Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T11:27:48.640Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Children's metaphoric productions and preferences[*]

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 September 2008

Howard Gardner ,
Mary Kircher ,
Ellen Winner  and
David Perkins
Howard Gardner
Affiliation:
Harvard Project Zero and Aphasia Research Center, Boston Veterans' Administration Hospital
Mary Kircher
Affiliation:
Harvard Project Zero and Aphasia Research Center, Boston Veterans' Administration Hospital
Ellen Winner
Affiliation:
Harvard Project Zero and Aphasia Research Center, Boston Veterans' Administration Hospital
David Perkins
Affiliation:
Harvard Project Zero and Aphasia Research Center, Boston Veterans' Administration Hospital
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The capacity to perceive similarity between apparently dissimilar domains is widely regarded as crucial to creative thought; yet little is known about the development of this ‘metaphoric’ skill. To assess children's capacities to effect appropriate ‘metaphoric links’, and to discriminate among metaphors of varying appropriateness, a task probing verbal metaphoric skill was designed. Subjects ranging in age from 4 to 19 years were required to complete a simile and then to choose from a set of four similes the one most appropriate for a given literary context. The study documented a tendency, increasing with age, towards preference for an appropriate metaphor. Whereas primary school children preferred non-metaphoric endings and preadolescents favoured conventional metaphors, high school and college students showed significant appreciation of appropriate metaphors. In contrast, conventional metaphors predominated in the subjects' productions and appropriate metaphors were rarely produced by subjects of any age group. Unexpectedly, the highest percentages of appropriate metaphors were produced by the youngest subjects and the oldest subjects. Where these two groups differed was in the proclivity of young subjects to produce metaphors which were highly original but inappropriate or nonsensical. The various strategies used by subjects of different ages are described and the relations between metaphoric productions and preferences are considered.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 2 , Issue 1 , April 1975 , pp. 125 - 141
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1975

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.)

References

REFERENCES

Asch, S. & Nerlove, H. (1960). The development of double function terms in children: an exploratory study. In Kaplan, B. & Wapner, S. (eds), Perspectives in psychological theory. New York: International Universities Press.Google Scholar
Berlyne, D. (1971). Aesthetics and psychobiology. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar
Bruner, J. S. (1962). On knowing: essays for the left hand. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Carlson, P. & Anisfeld, M. (1969). Some observations on the linguistic competence of a two-year old child. ChD 40. 565–75.Google Scholar
Child, I. (1969). Esthetics. In Lindzey, G. & Aronson, E. (eds), Handbook of social psychology. Vol. 3. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Chukovsky, K. (1968). From two to five. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Gardner, H. (1973). The arts and human development. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Gardner, H. (1974). Metaphors and modalities: how children project polar adjectives onto diverse domains. ChD 45. 84–91.Google Scholar
Getzels, J. & Jackson, P. (1962). Creativity and intelligence: exploration with gifted students. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Ghiselin, B. (ed.) (1955) The creative process. New York: Mentor.Google Scholar
Gombrich, E. H. (1960). Art and illusion. New York: Pantheon.Google Scholar
Gordon, W. J. J. (1961). Synectics. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Guilford, J. P. (1959). Traits of creativity. In Anderson, H. H. (ed.), Creativity and its cultivation. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Kagan, J. & Lewis, M. (1965). Studies of attention in the human infant. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly II. 95–127.Google Scholar
Koestler, A. (1964). The act of creation. London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
McGhee, P. (1971). Cognitive development and children's comprehension of humor. ChD 42. 123–38.Google Scholar
Munsinger, H. & Kessen, W. (1964). Uncertainty, structure, and preference. PsychMonogs 78. No. 586.Google Scholar
Wallach, M. & Kogan, N. (1965). Modes of thinking in young children. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Weir, R. (1962). Language in the crib. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Zigler, E., Levine, J. & Gould, L. (1966). Cognitive processes in the development of children's appreciation of humor. ChD 37. 507–18.Google ScholarPubMed