Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-29T02:35:19.452Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The early acquisition of spatial adjectives: a cross-linguistic study*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 September 2008

Paul L. Harris ,
Jeremy E. Morris  and
Mark Meerum Terwogt
Paul L. Harris
Affiliation:
University of Oxford
Jeremy E. Morris
Affiliation:
University of Oxford
Mark Meerum Terwogt
Affiliation:
Free University, Amsterdam
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In two experiments, the early acquisition of spatial adjectives is examined. In Experiment 1, 3- to 4-year-old and 4- to 5-year-old English children were tested for their comprehension of big, tall and long. In general, comprehension of all three adjectives improved with age, but in confirmation of Maratsos (1973) there was a sharp increase with age in one particular type of error: when asked to select the bigger of two objects, older children frequently chose the taller but smaller member of the pair. Further analysis showed that those older children who understood the word tall were especially likely to make this error. In Experiment 2, Dutch children of the same age were tested for their comprehension of groot (meaning ‘big’) and lang (meaning both ‘tall’ and ‘long’). Dutch children were also prone to choose the taller of two objects when asked to point to the bigger one, although Dutch does not possess a spatial adjective such as tall that refers exclusively to the vertical dimension. The implications of the findings for the acquisition of spatial adjectives, and for theories of semantic development are discussed.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 13 , Issue 2 , June 1986 , pp. 335 - 352
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1986

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

Bierwisch, M. (1967). Some semantic universals of German adjectivals. FL 3. 1–36.Google Scholar
Clark, E. V. (1973). What's in a word? On the child's acquisition of semantics in his first language. In Moore, T. E. (ed.), Cognitive development and the acquisition of language. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Clark, E. V. (1983). Meanings and concepts. In Flavell, J. H. & Markman, E. M. (eds), Handbook of Child Psychology, Vol. 3. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Carey, S. (1982). Semantic development: the state of the art. In Wanner, E. & Gleitman, L. R. (eds), Language acquisition: the state of the art. Cambridge: C.U.P.Google Scholar
Gathercole, V. C. (1982). Decrements in children's responses to big and tall: a reconsideration of the potential cognitive and semantic causes. JExpChPsych 34. 156–73.Google Scholar
Harris, P. L. & Folch, L. (1985). Decrement in the understanding of big among English- and Spanish-speaking children. JChLang 12. 685–90.Google Scholar
Harris, P. L., Mapstone, E. & Lambert, R. (1984). Misunderstanding of big and little by young children. Unpublished manuscript, Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford.Google Scholar
Kirk, R. E. (1968). Experimental design: procedures for the behavioral sciences. Brooks: Cole.Google Scholar
Lumsden, E. A. & Poteat, B. (1968). The salience of the vertical dimension in the concept of ‘bigger’ in five- and six-year-old children. JVLVB 7. 404–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maratsos, M. P. (1973). Decrease in the understanding of the word ‘big’ in preschool children. ChDev 44. 747–52.Google Scholar
Maratsos, M. P. (1974). When is a high thing the big one? DevPsych 10. 367–75.Google Scholar
Ravn, K. E. & Gelman, S. A. (1984). Rule usage in children's understanding of ‘big’ and ‘little’. ChDev 55. 2141–50.Google Scholar
Richards, M. M. (1979). Sorting out what's in a word from what's not: evaluating Clark's semantic features acquisition theory. jfExpChPsych 27. 1–47.Google Scholar