Pearson correlation	Sig. (two-tailed)
Compulsion schema	.70**	.000	.76**	.000	.54**	.002	.52**	.003
Removal of restraint schema	.33	.074	.23	.230	.39*	.034	.33	.075
Attraction schema	.49**	.007	.41*	.026	.27	.156	.50**	.006
Blockage schema	.72**	.000	.62**	.000	.43*	.018	.71**	.000
Counterforce schema	.83**	.000	.72**	.000	.69**	.000	.75**	.000
Diversion schema	.40*	.028	.41*	.026	.21	.268	.35	.061
Enablement schema	−.17	.381	−.22	.236	−.08	.690	−.10	.619

Note.p < .05 (*), p < .01 (**), two-tailed.

Results and Discussion

This study found certain patterns in the development of force-schema and metapragmatic awareness among children of different ages by analyzing their characteristics when communicating with peers. The details are as follows:

The Force-Schema Value in Preschool Children: Revealing the Pragmatic Development of “Decentered”

This section explores the role of force-schema in shaping the pragmatic development of preschool children, with a particular focus on their shift from egocentric to decentered communication. Piaget and Inhelder (1969) highlighted that preschool children are in the “preoperational stage”, during which their communication tends to be more “egocentric”, primarily focused on their own perspectives. However, as children interact more frequently with their physical and social environments, they become gradually “decentered”, becoming more attuned to the others’ thoughts and emotions. This study shows that the use of the removal of restraint schema increases with age in children aged 4 to 6. However, both compulsion schema and attraction schema peak at age 5, with 6-year-olds using them less frequently than 5-year-olds.

Firstly, the observed increase in the use of the removal of restraint schema with age among children aged 4 to 6 can be attributed to the gradual development of children relinquishing control in interactions, encouraging others to participate or express themselves freely. This requires advanced perspective-taking and emotion-regulating abilities. As children grow older, they gradually acquire these skills and begin to pay greater attention to the needs of others in social exchanges. By age 6, children’s metacognitive abilities become more refined, enabling them to recognize that yielding control fosters cooperation and strengthens interpersonal relationships, leading to more frequent use of this schema. With increasing social experience, children gradually internalize social norms such as turn-taking, politeness, and sharing, which is under the process of “decentered” aiming at motivating them to use removal of restraint schema to avoid conflict and maintain smooth interactions. About 6-year-olds encounter more structured tasks (e.g., group collaborations), where they realize that excessive control may hinder task completion. They learn to use the removal of restraint schema to invite contributions from others, reinforcing this strategy in more complex social settings.

Secondly, during the process of participating in social activities, compulsion schema, such as commands and directives, is commonly used by younger children to express needs and control interactions, facilitating the input of new information by connecting it with existing knowledge and experience. According to the research, children at the age of 3 can only handle one unit of information, while 5-year-old children are capable of handling seven units of information (Lin, 2018). As the number of information units continues to increase, children gradually enhance their cognition of external contextual factors. This indicates that the prominence of compulsion schema is the most direct manifestation of the process of children’s de-egocentricity. However, as cognitive abilities develop, children around age 5 begin to exhibit reduced egocentric behaviors and show a greater preference for cooperative approaches. Between ages 5 and 6, they also start to understand that direct commands are not always the most effective strategy and instead adopt softer, more cooperative communication styles to achieve their goals. As Piaget’s theory provides valuable insight into the cognitive aspects of de-egocentricity, more recent research emphasizes that this transition is also deeply shaped by social interactions and cultural influences. Tomasello (2019) argues that de-egocentricity is not purely a cognitive process but is driven by children’s involvement in cooperative social activities, where understanding shared goals and social norms becomes essential. This aligns with Vygotsky’s socio-cultural theory, which stresses that children’s development is influenced by interactions with peers and adults within specific cultural contexts (Vygotsky, 1978). Therefore, transitioning into environments with stricter school and family rules, children become aware that frequent use of compulsion schema can lead to negative outcomes, such as peer rejection or adult disapproval. Thus, they begin to explore more effective communication strategies and reduce their reliance on directives. In conclusion, the force-schema values explored in this study capture not only cognitive shifts but also the ways in which physical and social environments contribute to the gradual development of pragmatic competence.

Thirdly, the use of attraction schema, such as asking questions or inviting participation, increases rapidly between ages 4 and 5, reflecting children’s growing ability to sustain social interactions. However, by age 6, the growth of this schema begins to plateau, possibly because children at this stage shift more focus toward logical thinking and self-expression, leading to a reduced tendency to actively seek others’ input. As recent studies in pragmatics highlight the importance of peer interactions and shared social settings in fostering communication skills, Morek (2014) suggests that as children engage more with their peers, they learn the rules of turn-taking and repair strategies, which are key for building communicative competence. The attraction schema reflects this process, as they become more prominent with age, indicating that children’s communication shifts from a self-centered focus to one that is more considerate of others. As Tomasello (2019) points out, children’s growing awareness of social norms enhances their ability to engage effectively in conversations.

For example:

*CH1: That one has been sprayed with medicine.

*CH2: Huh? What did you say?”

In this example, CH2’s request for clarification demonstrates the growing ability to recognize the need to accommodate a conversational partner’s understanding, marking a significant step in the process of de-egocentricity. The use of attraction-schema, moving from vague to more concrete responses, illustrates children’s increasing ability to modify their speech based on social cues. Blum-Kulka (2004) emphasizes that such repair strategies are crucial for pragmatic development, as they enable children to respond to feedback and navigate complex social interactions more effectively. It should be noted that children frequently use questions and invitations to maintain social connections before age 5. By age 6, however, as their sense of individuality becomes more prominent, they may prioritize self-achievement and leadership roles within groups, resulting in a decreased reliance on attraction schema for interaction. Moreover, relevant research indicates that curiosity, which is intrinsically linked to the attraction schema, undergoes significant development during early childhood. The age of 4 marks a critical phase in this development, with the age of 5 being characterized as the most rapid and dynamic period for the evolution of curiosity (Hu, 2005). However, compared to its peak at age 5, by age 6, children’s curiosity diminishes as their social strategies become more sophisticated. Therefore, they may find that attraction schema is no longer sufficient in certain situations and begin to adopt alternative strategies, such as removal of restraint schema, to maintain engagement in interactions.

Finally, the non-cooperative dynamics reflected in the four force-schemata, which are counterforce schema, blockage schema, diversion schema, and enablement schema, demonstrate that children’s communication involves not only collaboration but also moments of resistance or disengagement. These schemata highlight the challenges children face in aligning their communication with social expectations, which are shaped by both personal emotions and broader cultural norms. Vygotsky’s framework, along with Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory (Bronfenbrenner, 1979), underscores that these adjustments occur within specific social contexts that influence children’s development. The reasons why children aged 4 to 6 rarely use the above four schemata lie primarily in their insufficient cognitive and language abilities, immature emotional regulation, and the cooperation-focused environments they are in. These schemata require higher levels of perspective-taking, conflict management, and linguistic flexibility, which gradually develop as children gain more social experience and cognitive maturity. Therefore, these strategies are more likely to appear in later school years or in more competitive environments.

The Progressive Socialization of Pragmatic Development: A Multi-Level Analysis of Preschool Children’s Metapragmatic Awareness

The results indicate that children’s metapragmatic awareness increases with age. The development of metacognitive and metacommunicative awareness precedes that of metarepresentational awareness. As their cognitive abilities increasingly reflect on both their own and others’ speech acts. This reflects a continuous process of socialization in their pragmatic development.

Firstly, the development of children’s metacognitive and metacommunicative awareness is significant, indicating that their primary goal in conversational exchanges is to share information and receive feedback or suggestions from others, thereby facilitating deeper understanding and interaction. In this process, children reflect, organize, and process conversational content before delivering it to the listener through various pragmatic forms, illustrating the growth of their metacognitive awareness. Additionally, children frequently make requests, seek confirmations, provide explanations, and elaborate on information to ensure clarity. This involves continuously considering the listener’s existing knowledge and assessing how well the conversation is achieving its intended goals. For example:

*CH1: Call me later, okay?

*CH1: I’m on the road.

*CH1: Pretend you’re using this phone, okay?

*CH2: This one is broken.

*CH1: It doesn’t matter.

Culpeper and Haugh (2014) noted that conversational participants can engage in reflective awareness concerning expectations, which may be deontic (i.e., what participants believe should or ought to happen), probabilistic (i.e., what participants think is likely to happen), or volitional (i.e., what participants want to happen). In this conversation, when CH1 initially requests “call me”, he likely considers whether this request will be accepted by the other party. When he does not receive an immediate response, he subconsciously reflects on the reason for the hearer’s silence, leading him to further explain “I’m on the road.”. While these two seemingly unrelated sentences appear disconnected on the surface, they are actually linked at the level of metacognitive awareness. This is because metacognitive awareness involves analyzing the cognitive state of information—CH1 reflects on why the other party did not respond and questions whether his expectations align with the listener’s understanding of the information. Subsequently, CH1 employs a hypothetical conditional sentence, testing the listener’s acceptance of his message by lowering the expectation value. From CH2′s eventual response, it becomes clear that CH1’s reflective awareness of both parties’ information in the conversation successfully helps maintain the dialog. This demonstrates that CH1’s awareness of the cognitive processes involved in the exchange plays a key role in sustaining communication.

Next, the development of metacommunicative awareness in young children shows a significant upward trend after the age of five. Goffman et al. (1964) argued that communication cannot occur in isolation from social context, emphasizing the speaker’s awareness of both self and others as social agents (Culpeper & Haugh, 2014). After the age of 4, when children typically enter kindergarten, their interactions with peers increase, and as they grow older, the frequency of turn-taking in conversations rises as well (Yang, 2018). This suggests that children not only engage in cognitive activities related to communicative partners but also participate in social interactions. They begin to reflect on factors such as social status, identity, and face when selecting appropriate interpersonal strategies during conversation. Consequently, as the number of communication exchanges grows, children’s metacommunicative awareness strengthens, allowing them to better navigate the social dimensions of interaction.

In addition to conversational forces, it is crucial to consider the role of cultural and contextual factors in shaping metapragmatic awareness. Children’s social environments—whether shaped by family norms, educational settings, or peer dynamics—play a pivotal role in how they navigate interactions. Children from diverse cultural backgrounds may develop different norms of communication, such as varying expectations around politeness, authority, or indirectness, which can influence their metacommunicative awareness. Consequently, as the number of communication exchanges grows, these cultural and contextual factors interact with force-schema to strengthen children’s metacommunicative awareness, enabling them to more effectively navigate the social dimensions of interaction.

Lastly, metarepresentational awareness involves reflecting on the intentions expressed by both parties in a conversation, representing a higher-order level of reflective awareness. This type of awareness includes reflection on the intentions conveyed by the literal meaning of discourse, known as first-order representation. Reflections on more complex intentions, such as those involving sarcasm or contempt, fall under second-order representation, while reflections on attitudes and other intention-related factors represent third-order representation, and so on (Culpeper & Haugh, 2014). Both Haugh (2008) and Kecskes (2010) argue that communicative intentions are shaped by cognitive, sociocultural, and interactional factors. H. Jiang (2021) further points out that “the starting point of metarepresentation reflects the speaker’s attitude toward expressing intentions, which is a metapragmatic intention. Only by correctly inferring the speaker’s metarepresentational intentions can we accurately understand the meaning of their speech.” However, many scholars have shown that preschool children often rely on simpler strategies to maintain conversations, such as repetition, and they frequently depend on non-verbal cues to sustain interactions (Blank & Franklin, 1980; L. L. Cheng, 2021; Keenan, 1974; Ninio & Snow, 1996; Shatz et al., 1981). Therefore, it is challenging for preschool children to fully represent their conversational intentions, which explains why their metarepresentational awareness tends to be relatively underdeveloped at this stage. This delay reflects the cognitive complexity required for perspective-taking, which typically develops later during childhood. Vygotsky’s socio-cultural theory suggests that such abilities are cultivated through collaborative learning and guided participation with more experienced peers and adults, enabling children to internalize social norms and expectations. The lack of sign metarepresentational awareness across the preschool age groups in this study suggests that this skill may continue to develop beyond early childhood. This is consistent with findings by Schneider and Ornstein (2019), who argue that children aged 4 to 5 often overestimate their cognitive capacities, while older children gradually acquire more nuanced perspective-taking abilities as their social experiences expand.

The Significant Correlation Between Force-schemata and Metapragmatic Awareness in Preschool Communication: Evidence of Linguistic Force as a Reflection of Contextual Awareness

Children’s Metapragmatic awareness involves the conscious selection of language. Verschueren (1999) argues that these choices emerge during the process of producing and interpreting discourse. Linguistic force refers to the speaker’s attempt to influence the hearer’s internal state through utterances, thereby altering the hearer’s psychological condition (Duan, 2011; Evans & Green, 2006; Lakoff, 2005; Marmaridou, 2000). In essence, children’s reflection on pragmatic factors generates various internal language forces, resulting in different linguistic outcomes.

Among the seven force-schemata, five show significant positive correlations with metapragmatic awareness, while the removal of restrictive schema and enablement schema do not exhibit any notable correlation. The removal of restraint schema and the enablement schema reflect the hearer’s vague or non-existent response to the speaker’s content, which does not clearly demonstrate metapragmatic awareness. In contrast, the remaining five force-schemata reveal varying degrees of metapragmatic awareness in peer communication. For instance, the compulsory schema, by which participants adhere to the conversational topic, and meanwhile the counterforce schema and diversion schema, which express objection or intentional divergence from the conversation’s intention, all display an active engagement in the conversation. Similarly, the attraction schema, which demonstrates curiosity toward the topic, also indicates a proactive participation in the exchange. In these cases, children must continually reflect on contextual factors to determine how to maintain, repair, or take turns in the conversation. This reflection suggests that these five force-schemata are actively integrated into the conversation and require the application of metapragmatic awareness.

Based on the findings of this study, both metacognitive awareness and metapragmatic awareness are significantly correlated with these five force-schemata. Collins (2024) observed, “Conversation participants are driven to interact because they lack contextual information. Therefore, when they do not have the necessary contextual support for the topic being discussed, they instinctively reflect on their own or others’ contextual knowledge to continue the conversation.” This reflection primarily concerns each participant’s cognitive state regarding the information and their level of understanding of the shared topic. The reflection process is shaped by a balance between the original conversational force and any opposing forces within the children’s minds. The compulsory schema represents the smooth progression of information processing, while the blockage schema, counterforce schema, and diversion schema reflect the hearer’s resistance or disregard for the speaker’s information transfer during cognition. The attraction schema, on the other hand, indicates the level of children’s motivation to acquire new external information. These force-schemata highlight the process by which children acquire, store, process, and represent new information, showcasing how they use self-awareness to monitor, evaluate, and communicate contextual information—a clear demonstration of metacognitive awareness. Related research has indicated that children at the age of two and a half begin to evaluate their own speech, indicating an explicit manifestation of their metapragmatic awareness (Bates, 1976). Children beginning at the age of 3 to 4 are capable of reflecting on the limitations of their cognitive abilities (Schneider & Ornstein, 2019), yet Lipko et al. (2009) suggests that children aged 4 to 5 often overestimate their cognitive capabilities, while 5-year-olds can clearly recognize the contribution of external contextual factors to the development of cognitive abilities. All illustrates that the foundation of children’s cognitive development lies in the continuous reflection on the process of new information input. In other words, it is through ongoing reflection in the context of social interactions that children adjust their use of different force-schemata, thereby more effectively developing their cognitive and pragmatic abilities. By examining the development of children’s metapragmatic awareness through the lens of linguistic force, it becomes evident that the reflection on the information level—driven by metacognitive awareness—is the foundation for the development of metapragmatic awareness. Thus, the growth of metacognitive awareness is the starting point for the broader development of metapragmatic awareness,force-schemata are the core components of metacognitive awareness.

Moreover, regarding the correlation between different force schemata and both metapragmatic and metacognitive awareness, the removal of restraint schema is significantly correlated with metarepresentational awareness, whereas the attraction schema and diversion schema show no significant correlation with metarepresentational awareness, their nature and roles in conversational exchanges offer insights into this disconnect. According to Chen (2020), “metarepresentation refers to the ability to form psychological representations of one’s own thoughts and beliefs, and in the process of metarepresentation, it is necessary to express these thoughts and beliefs at the linguistic level.” In other words, metarepresentational awareness is primarily manifested in the listener’s capacity to reflect upon and reference the speaker’s discourse—specifically the speaker’s intentions, attitudes, and beliefs conveyed through language. It requires not only comprehension but also the cognitive ability to recognize and express a second-order mental state (e.g., “I know that you think…”), which is a cognitively demanding skill. This sophisticated level of awareness, however, is still developing in preschool children, whose understanding of the world tends to remain at the level of receiving and processing external information without deeper reflection on its mental underpinnings. As Yang (2018) pointed out, in early childhood interactions, children are more likely to repeat others’ speech directly to maintain engagement rather than offering original reflections on the speaker’s thoughts, intentions, or attitudes. Their quotations function primarily as a strategy for sustaining conversation rather than engaging in metarepresentational reflection. Given this developmental limitation, it is understandable why schemata such as attraction and diversion show no significant relationship with metarepresentational awareness. The attraction schema is largely a product of the speaker’s curiosity about external stimuli, while the diversion schema arises when the listener cannot sustain focus on the same topic. Neither schema demands the type of advanced reflection on thoughts, beliefs, or intentions that metarepresentation requires. Thus, these schemata remain peripherally connected to the cognitive processes involved in metarepresentational awareness, which is more closely aligned with mental state understanding and linguistic reflection—abilities still underdeveloped at the preschool level.

However, the removal of restraint schema suggests that the listener is unable to provide a clear response to the speaker and instead restates the content, which aligns with the operation of metarepresentational awareness. This is why these two are significantly correlated. Sperber and Wilson (1995) argue that “Information intention and communicative intention in communication involve different levels of metarepresentational ability. Communicative intention involves the listener recognizing the speaker’s information intention, which represents a higher-level intention. Even if the listener lacks the capacity to fully grasp this higher-level intention, communication can still be achieved as long as the listener can recognize the basic information intention.” This explanation clarifies that although preschool children may struggle to accurately infer communicative intentions, this does not impede their ability to express communicative tendencies effectively during interaction.

The removal of restraint schema, diversion schema, and enablement schema are not correlated with children’s metacommunicative awareness. Metacommunicative awareness requires children to monitor and adjust their language behavior based on the listener’s understanding. However, the removal of restraint, diversion and enablement schemata require advanced thinking, including flexible action adjustments and reflection. Children aged 4 to 6 are still developing cognitively, making it difficult for them to integrate these schemata with reflective communication strategies. These schemata are less frequently used in simple social interactions, such as cooperative play among preschoolers. They typically emerge in more complex or competitive environments (e.g., team competitions or conflict resolution), which are less common at this stage due to children’s limited social experience. In addition, these schemata require the ability to control emotions and manage conflicts flexibly (e.g., yielding or redirecting interactions, as seen in removal of restraint). Given that emotional regulation is still developing, young children tend to rely more on direct strategies (such as compulsion) rather than employing these on more indirect and flexible ones.

Conclusion

Children’s metapragmatic awareness is a dynamic psychological process in which they, as speakers, consciously make language choices. Essentially, the speaker’s intention acts as a psychological force that influences the listener. This study, utilizing Talmy’s force-dynamics model, analyzes preschool children’s peer communication to explore the developmental characteristics and patterns of their metapragmatic awareness. The findings indicate that the progression of children’s metapragmatic awareness is closely tied to different force schemata, with both interacting to drive the development of their pragmatic abilities.

In addition to its theoretical contributions, this research offers practical implications for educators, speech therapists, and parents. Educators can use insights from the force-dynamics model to design classroom activities that promote metapragmatic reflection, helping children better understand conversational dynamics such as turn-taking and repair strategies. For example, educators can design cooperative group games where children practice the “removal of restraint schema” by taking turns and respecting others’ opportunities to speak. In such activities, teachers can act as observers or facilitators, guiding children to reflect on how adjusting their language strategies helps avoid conflicts.

Speech therapists can apply the model to assess pragmatic impairments and develop more nuanced interventions tailored to children’s specific communication challenges. Targeted activities based on the “attraction schema” can be developed to encourage children with language delays to express curiosity by asking questions. Gradual guidance can be provided, starting with simple dyadic question-and-answer tasks and progressing toward more complex group discussions, ensuring that these skills are effectively transferred to real-life social interactions.

For parents, understanding the stages of metapragmatic awareness can aid in fostering more effective and meaningful conversations with their children, reinforcing pragmatic skills at home.

To further explore the applicability and impact of Talmy’s Force-Dynamic Model, we propose expanding its use in two key areas: across different age groups and in multilingual or cross-cultural contexts.

As children grow, their communicative strategies and cognitive abilities evolve, potentially affecting how they engage with different force-schemata. Future research could explore how adolescents and even adults apply force-schemata in their interactions, particularly as their conversations become more complex, involving subtle social cues, sarcasm, or deeper negotiation strategies. This would provide insights into the continuity of metapragmatic awareness throughout development, highlighting whether the same force-schema remain relevant or if new patterns emerge. Studying older age groups would also allow researchers to understand the interplay between increased social awareness and the development of pragmatic competence.

Communication styles vary widely across languages and cultures, with some cultures placing greater emphasis on politeness or indirectness, while others favor direct communication. Applying the Force-Dynamic Model in cross-linguistic contexts could reveal how different cultural norms influence the use of force-schemata and metapragmatic strategies. For example, a comparison between children from high-context cultures (where meaning is often implied) and low-context cultures (where explicit communication is preferred) could yield valuable insights. Additionally, examining multilingual children’s interactions could highlight how language proficiency and cultural exposure shape their pragmatic development.

In addition, in future research, we aim to broaden the sample by collecting data from children in various socio-economic settings and those speaking different languages. This will allow us to explore how cultural and linguistic diversity shapes children’s communication strategies and force-schema use. It will also provide a better understanding of how pragmatic skills develop across different contexts, thereby offering more inclusive insights applicable to a wider population.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-sgo-10.1177_21582440251344577 – Supplemental material for Investigating Preschool Children’s Metapragmatic Awareness Development Through Force-Dynamics Model

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-sgo-10.1177_21582440251344577 for Investigating Preschool Children’s Metapragmatic Awareness Development Through Force-Dynamics Model by Lulu Cheng, Xiaomeng Xue, Haoran Mao, Yang Gao, Jianxin Zhang and Yanqin Liu in SAGE Open

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-2-sgo-10.1177_21582440251344577 – Supplemental material for Investigating Preschool Children’s Metapragmatic Awareness Development Through Force-Dynamics Model

Supplemental material, sj-docx-2-sgo-10.1177_21582440251344577 for Investigating Preschool Children’s Metapragmatic Awareness Development Through Force-Dynamics Model by Lulu Cheng, Xiaomeng Xue, Haoran Mao, Yang Gao, Jianxin Zhang and Yanqin Liu in SAGE Open

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-3-sgo-10.1177_21582440251344577 – Supplemental material for Investigating Preschool Children’s Metapragmatic Awareness Development Through Force-Dynamics Model

Supplemental material, sj-docx-3-sgo-10.1177_21582440251344577 for Investigating Preschool Children’s Metapragmatic Awareness Development Through Force-Dynamics Model by Lulu Cheng, Xiaomeng Xue, Haoran Mao, Yang Gao, Jianxin Zhang and Yanqin Liu in SAGE Open

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-4-sgo-10.1177_21582440251344577 – Supplemental material for Investigating Preschool Children’s Metapragmatic Awareness Development Through Force-Dynamics Model

Supplemental material, sj-docx-4-sgo-10.1177_21582440251344577 for Investigating Preschool Children’s Metapragmatic Awareness Development Through Force-Dynamics Model by Lulu Cheng, Xiaomeng Xue, Haoran Mao, Yang Gao, Jianxin Zhang and Yanqin Liu in SAGE Open

Footnotes

The authors thank all the participants.

ORCID iDs

Lulu Cheng

Xiaomeng Xue

Haoran Mao

Ethical Considerations

The studies involving human participants were reviewed and approved by Ethics Committee,School of Foreign Languages,China University of Petroleum (East China). The participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study. Written informed consent was obtained from the parents/guardians of participants for the publication of any potentially identifiable images or data included in this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research,authorship,and/or publication of this article: This research was funded by Taishan Scholars Project Special Fund [grant number: NO.tsqn202306134];Social Science Planning Research Project of Shandong Province (Title: A Study on Family Language Planning for Children with Delayed language development in Shandong Province) [grant number: No.23CRWJ20];Philosophy and Social Science Planning Project of Heilongjiang Province(Title: A Study of Meta-Pragmatic Awareness Based on Conversational Analysis of Children’s Pragmatic Disorders) [grant number: 21YYE420];Shanghai International Studies University Major University-Level Project(Title: Research on the Collaborative Development of Foreign Language Learning and Cognitive Abilities in Chinese Primary,Secondary,and Tertiary Students) [grant number: 2023114001].

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,authorship,and/or publication of this article.

Data Availability Statement

The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are not publicly available due to participant privacy protection under CHILDES data-sharing agreements but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

References

Bates

(1976). Language and Context: The acquisition of Pragmatics. Academic Press.

Blank

Franklin

(1980). Dialogue with preschoolers: A cognitively-based system of assessment. Applied Psycholinguistics, 1(02), 127–150. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716400000801

Blum-Kulka

(2004). The role of Peer Interaction in later pragmatic development. In Berman

R. A.

(Ed.), Language development across childhood and adolescence (pp.191–210). John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Bronfenbrenner

(1979). The Ecology of Human Development: Experiments by nature and Design. Harvard University Press.

Cheng

Gao

Mao

Peng

(2024). Metapragmatic awareness development in Chinese children: A conversational competence perspective. Journal of Pragmatics, 231, 47–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2024.07.013

Cheng

L. L.

(2021). An empirical study of Perlocutionary Act in preschool children’s Pragmatic Development. China Social Sciences Press.

Cheng

L. L.

Shang

X. M.

(2017). A pragmatic study on the force of children’s pragmatic development–From the perspective of cognitive linguistics. Academic Exchange, 33(05), 163–167.

Chen

X. R.

(2020). A new taxonomy of metadiscourse based on metapragmatics. Foreign Languages and Their Teaching, 37(04), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.13458/j.cnki.flatt.004692

Cohen

(1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Routledge.

10.

Collins

H. K.

(2024). From conversation to connection: The pragmatics of conversational listening [Dissertation, Harvard University Graduate School of Arts and Sciences].

11.

Culpeper

Haugh

(2014). Pragmatics and the English language. Bloomsbury Publishing.

12.

Duan

(2011). A cognitive linguistic study on the force of Speech Acts. Southwest University Dissertation.

13.

Evans

Green

(2006). Cognitive Linguistics. An Introduction. Edinburgh University Press Ltd.

14.

Goffman

Verhoeff

Belzer

(1964). Use of meta-language in information retrieval systems. American Documentation, 15(1), 14–22. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.5090150105

15.

Haugh

(2008). Intention in pragmatics. Intercultural Pragmatics, 5(2), 99–110. https://doi.org/10.1515/IP.2008.006

16.

K. Z.

(2005). Research on the structure, developmental characteristic and influencing factors of curiosity for 3 to 6 years old children [Dissertation, Liaoning Normal University].

17.

Jiang

G. Y.

Sun

S. W.

(2018). A cognitive study on perlocutionary act and perlocutionary effect in speech acts. Foreign Language Research, 5(05), 35–39. https://doi.org/10.16263/j.cnki.23-1071/h.2018.05.007

18.

Jiang

(2021). A metapragmatic perspective on the expression and inference of the speaker’s intention. Journal of Liaoning Normal University (Social Science Edition), 44(03), 41–47. https://doi.org/10.16216/j.cnki.lsxbwk.202103041

19.

Johnson

(1987). The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. University of Chicago Press.

20.

Kaleta

(2020). Conceptualizing Modality: A Case Study of Polish Modal Verbs. In: Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk

(eds) Cultural Conceptualizations in Language and Communication. Second Language Learning and Teaching (pp. 275–292). Springer, Cham.

21.

Kecskes

(2010). Situation-bound utterances as pragmatic acts. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(11), 2889–2897. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.06.008

22.

Keenan

E. O.

(1974). Conversational competence in children. Journal of Child Language, 1(2), 163–183. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000900000623

23.

Kimmel

(2011). From text-linguistics to literary actants—The force dynamics of (emotional) vampirism. Language and Cognition, 3(2), 235–282. https://doi.org/10.1515/LANGCOG.2011.009

24.

Lakoff

(2005). Cognitive linguistics: What it means and where it is going. Journal of Foreign Languages, 28(2), 2–22.

25.

Landis

J. R.

Koch

G. G.

(1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159–174. https://doi.org/10.2307/2529310

26.

Lin

C. D.

(Ed.). (2018). Developmental psychology (3rd ed.). People’s Education Press.

27.

Lipko

A. R.

Dunlosky

Merriman

W. E.

(2009). Persistent overconfidence despite practice: The role of task experience in preschoolers’ recall predictions. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 103(2), 152–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2008.10.002

28.

Marmaridou

(2000). Pragmatic meaning and cognition. John Benjamins Publishing Company.

29.

Mei

H. X.

(2021). A study of English modal verbs in the novel hills like white elephants from the perspective of force dynamics. Yangtze University Disseration.

30.

Morek

(2014). Constructing social and communicative worlds-the role of peer-interactions in preadolescents’ discursive development. Learning Culture and Social Interaction, 3(2), 121–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2014.02.005

31.

Ninio

Snow

C. E.

(1996). Pragmatic development. Routledge.

32.

Piaget

Inhelder

(1969). The psychology of the child. Basic Books.

33.

Schneider

Ornstein

P. A.

(2019). Determinants of memory development in childhood and adolescence. International Journal of Psychology, 54(03), 307–315. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijop.12503

34.

Shatz

Ochs

Schieffelin

B. B.

(1981). Developmental pragmatics. Language, 57(2), 479. https://doi.org/10.2307/413708

35.

Sperber

Wilson

(1995). Relevance: Communication and cognition (2nd ed.). Blackwell.

36.

Talmy

(2000). Toward a cognitive semantics. MIT press.

37.

Tomasello

(2019). Becoming human: A theory of ontogeny. The Belknap Press.

38.

Verschueren

(1999). Understanding pragmatics. Cambridge University.

39.

Vygotsky

L. S.

(1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.

40.

Wolff

(2007). Representing causation. Journal of Experimental Psychology General, 136(1), 82–111. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.136.1.82

41.

Yang

X. L.

(2018). Peer interactive language in role play situation with children from 4 to 6 years old [Dissertation, East China Normal University]. https://childes.talkbank.org/

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.34 MB

0.23 MB

0.08 MB

0.48 MB