Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T06:04:33.083Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Non-linguistic responses to verbal instructions*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 September 2008

Mark E. Bernstein
Mark E. Bernstein
Affiliation:
University of Texas at Austin
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Children's responses to verbal instructions to place objects in, on, or under other objects were examined according to the paradigm developed by Clark (1973). In the present study, however, all objects were unfamiliar to the children, and were completely neutral and context-free. An additional task assessed children's comprehension of the spatial terms by asking them simply to point to objects in particular relationships without actually manipulating them. The results supported Clark's hypothesis of the influence of non-linguistic strategies on younger children's responses, in contradistinction to other studies critical of Clark's findings. However, when not required to manipulate the objects, children indicated greater comprehension than otherwise expected. The results are discussed in relation to the influence of task context on comprehension studies of this type.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 11 , Issue 2 , June 1984 , pp. 293 - 311
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1984

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 from the Bureau of Education of the Handicapped, Office of Education, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (GOO 7803012, 1979), to Paula Menyuk and the author while at Boston University. An early version of this paper was presented at the Fourth Annual Boston University Conference of Language Development, 1979. Many thanks to Anne van Kleeck for her helpful comments during the revision of this manuscript. Address for correspondence: Department of Speech Communication, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas 78712, U.S.A.

References

REFERENCES

Bernstein, M. (in prep.). Iconicity and the acquisition of locative predicates in American Sign Language.Google Scholar
Bortner, M. & Birch, H. (1970). Cognitive capacity and cognitive competence. American Journal of Mental Deficiency 74. 735–44.Google ScholarPubMed
Brown, R. (1973). A first language. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, E. V. (1973). Non-linguistic strategies and the acquisition of word meanings. Cognition 2. 161–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, E. V. (1980). Here's the top: nonlinguistic strategies in the acquisition of orientational terms. ChDev 51. 329–38.Google Scholar
Cook, N. (1977). ‘In’, ‘on’, ‘under’ revisited again. Paper presented at the Tenth Child Language Research Forum,Stanford University.Google Scholar
Freeman, N. H., Lloyd, S. & Sinha, C. G. (1980). Infant search tasks reveal early concepts of containment and canonical usage of objects. Cognition 8. 243–62.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hoogenraad, R., Grieve, R., Baldwin, P. & Campbell, R. (1978). Comprehension as an interactive process. In Campbell, R. (ed.), Recent advances in the psychology of language. New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
Walkerdine, V. & Sinha, C. G. (1978). The internal triangle: language, reasoning, and the social context. In Markova, I. (ed.), The social context of language. London: Wiley.Google Scholar
Wilcox, S. & Palermo, D. (1975). ‘In’, ‘on’, and ‘under’ revisited. Cognition 3. 255–87.Google Scholar