Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c47g7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-17T08:54:17.359Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The development of hypothetical reference in the speech of young children*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 September 2008

Stan A. Kuczaj II  and
Mary J. Daly
Stan A. Kuczaj II
Affiliation:
Southern Methodist University
Mary J. Daly
Affiliation:
Southern Methodist University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The data obtained in two investigations (one a longitudinal/cross-sectional naturalistic study, the other a quasi-experimental study) demonstrate that preschool age children have the capacity for hypothetical reference. However, the data also indicate that this capacity for hypothetical reference operates within certain constraints, particularly early in the preschool years. Specifically, future hypothetical reference is an earlier acquisition than past hypothetical reference; reference to single hypothetical events appears sometime prior to reference to sequences of hypothetical events; and accuracy is better in self-initiated than other-initiated hypothetical reference. The implications of these findings are discussed.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 6 , Issue 3 , October 1979 , pp. 563 - 579
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1979

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

[*]

We would like to thank Becky Englehorn and Meg Mullins for their assistance in collecting and scoring the data reported in Study 2. Address for correspondence: Department of Psychology, Southern Methodist University, Dallas, Texas 75275.

References

REFERENCES

Amidon, A. (1976). Children's understanding of sentences with contingent relations: why are temporal and conditional connectives so difficult? JExpChPsych 22. 423–37.Google Scholar
Bates, E. (1976). Language and context: the acquisition of pragmatics. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Cassirer, E. (1955). The philosophy of symbolic forms, Vol. I. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Clark, E. (1973). How children describe time and order. In Ferguson, C. & Slobin, D. (eds), Studies of child language development. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Corrigan, R. (1975). A scalogram analysis of the development of the use and comprehension of ‘because’ in children. ChDev 46. 195–201.Google Scholar
Cromer, R. (1968). The development of temporal reference during the acquisition of language. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Harvard University.Google Scholar
Cromer, R. (1971) The development of the ability to decenter in time. BJPsych 62. 353–65.Google ScholarPubMed
Cromer, R. (1974). The development of language and cognition: the cognition hypothesis. In Foss, B. (ed.), New perspectives in child development. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
Donaldson, M. (1963). A study of children's thinking. London: Tavistock.Google Scholar
Ferriero, E. & Sinclair, H. (1971). Temporal relationships in language. IJPsych 6. 39–47.Google Scholar
Flavell, J. (1963). The developmental psychology of Jean Piaget. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flavell, J. (1977). Cognitive development. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Hill, S. (1961). A study of the logical abilities of children. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Kuczaj, S. (1977). Old and new forms, old and new meanings: the form-function hypotheses revisited. Paper presented at the Biennial Meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development,New Orleans, March.Google Scholar
Kuczaj, S. (in prep.). The development of temporal reference skills.Google Scholar
Kuczaj, S. & Maratsos, M. (in prep.). The development of the English auxiliary system.Google Scholar
Meyer, J. (1977). The development of contrary-to-fact reasoning. Paper presented at the Biennial Meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development,New Orleans, March.Google Scholar
O'Brien, T. & Shapiro, B. (1968). The development of logical thinking in children. AmEdResJ 5. 531–42.Google Scholar
Paris, S. (1975). Propositional logical thinking and comprehension of language connectives. The Hague: MoutonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piaget, J. (1955). The language and thought of the child. New York: Meridian.Google Scholar
Piaget, J. (1969). The child's conception of time. New York: Ballantine.Google Scholar
Roberge, J. & Paulus, D. (1971). Developmental patterns for children's class and conditional reasoning abilities. DevPsych 4. 191–200.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. (1966). The acquisition of Russian as a native language. In Smith, F. & Miller, G. (eds), The genesis of language: a psycholinguistic approach. Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. (1971). Psycholinguistics. Glenview, Ill.: Scott, Foresman.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. (1973). Cognitive prerequisites for the development of grammar. In Ferguson, C. & Slobin, D. (eds), Studies of child language development. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Werner, H. & Kaplan, B. (1963). Symbol formation. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar