Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-p2v8j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-01T06:44:23.017Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Children's reproductions: effects of event order and implied vs. directly stated causation*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 September 2008

M. J. Homzie  and
Carol B. Gravitt
M. J. Homzie
Affiliation:
University of Virginia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The utterance The man fell down because he slipped on a banana peel is a verbal statement in which causation is stated directly, and the major events are not reported in the perceptual order of occurrence. Surprisingly, in retelling 20 ‘stories’, 23 nursery-school children often refused to produce sentences in which causation was stated directly, but readily retold causationimplied utterances; performance was worst for unrelated (control) stories. Moreover, backward temporal order hurt performance only when causation was stated directly. Except for this latter condition, memory was best for the first half of the stories regardless of the temporal arrangement of the clauses. Finally, the majority of the story events were reproduced in the linguistic order in which they had been originally presented.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 4 , Issue 2 , June 1977 , pp. 237 - 246
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1977

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.)

Footnotes

[*]

Appreciation is expressed to L. Starling Reid for his thoughtful comments and to C. Rojko and D. Bodsford for their assistance in the conduct of the study. Requests for reprints should be sent to the first author at 102 Gilmer Hall, Department of Psychology, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia 22901.

References

REFERENCES

Bever, T. G. (1971). The comprehension and memory of sentences with temporal relations. In d'Arcais, G. B. Flores & Levelt, W. J. M.(eds), Advances in psycholinguistics. New York: American Elsevier.Google Scholar
Bransford, J. D. & McCarrell, N. S. (1974). A sketch of a cognitive approach to comprehension: some thoughts about understanding what it means to comprehend. In Weimer, W. B. & Palermo, D. S. (eds), Cognition and the symbolic processes. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Clark, E. V. (1971). How young children describe events in time. In d'Arcais, G. B. Flores & Levelt, W. J. M. (eds), Advances in psycholinguistics. New York: American Elsevier.Google Scholar
Clark, H. H. & Clark, E. V. (1968). Semantic distinctions and memory for complex sentences. QJExpPsych 20. 129–38.Google Scholar
Ferreiro, E. & Sinclair, H. (1971). Temporal relationships in language. IJPsych 6. 39–47.Google Scholar
Fraisse, P. (1963). The psychology of time. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Kate, E. W. & Brent, S. B. (1968). Understanding connectives. JVLVB 7. 501–9.Google Scholar
Opačić, G. (1973). Natural order in cognizing and clause order in the sentencing of conjoined expressions. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.Google Scholar
Piaget, J. (1960). The child's conception of physical causality. Totowa, N.J.: Littlefield, Adams & Co.Google Scholar
Smith, K. H. & McMahon, L. E. (1971). Understanding order information in sentences: some recent work at Bell Laboratories. In d'Arcais, G. B. Flores & Levelt, W. J. M. (eds), Advances in psycholinguistics. New York: American Elsevier.Google Scholar
Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T..Google Scholar