Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-b6zl4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-11T15:48:07.755Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Contextual information and temporal terms*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 February 2009

Paul Gorrell ,
Stephen Crain  and
Janet Dean Fodor
Paul Gorrell*
Affiliation:
University of Maryland
Stephen Crain
Affiliation:
University of Connecticut
Janet Dean Fodor
Affiliation:
City University of New York
*
Linguistics Program, Mill Building, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742, USA.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We report an experiment designed to identify how contextual information can influence children's performance on an experimental task involving temporal terms. Grain (1982) reported improved performance on a comprehension task when subjects were provided with contextual information, and he suggested that the improvement was due to satisfaction of presuppositions. However, this contextual information might have served to simplify task demands by providing prior information concerning an important aspect of the task. The present study distinguishes these factors by incorporating contextual information into the subordinate clause of the test sentences in a comprehension experiment (to satisfy presupposions) or into the main clause (to provide comparable prior information without satisfying presuppositions). We conclude that contextual information results in a significant improvement only when such information can be used to satisfy presuppositions.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 16 , Issue 3 , October 1989 , pp. 623 - 632
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1989

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 work was supported, in part, by NSF Grant BNS 84–18537. We would like to thank Cecile McKee for help with the design and implementation of the experiments. An earlier version of this paper was presented at the 1986 Boston University Conference on Language Development.

References

REFERENCES

Amidon, A. & Carey, P. (1972). Why five-year-olds cannot understand before and after. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 11. 417–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, E. V. (1971). On the acquisition of the meaning of before and after. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 10. 266–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crain, S. (1982). Temporal terms: mastery by age five. In Papers and Reports on Child Language Development 21. 33–8.Google Scholar
Hamburger, H. & Crain, S. (1982). Relative acquisition. In Kuczaj, S. (ed.), Language development: syntax and semantics. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Johnson, H. (1975). The meaning of before and after for preschool children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 19. 88–99.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smith, K. & McMahon, L. (1970). Understanding order information in sentences: some recent work at Bell Laboratories. In Flores d'Arcais, G. B. & Levelt, W. J. M. (Eds), Advances in psycholinguistics. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Stevenson, R. J. & Pollitt, C. (1987). The acquisition of temporal terms. Journal of Child Language 14. 533–45.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tavakolian, S. L. (1981). The conjoined-clause analysis of relative clauses. In Tavakolian, S. L. (ed.), Language acquisition and linguistic theory. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press.Google Scholar