Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-04T09:05:23.654Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Opposites attract: the role of predicate dimensionality in preschool children's processing of negations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2003

BRADLEY J. MORRIS
Affiliation:
Grand Valley State University

Abstract

Three experiments investigated the role of oppositional predicate dimensionality in four- and five-year-old children's processing of negation. In Experiment 1 children (37 four-year-olds, mean age 4;8, and 20 five-year-olds, mean age 5;9) were asked to produce opposites for common terms (e.g. ‘big’). In Experiment 2 children (27 four-year-olds, mean age 4;8; 23 five-year-olds, mean age 5;9) were asked to make pictures corresponding to statements phrased as negations (e.g. The arrow is NOT pointing up). In Experiment 3, children were asked to evaluate a series of pictures made by ‘another child’ using materials and procedures similar to those used in Experiment 2. Preschool children made use of predicate dimensionality when producing negations but could accurately evaluate truth-values regardless of content. Children often recalled negated items as affirmations (usually corresponding to antipodal opposites), which suggests that children's use of predicate dimensionality contributes to non-classical processing.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
2003 Cambridge University Press

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 a postdoctoral fellowship to the author from NICHD (HD08550). These data were collected when the author was at Carnegie Mellon University. The author thanks Jolene Watson for data collection and coding and Amy Masnick, Jen Schnakenberg, Lisa Gershkoff-Stowe, David Rakison, Corrinne Zimmerman, and three anonymous reviewers for suggestions on a previous draft.