Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-06T10:40:59.271Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Resolving apparent contradictions: adults' and preschoolers' ability to cope with non-classical negation*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 September 2008

Dean Sharpe ,
Laurel Eakin ,
Carina Saragovi  and
John Macnamara
Dean Sharpe*
Affiliation:
McGill University
Laurel Eakin
Affiliation:
McGill University
Carina Saragovi
Affiliation:
McGill University
John Macnamara
Affiliation:
McGill University
*
Department of Psychology, McGill University, 1205 Dr Penfield Avenue, Montreal, QC, H3A 1B1, Canada. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

If the logic of natural language negation were classical – a simple matter of true and false – then it would be a disaster to answer a question like Is this essay good? with Yes and no. The overwhelming majority of adults (N = 40) asked to resolve this apparent contradiction were found to do so by appealing to the structure of the essay (e.g. Its thesis was good but its argument was not). Three-year-olds (N = 24), when suitably prepared, also appealed to object structure to resolve a similar apparent contradiction. These results are discussed in relation to a non-classical logical model that can handle object structure.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 23 , Issue 3 , October 1996 , pp. 675 - 691
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1996

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

[*]

This research was supported by a grant to John Macnamara from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada and by a grant to John Macnamara and Gonzalo Reyes from Quebec's Fonds pour la Formation de Chercheurs et l'Aide à la Recherche. Portions of this paper were presented at the Twentieth Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, Boston, November, 1995. We would like to thank two anonymous referees for invaluable comments on an earlier draft of this paper. We would also like to thank the staff, parents and children of the following day care centres in the Montreal area: Royal Victoria Hospital, Montreal General Hospital, McGill University and Miss Vicky's.

References

REFERENCES

Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Englebretsen, G. (1976). The square of opposition. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 17, 531–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grice, H. (1975). Logic and conversation. In Cole, P. & Morgan, J. (eds), Syntax and semantics III. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Haack, S. (1974). Deviant logic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Horn, L. (1989). A natural history of negation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hummer, P., Wimmer, H. & Antes, G. (1993). On the origins of denial negation. Journal of Child Language 20, 607–18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Landman, F. & Veltman, F. (1984). Varieties of formal semantics. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.Google Scholar
La Palme Reyes, M., Macnamara, J., Reyes, G. & Zolfaghari, H. (1994). The non-Boolean logic of natural language negation. Philosophia Mathematica 3, 45–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacDonald, M. & Just, M. (1989). Changes in activation levels with negation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 15, 633–42.Google ScholarPubMed
Miller, G. & Fellbaum, C. (1991). Semantic networks of English. Cognition 41, 197–229.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Oaksford, M. & Chater, N. (1994). A rational analysis of the selection task as optimal data selection. Psychological Review 101, 608–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oaksford, M. & Stenning, K. (1992). Reasoning with conditionals containing negated constituents. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 18, 835–54.Google ScholarPubMed
Pea, R. (1982). Origins of verbal logic: spontaneous denials by two- and three-year olds. Journal of Child Language 9, 597–626.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rumain, B. (1988). Syntactics of interpretation of negation: a developmental study. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 45, 119–140.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sommers, F. (1963). Types and ontology. Philosophical Review 72, 327–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strawson, P. (1952). Introduction to logical theory. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. (1983). Extensional versus intuitive reasoning: the conjunction fallacy in probability judgement. Psychological Review 90, 293–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar