Origins of Verbal Logic
. '.
ORIGINS'OF VERBAL LOGIC:
Abstract
SPONTANEOUS DENIALS BY TWO-AND THREE-YEAR OLDS
'Children two to three years of age can spontaneously correct false statements and affirm true ones in a modified sentence verification paradigm.
Such performances imply that very young children display knowledge of the
rules of correspondence between language and reality (truth conditions)
Roy D. Pea*
Clark University
Heinz Werner Institute of Developmental psychology
(To appear in Journal of Child Language, 1982)
Running head: Origins of Verbal Logic
Proofs should be sent to: Roy D. Pea, Hcinz Wcrner Institute of Developmental
Psychology, Clark University, Worcester, MA 01610 USA
*This work derives from part of an unpublished doctoral dissertation,
University of Oxford, Enqlnnd. I cspcciolly thank Jcrim- S . Ilruncr, Jolm
Churcher, Michael Scaife, Susan Sugarman, and Cathi Urwin for advice and
encouragement during the project, Kristine MacKain and Susan Sugarman for
criticisms of an early version of this paper, and 'he childrcn and mothers
who patiently participated in the study. The rcsenrch wds supported by
The Rhodes Trust, Oxford, and the writing by NIMH Trainecship #15125.
Reprint requests should be sent to: Roy D. Pea, Clark University, Heinz
OlGlO U.S.A.
werner Institute o f Wvelopmental
which are central to propositional logic, at an age when logical development in cognition has not been previously acknowledged.
a
Origins of Verbal Logic
Origins of Verbal Logic
2
1
Early Logical Competence in children's Language Use
To determine what it is that happens-in ,the case of
assent or dissent besides putting two ideas together
is one of the most intricate of metaphysical problems.
J.S. Mill (1843)
I
concrete operational intelligence, which "leads to knowlcdqo as such and
therefore yields to norms of truth" (Piaget, 1954:405), sometime around
seven years of age (Piaget
&
Inhelder, 1969).
child language cognition is suggested here:
An'a1;krnative view of
children's corrections of
false statements indicate that they have available in memory information
about language-referent relations which consists of not only affirmative
1
specificatlons, such as the rule that "ball" is applicable to balls, but
Young children seem to use the words "no" and "not" to deny false
of negative specifications, such as thc rule that "ball" 1s not applicable
statements in conversations (Bellugi, 19677 Bloom, 1970; Leopold, 1949;
to cars. The mental registry of such affirmative and negatrve spc)cifica-
Pea, 1980).
For example, a child of two years may respond "it's not" to
Such observations suggest that young
a parent's calling a truck a car.
children arc able to use language to m k e mctalinguistic commcnts nbout
another person's language use.
I> such observations are more characteris-
tions concerning language-referent relations is tantamounL to knowlcdqc
of
language-qua-object in terms of truth-conditions. Just as ~mportantly, such
knowledge is fundamental to deductive inference and the basic building block
of logic: "Perhaps the simplest possible deduction is negatron: if the
tic than anecdotal, they tell us something of considerable importance about
negation of a proposition is true, then that proposition 1s false" (Johnson-
early language cognition, because the use of negation to deny false State-
Laird
ments is an important verbal index of the origins of logical abilities.
&
Wason, 1977:77).
The purpose of this paper is to investigate in an expcrlmental setting
~ p c i f i c a i l ~since
,
the proposition "this is a car" is true if and only if
the claim that young children have some knowledge of such formal conditions
the indicated referent is a car, and false if it is not (excluding meta-
of language.
phorical uses of the term), the child's use of negation to deny false
digm (e.g., Chase
statements reveals that she knows, in some sense, the rules or truth-condi-
young children's experience with language in conversations, Tho principle
tions for the proposition "this is a car."
data are children's spontaneous replies, without instructions, to indexical
Though such early logical uses of negation may not surprise observant
parents, they are at odds with accounts of early child cognition. Piagct
(1962), for example, describes language use during the period from eighteen
month. to (at loast) four years of age as "prcconccptual," and "aiming at
success and not at tmth" (PFaget, 1954t406).
. On
this theory, children's
truth-functional use of negation should not appear until the period of
I
' 1
i
"'
The study is a modification of the sentence-verification para&
Clark, 1972) in order to bring the mcthod closer to
statements about the names and properties of objects and actions which are
presented to the child.
In the late 1960's and throughout the 19701s, a great dcal of effort
was directed towards explaining thc asymmetry in difficulty bctwcon
Origins of Verhrl Logic
Origins of Verbal Logic
3
affirmative and negative sentences with the same truth values.
4
Truth made
Wason's prediction was confirmed,and the effect of pragmatic factors on
affirmative sentences easier to verify, but negatives more difficult1 (e.g.,
negation thus demonstrated.
Wason, 1961).
that negatives are simpler to process whcn they a;e
Wason (1965, 1972) proposed that sdmetihng more than either
syntax or semantics was needed to account for the interaction between truth
value and negation.
This factor was the actual
use of negation in
its normal
Related studic,; by Grcene (1'37Dn, b) indic~ltod
natural function of signalling a change of meaning.
k e d to perform their
2
Donaldson (1970) presented a task similar to Wason's (1965) to fivo
context of denying some proposition which the speaker and listener mutually
to six year-olds by varying the plausibility of denial.
believe (also cf. Givon, 1975).
ference from Wason's paradigm was Donaldson's use of six rather than eight
Wason (1965) dramatically demonstrated the workings of this hypothe-
The principle dif-
circles in the stimli, but her subjects did not, unlike the adults, find it
sized praqnutic factor in an experiment where ha provided contcxts of either
easier to complete sentences in the plausible than the implausible contexts.
"plausible" or "implausible" denial.
For these children, the two contexts were equally difficult, and they com-
Plausible denials should facilitate
negative sentence comprehension. Wason's "exceptionality hypothesis" incor-
pleted the negative sentence incorrectly 65% of the time for both conditions.
porated these notions:
It would be incorrect, however, to conclude that five and six year-olds
Given a set of similar stimuli, xl, xZ,.
do not recognize the pragmatic conditions of negation. Using a clever varia-
. .xn, and a
stimulus, y, which is perceived to differ from these
tion in method, de Villiers
&
Flusberg
'
that two-and-a-half to four-year-old children are sensitive to the plausible
contexts of denial.
assert that y is not x than to assert that xi is not
Reasoning that children dld not find color an important
attribute in Donaldson's study, they varied their stimulus classes along
y (Wason, 1965:8).
!
easily-named class dimensions.
Wason's subjects in this study were shown a series of cards on which
eight numbered circles appeared, one of a different color than the othor
Their task was to complete sentences of the form "Circle # 3 is.
or "Circle X3 is not.
. ."
. ." by hitting one of two color-coded keys connected
to a timer. In terms of Wason's hypothesis, the difference between RTs to
negative (N) and affirmative
(1975) experimentally demonstrated
'
in one important attribute, it is more plausible to
seven.
L
(A)
sentences regarding the odd-colored or
diesidlar (0) circle should be less than the difference in RTs to
eentancem about similarly-colored
(S)
circles:
(DN
- DA)
<
ISN
A
and N
- SA).
A
cats and a duck, all toy objects.
typical stimulus set was made up of seven
The exceptionality hypothesis predicted
that the children would find it easier to complete the statement "This is
not a.
.
.?"
when the duck (dissimilar item) was indicated than the same
treatment whan one of the cats (majority item) was indicated.
De Villiers
&
Flusberg
(1975) found that three-and-a-half and four-
and-a-half year-old subjects, like Wason's adults, took significantly
longer to complete the implausible than the plausible negativo sentences.
Origins of Verbal Logic
Origins of Verbal Logic
5
Implausible negative sentences were also the source of m r e errors than the
plausible negatives.
I
Of the 13 two-and-a-half year olds tested, only eight
I
I
made many mistakes in describing situations the child and panda could both
see.
mnaldson and colleagues then trained the children to press a bell
r
I.
completed negative sentences at all. The responses' oi'those who did carry
when the panda said something "correct" and to press a buzzer when he said
out the task resulted in differences between the two types of negative sen-
something "wrong."
tences which were in the same direction as those of the older children,
as three-and-a-half years-old could signal the truth or falsity of affirma-
but nonsignificant. Error Data for the two-and-a-half year-olds indicated
tive statements by noting a mismatch between a statement and the situation
that plausible negatives were understood before implausible negatives, with
it described.
With this method, they established that children as young
b
36% errors for implausible negatives compared with only 8% for the plausible
ones.
Children as old as three-and-a-half years old, however, are somewhat
We can conclude from this study that apparently even two-and-a-half
distant in age from the population of two-year-olds who appear to use logi-
year-olds take into account the pragmatic conditions of negation in a simpli-
cal negation in their spontaneous language use to deny statcmcnts in natural
fied task environment.
conversations.
This experiment by de Villiers
&
Flusberg
(1975) cannot, however,
summary
be used as evidence for young children's sentence verification abilities,
Previous experiments regarding preschool children's scntence verificabecause a sentence completion task does not directly tap children's use of
negatives to correct false statements.
tion abilities indicate that in simple experimental tasks, children at least
Instead, it only involves true
three to four years of age display recognition of the pragmatic conditions of
descriptions utilizing negative statements.
negation, as well as the ability to judge some sentences as true or false.
More recent experiments have directly assessed children's abilities to
But naturalistic observations of children as young as two years old suggest
judge the truth or falsity of sentences, though their central concern was
a much earlier competence in logical negation.
The nature and form of such
developing a methodology for studying semantic development (Donaldson, 1972;
Donaldson
&
Lloyd, 1974; Lloyd
&
Donaldson, 1976).
uses of negation, and their manifestation in an experimental setting is thus
The feature of these
the focus of the current study.
studies of importance here is the development of a technique for eliciting
judgments from preschool children as to whether statements are true or false
Experiment: Children's responses to sentences of different truth-values and
with respect to situations. Donaldson and colleagues introduced a "talking"
assertive forms
panda-bear to the children, who were told that this panda could learn to
One of the hypotheses of this study, based on naturalistic studies of
talk if thoy would only help him get better.
4
This "talking" panda-boar
the early functions of negation (Bloom, 1973; Leopold, 1949; Pea, 1980), is
' ,~b
,
that.truth-.function& negation is demonstrable in the speech of t w and
I
Origins of Verbal Logic
Origins of Verbal Logic
7
8
m o o
three-year-old children. Prom a strictly logical perspective, evidence for
such rudimentary logical abilities would derive from the children's use of
Subjects
negation to express judgements of "falso" for false-stitemcnts, and we miqlit
Ten children, five males and five females, ;ere
expat the correlative affirmations of true statements.
groups:
But it has already
four age
18, 24, 30, and 36 months (mean ages: 116.5, 210.5, 2;6.5, and
310.5). Subjects were selected, with age and sex as the only consLraints,
been observed how the pragmatic features of negation in the ordinary use
of language complicate this strictly logical account.
'.in each of
Because negation in
.
from the Oxford Language Acquisition Group subject files, composed of cards
4
ordinary language normally functions to deny statements that someone has
given to and returned by mothers who visited the John Radcliffe Maternity
/
reason to believe are true, any developmental account of truth-functional
Hospital in Oxford.
1
operators must recognize the important interactions between semantic (truth-
Design and Materials
functional) and pragmatic (use) features of negation.
An experimental session for each subject consisted of two dlffcrent
tasks:
The oversimplicity of assuming consonance or homovalency between
(1) a word-use pretest used to determine whether children knew the
judgments of "falsity" with negation, and between judgements of "truth"
names of the objects, actions, and propertres of objects which scrvcd as the
with affirmation, is particularly evident in the "true negative" sentencoo
referents of the stimulus sentences, and (2) a set of sentence-verification
found to be so difficult in earlier sentence-verification studies. Such
tasks, each with two phases.
sentences (e.g., "This is not a car" with reference to a ball) violate
sion task intended to direct the child's attention to a particular rcfcrcnt.
the pragmatic conditions for negation use by denying a statement no one
The second phase, the presentation of a stimulus scntoncc conccrnlng tho
could reasonably believe to be true.
referent of the word-comprehension task, followed immediately afterwards.
To be judged as true, the true nega-
tive sentence requires the child to transcend the communicative constraints
The first phase consisted of a word-comprchcn-
There were two variables in the stimulus sentences, statement type and
word type.
on negation and focus only on the logical structure of the statement in
relation to the referent. For this reason, the second principal hypothcsis
The statement type variable is based on two polar dimrmsions:
true-false (T-F) and affirmative-negative (A-N), which respectively corresI
pond to the truth-value of the stimulus statement in relation to thc rcforent
of this study is that the ability to judge true negative statcmcnts to bc
I
true will be a later development than the abilities of judging misnamings
object3 depicted, and the assertive form of the stimulus sentence.
I
thus four Statement types:
(false affirmative statements) or another's denials (false negative statements) to be false.
use preteat, the comprehension
I
analysis of the response patterns to true negative sentences by children in
different age groups.
i
-
TA, FA, FN, and TN.
The word type variable concerned the type of word used in thc word-
The development of this coordination of pragmatic and
semantic features of negation is investigated in this study by means of an
.v
There were
J
I
t
I
sontcnce verification tank, and ,
,
Origins of Verbal Iagic
Origins of Verbal Logic
9
in the stimulus sentences: either noun, adjective, or verb.
10
"That's the (NOON)," VERB:
Word type was
"She's (VERB)ing" and ADJECTIVE:
varied so that developmental data could be obtained on the verification of
(ADJECTNE) one."
statements involving three major types of predication. Werner
inmediately after the contracted copula.
. '.
&
Kaplan (1963)
found that the earliest kind of predicative judgements are "identifying
"That's the
The negative in FN and TN sentence stimuli always appeared
.
'.
The full experimental protocol consisted of a set of 48 two-phasc
predications," corresponding to our NOUN stimuli, of tho form "?'his is n
sequences (rather than 64, or 16 x
NOUN."
tion containing the test word (e.g., "Show me the ball," "Can you show me
"Predications of action," corresponding to our VERB stimuli, are
4)
of a comprehension statement or ques-
next articulated, followed by "predications of attributes," correspondinq to
the ball?"), and then a statement from the test word's stimulus statement
our ADJECTIVE s t i m u ~ i . ~
.at.
Sixteen referent Objects were used as referents for tho word-use protest: 8 objects of various classes (body parts:
biscuit5, animals:
hair, mouth: food:
apple,
cat, dog; toys: ball, car), 4 actions (transitive:
There were four experimental groups: IA, IB, IIA, AND IIB. The 48
iI
I
stimulus statements for each group were counterbalanced for order to eliminate the possibility of order effects, with the constraints that:
eat, drink; intransitive: jump, sit), and 4 attributes (color: red, yellow;
(1) neither the same assertive form, word-type, nor truth-value occurred
size: big, little).
more than twice in succession, and (2) neither tho snmc word, nor stimulus
Referent stimuli were chosen on the basis of their
salience in the perceptual/action world of children (Anglin, 19771, and the
relatively high frequency with which the words appear in early vocabularies
(Goldin-Meadow, Seligman
b
Gelman, 1976; Nelson, 1973; Rescorla, 1976), with
the aim of maximizing word comprehension and production success among even
the youngest children. Exemplars of the referent types were chosen so that
sentence type was repeated in successive sentence presentations. The
primary motivation for grouping subjects was to get as many data points as
possible for the total statement sets for each stimulus word, since it was
expected that some subjects would not receive all 4 8 statements.
The difference between groups (I
& 1I)A
and (I
& 1I)B
was in the
they would be highly discriminable, the object attributes were accentuated
order of the sentences presented.
and unique features of particular objects in the object sot, and tho actions
Groups I and I1 differ in the stimulus sentence set for their experimental
were such that they could be illustrated by either a doll or the child.
le~Si0ns. Two word types, verbs and adjectives, did not Ii,ive tholr full
The 16 words for the referent Objects and their respective word stimuli
given group.
the twephase word-comprehension/sentence-verification
such as DRINK/EAT, one group
rentencan had tho following form for the different word typos1
Stimulus
NOUN8
In each case,
A
is the reverse of B.
stimulus sentence sets represented in the set of 4 8 statements for any
statement sets, composed of the four types of statements, wcre embedded in
tasks.
4
That is, for a particular contrast set (for FAs and TNs),
A
and one group B received both negative
statement. for one 8tirnulus word (DRINK) and both affirmative statements
.
1
Origins of Verbal Logic
Origins of Verbal Logic
12
11
After the word-use pretest was completed, the experimenter began to pre-
for the contrast stimulus word (EAT), whereas the other A and B group
rmceivod both affirmative statomonts for DRINK and both ncq~Livustatnmcnta
for EAT.
The structure of these tasks was an initial commana o f question, depending on
The design for verbs and adjectives is thus'balanced for groups
rather than individuals, unlike the design for nouns.
,
sent the set of 48 two-phase word-comprehension/sentence-verification tasks.
word type:
Without this split,
"Show me the (NOUN)" or "Can you show me the (NOUN?)." "Make the
experimental sessions would have consisted of 64 statements, whlch pilot
doll (VERB)" or "Can you make the doll (VERB)?", and "Show me the (ADJECTIVE)
testing revealed to be more than most children would contend with.
one" or "Can you show me the (ADJECTIVE) one?" The presentation of the stimu-
It
1
would also have made the session well over an hour in length.
lus sentence after the word-comprehension test phase was accompanied by
explicit gestural reference to the referent Object:
the experimenter either
Procedure
touched the object, demonstrated the action, or held the object within the
For the word use pretest and the word-comprehension/sentence-verificaspace between the child and the experimenter.
If the child's attention shifted
tion tasks the mother, child, and one experimenter were seated together at
before the sentence was presented, the experimenter either reinstituted the
a table ( 5 ' x 3' in area, 3' in height) in a carpeted playroom, with the
word-comprehension phase of the statement presentation or brought the child's
child either sitting in a highchair next to the m t h e r or on her lap.
attention back to the Object.
After completing the experimental session, the child, mother,and experimenter
Children were never given any instructions, but frequently responded to
m v e d to the floor for free play with sets of toys (see Note 1 for details)
the sentence presentations (cf. Note 7 )
and to collect a language sample from the child.
The experimental period
If the child did not respond to the sentence (often because of play
took from 20 minutes to an hour, and breaks were taken as needed.
with other objects), it was repeated. After 15 to 30 seconds from the last
Each child was first given a word-use pretest to find out whether they
presentation of the stimulus sentence, the next two-phase comprehension and
used the stimulus words. The experimenter either pointed to an object and
verification task was begun.
This sequence of events was repeated until
asked "what's this?" for NCUN stimuli, engaged a toy doll in action and
either the full set of 48 sentences was presented, or the child's patience
asked "What's the doll doing?" for VERB stimuli, pointed to a colored ball
with the experiment wore thin, and the session was terminated.
6
and asked "What color is this?" for ADJECTIVE (color) stimuli, or asked
The child's speech was then recorded for approximately fifteen minutes
"What size is this?" or "Is this big(litt1e) or little (big)?" while holdduring play with objects in a carpebed floor area, so as to obtain a speech
ing two balls, one little and one big (3" and 6"), and pointing to one of
corpus for computing the child's mean length of utterance in morphemes.
them for ADJECTIVE (size) stimuli.
The question was repeated several times
if the child did not respond, and was repeated again later in the session if
.
All experimental tasks, with the exception of the word-production pretest,
were videotaped from a sheltered corner of the playroom, where a second
Origins of Verbal Logic
I
I
Origins of Verbal Logic
13
14
I
experimenter operated the camera and transcribed the child's utterances and
for stimuli of FA or 'IN form.
relevant nonverbal behaviors, such as pointing and gaze, in sequence as they
"That's a ball" with reference to a car, and the child may look towards the
occurred.
ball rather than the gesturally-indicated car and say "les, it is."
Both experimental tasks and the languageesan(plewere recorded on
a portable Uher taperecorder.
For example, E may have produced the FA
A dis-
regard for the child's direction of gaze would result in an incorrect interprotation of such rosponses.
DATA ANALYSES
Computation of M.L.U.
Audiotapes of the children's speech were transcribed
/
I
( 2 ) Syntactic canplexity.
Three major divisions in the response categoriee
4
correspond to varying degrees of syntactic complexity: a) Single words:
by the author and the aid of the second experimenter. Mean length of utterance
"no," "yes," Object words, b) Operator plus name:
(M.L.U.)
"no" or "yes" plus name,
or mentioned name (for FAs and TNs); and c) Copula addition:
specified by Brown (1973:s).
either copula
The younger children spoke less often, so their
(i.e.,
M.L.U.'s
-
in morphemes was calculated for each child according to criterla
are based on a smaller number of total utterances than M.L.U.'s
"is" or contracted "'s") plus name, or copula plus oprrator plus nme.
of
The canplexity of responses of type (b) has both linguistic and cognitive
the older children.
The mean number of utterances for each age group upon
which group M.L.U.'s
are based were:
consequences, e.g., the juxtaposition of negating and alternatively asserting
18 months, 53 utteranccs; 24 months,
"no, it's a ball" suggests that the child realizes the logical tie between
89.4 utterances] 30 months, 113.5 utterances, and 36 months, 97.7 utterances.
assertion and denial in a way that a single word utterance could not.
Coding of responses.
Several major dimensions motivate the parsing of the
children's responses to the stimulus sentences into categories.
These are:
Similarly, the copula addition (c) provides evidence, as argued below, that
the child is asserting and not merely naming.
(11 the focus of the child's attention after sentence proncnlnLion, ( 1 ) the
(3) Logical complexity in sentence conjunction.
syntactic complexity of the response, (3) logical complexity in sentence con-
be sensitive to responses which are multisentential. Numerous responsc proto-
A response categorization must
junction, and (4) illocutionary variation (i.e., a variation in what responses
cols occur in which the child conjoins two statements that together express a
are meant as rather than in what is meant BY them: hence differences in
logical relationship between the statement which the child interprets the
illocutionary force, cf. Austin, 1975).
experimenter to have made and one or more statements the child makes about the
(1) Attentional focus.
referent and/or mentioned object, such as the response "That's not a ball.
Children's responses to stimulus sentences may be
directed to their current focus of attention rather than the referent indi-
It'a a car" to a FA stimulus sentence.
cated by the experimenter, with the consequence that the truth-value of the
result in the loss of the information that two or more related statements were
~ t i m u l ustatement
~
fran the child's point of view Is different than that
expressed.
Coding each sentence separately would
Such conjoined statements are designated here as "explicit opposi-
,
O r i g i n s o f V e r b a l Logic
O r i g i n s of Verbal Logic
15
16
1
(4) I l l o c u t i o n a r y v a r i a t i o n .
A u s t i n (19751, i n f o c u s i n g on t h e o c c a s i o n of an
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
u t t e r a n c e r a t h e r t h a n i t s " t i m e l e s s " meaning, d i s t i n g u i s h e d between t h e meaning
I
of
M
u t t e r a n c e and i t s f o r c e .
F o r example, t h e same i e n t e n c e can on d i f f e r e n t
o c c a s i o n s have t h e f o r c e of an a s s e r t i o n , a warning, o r a joke.
The f o r c e of
t h e c h i l d r e n ' s responses is o f t e n r e l e v a n t t o t h e i r i n t e r p r e t a t i o n .
In partic-
'.
General
S i n c e o n l y minimal d i f f e r e n c e s d e m a r c a t e t h e d i f f e r e n t s t i m u l u s s t n t e ment t y p e s , e . g . ,
t h e f a l s e n e g a t i v e o n l y d i f f e r s from t h e t r u e a f f i r m a t i v e
u l a r , c h i l d r e n made c m e n t s , a s k e d q u e s t i o n s , and gave f a l s e r e s p o n s e s .
i n t h e o c c u r r e n c e of a n e g a t i v e morpheme a f t e r t h e c o p u l a , d i f f e r e n c e s i n
Coding c a t e g o r i z a t i o n systems
c h i l d r e n ' s response p a t t e r n s t o t h e d i f f e r e n t statement types provide e v i -
Given t h e s e f o u r r e l e v a n t d i m e n s i o n s f o r coding c h i l d r e n ' s spontaneous
dence of ways i n which t h e y a r e d i f f e r e n t l y i n t e r p r e t e d .
The c e n t r a l form
r e s p o n s e s t o t h e s t i m u l u s s e n t e n c e s , two c a t e g o r i z a t i o n s y s t e m s were formed.
of d a t a p r e s e n t a t i o n t h u s c o n s i s t s of comparisons between t h e predominance
The most d e t a i l e d system c o n s i s t s o f 43 b a s i c and m u t u a l l y e x c l u s i v e c a t e g o r i e s ,
of responses of s p e c i f i c types t o t h e d i f f e r e n t statement types.
and i s d c n o t e d a s t h e BASIC c o d i n g system.
t h e o v e r a l l number of s t a t e m e n t s f o r a l l s t a t e m e n t t y p e s d i f f e r e d a c c o r d i n g
Broador a n a l y s e s o f s u b j c c t e ' p r o t o -
Because
c o l s were o f t e n r e q u i r e d , however, t h a t d i d n o t l o s e s i g h t , a s t h e BASIC system
t o t h e age o f t h e s u b j e c t g r o u p , d a t a a r e p r e s e n t e d i n terms o f p r o p o r t i o n s
d o e s , o f g e n e r a l t r e n d s i n , f o r example, "yes" and "no" u s e , r e g a r d l e s s o f
rather than absolute frequencies.
r e s p o n s e complexity, t o d i f f e r e n t s t i m u l u s s e n t e n c e t y p e s .
u l u s s e n t e n c e s , t h e 1 8 month o l d g r o u p r e c e i v e d 200; t h e 24 month o l d s , 334;
a CDMPILED coding system of 1 3 c a t e g o r i e s was developed.
F o r t h i s purpose
The b a s i c p r i n c i p l e
S p e c i f i c a l l y , o u t o f a p o s s i b l e 480 s t i m -
t h e 30 month o l d s , 458; and t h e 36 month o l d s , 479.
Although d i s p l a y i n g
u n d e r l y i n g t h i s c o m p i l a t i o n was t h e c o n s o l i d a t i o n of r e s p o n s e s which had common
some p a t t e r n s of i n t e r e s t , t h e 1 8 month o l d s made few r e s p o n s e s t o any o f t h e
f e a t u r e s , such a s t h e o c c u r r e n c e o f a " y e s , " "no," o r r e f e r e n t name, i n t o more
s t i m u l u s s e n t e n c e s ! hence t h e g e n e r a l l y low f i g u r e s f o r any r e s p o n s e t y p e f o r
general categories.
t h i s group (cf. n o t e 7 ) .
The coding s y s t e m which was used i s n o t e d i n t h e d a t a
t a b l e s , and t h e c a t e g o r y s y s t e m s a r e p r e s e n t e d f o r r e f e r e n c e ( c f . Appendix).
Measures.
The c a t e g o r i z e d r e s p o n s e s were used t o compute measures o f t h e
The a v e r a g e mean l e n g t h of u t t e r a n c e i n morphemes f o r t h e d i f f e r e n t a g e
g r m p s was 1.09 a t 1 8 months, 2.24 a t 24 months, 2.95 a t 30 months, and 4.04
he
r a l a t i v o frequency of a p a r t i c u l a r t y p e o f r e s p o n s e t o d i f f e r e n t s e n t c n c o
a t 36 months.
types.
m a l a s , 1.56 M L U v s .
The primary s t a t i s t i c u s e d i n t h e R e s u l t s and D i s c u s s i o n s e c t i o n i s t h e
p r o p o r t i o n of t o t a l s t a t e m e n t s p r e s e n t e d which had a s p e c i f i c t y p e o f r e s p o n s e
t o them.
For example, one can compare t h e p r o p o r t i o n of FAS v e r s u s TAS t o
a
o n l y d r a m a t i c s e x d i f f e r e n c e i n MLU was a t 24 months:
f e m a l e s , 2.92 MW.]
I t may b e u s e f u l t o summarize b r i e f l y t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l f i n d i n g s , s i n c e
t h e i r d e t a i l s t e n d t o obscure t h e g e n e r a l r e s u l t s .
Most c h i l d r e n 2 t o 3
y e a r s o l d demonstrated an a b i l i t y t o c o r r e c t f a l s e statements.
F a G e affinna-
t i v a s e n t e n c e s were c o r r e c t e d w i t h l o g i c a l n e g a t i o n s of i n c r e a s i n g c a n p l e x i t y
'
Origins of Verbal Logic
17
Origins of Verbal Logic
,
18
with age, and f a l s e negatives were a l s o f r e q u e n t l y c o r r e c t e d , by both negation
The 18 month o l d group d i f f e r e n c e s a r e a l s o not s i g n i f i c a n t , b u t when t h e
and canplex *yesw responses of o p p o s i t i o n a l function.
p r o t o c o l s of 18 month o l d females a r e analyzed a s a group, FAs a r e responded
C h i l d r e n ' s spontaneous
responses t o t r u e negatives were d i f f i c u l t t o i n t e r p r e c , b u t d i s t i n c t i v e
t o with negatives s i g n i f i c a n t l y more f r e q u e n t l y thah Tks ( d = .05, p a i r e d -
response p a t t e r n s indicated t h a t agreements with such sentences were p r e v a l e n t
difference t - t e s t , one-tailed, df = 4 ) .
by c h i l d r e n 25 t o 3 years of age.
Other f i n d i n g s of i n t e r e s t a r e t h e appcnr-
ance of spontaneous f a l s e statement c o r r e c t i o n p r i o r t o t r u e statement agree-
The c a n p l e x i t y of t h e "no" response t o f a l s e a f f i r m a t i v e sentences
changes r a d i c a l l y within t h e age
range s t u d i e d , a s i l l u s t r a t e d i n Table 2.
..........................
( I n s e r t Table 2 about h e r e )
..........................
ment, and t h e occurrence of f a l s e responses in which c h i l d r e n play with t r u t h
conventions and produce i n s i n c e r e p r e d i c a t i o n s .
Whereas a t 18 months almost a l l of t h e negative responses t o FAs were s o l i t a r y
Correction of False Affirmative Sentences with "No"
,Ino"
m e c e n t r a l prediction following from t h e hypothesis t h a t 2 t o 3 year
responses, many of t h e negatives produced by t h e 24 t o 36 month-old s u b j e c t s
c o n s i s t e d of "no" p l u s some form of e l a b o r a t i o n , such a s "no" p l u s t h e mentioned
o l d s use negation a s a l o g i c a l o p e r a t o r t o deny f a l s e statements i s t h a t
name of t h e FA, a s i n "not b a l l , " "no" plus t h e r e f e r e n t name, a s "no, c a r , '
negation w i l l be a more frequent responso t o F a l s e Affirmative than t o True
o r more e l a b o r a t e d e n i a l s with copula o r multisentence expansions (e.g.,
Affirmatives.
not a b a l l .
The d i f f e r e n c e between t h e p r o p o r t i o n s of stimulus statements
of these two types which were responded t o by "no" responses of sane kind i s
highly s i g n i f i c a n t f o r t h e 30 and 36 month o l d groups ( d
a'.005,
Wilcoxon
"That's
It's s car").
The p r i n c i p a l developmental p a t t e r n s i n sentence v e r i C i c ; ~ t i o nt a s k e lor formances f o r FAs a r e i n t h e means of judgment expressions t y p i c a l of t h e d i f f c r -
matched-pairs signed-rank t e s t , o n e - t a i l e d , n = 101, supporting t h e p r e d i c t i o n .
e n t age groups.
Four of t h e 24 month olds d i d n o t use negatives i n response t o e i t h e r statement
commenting on t h e f a l s i t y of f a l s e s t a t e m e n t s , r e v e a l i n g a p r m ~ r e s s i v ed i f f e r -
type, and two of t h e remaining s i x s u b j e c t s (both female, with MLUs of 2.36
e n t i a t i o n and i n t e g r a t i o n of d i f f e r e n t means f o r conveying c o r r e c t i o n s .
and 3.04) contributed most (17 of 21) of t h a t age group's negation responses
18 and 24 month o l d s c o r r e c t e d *aspects
t o FAa.
This v a r i a t i o n i n performance f o r t h e 24 month-old group r e s u l t e d i n
a nonsignificant group d i f f e r e n c e between FA and TA negation responses.
r e n u l t s a r e presented i n Table 1.
These
Three a g e - r e l a t e d p a t t e r n s of response emerged f o r spontaneously
e i t h e r denying t h e statement w i t h "no"
The
of r e f e r e n t misnmings ( F U ) ,
or
c o r r e c t l y naming tho r e f e r e n t .
The
second p a t t e r n involved a s u c c e s s i v e s t r i n g i n g t o g e t h e r o£ d e n i a l of t h o s t a t e ment and u t t e r i n g t h e c o r r e c t name, e . g . ,
"No.
. .biscuit."
Tho l a s t p a t t e r n
may be designated a s " e x p l i c i t l o g i c a l oppositions" o r coordinated c o r r e c t i o n s .
Responses of t h i s type coordinated d e n i a l of t h e stimulus statement with a s s e r t i o n of t h e c o r r e c t name of t h e r e f e r e n t , e . g . ,
"Not a b i s c u i t , i t ' s an apple."
Origins of Verbal L q i c
Origins of Verbal Logic
19
20
These e x p l i c i t oppositions were p r e v a l e n t a t 30 and 36 months, b u t were made
i n two c a s e s a t 24 mcnths.
" I t i s " and 'it i s not" a r e t h e p r o t o t y p i c a l forms of a s s e r t i o n and
For example, s u b j e c t DD ( M W : 2.36) responded t o
d e n i a l (Dwnmett, 19731 Strawson, 19741, and a r e l o g i c a l c o u n t e r p a r t s i n pre-
'.
t h e FA " T h a t ' s t h e pussy" s a i d w i t h r e f e r e n c e t o a dog by saying "Na/doggy.
d i o a t i v e function.
-
of judgements has an important consequence f o r t h e study of t r u t h - f u n c t i o n a l
That pussy ( a s she pointed t o t h e c a t ) . "
Table 3 summarizes t h e group r e s u l t s :
.........................
correction.
,
( I n s e r t Table 3 about here
The major r o l e which t h e c o p u l a p G y s i n t t ~ ce x p r c ~ o i o n
Whereas t h e "yes" alone i s ambiguous with r e s p e c t t o l o g i c a l
f u n c t i o n , t h e response "yes, it is" makes t h e l o g i c a l o p p o s i t ~ o nof i t s a s s e r b
t i o n with t h e f a l s e negative statement e x p l i c i t i n t h e copula.
Correction of False Negative Sentences:
Since t h o FN
Wo Forms of Denial
only d i f f e r s f r a n t h e TA i n t h e occurrence of t h e word " n o t , " i f t h e c h i l d i s
The f a l s e negative statement type c a l l s f o r a i n o r e complex a n a l y s i s than
using t h e word "yes" t o deny t h e FN r a t h e r than t o mistakenly agree with i t ,
t h e f a l s e a f f i r m a t i v e , f o r t h e r e a r e two q u i t e d i f f e r e n t ways of truth-funct h e e l a b o r a t i o n of such a "yes" response with t h e copula should be more f r e t i o n a l l y denying FNs.
One way i s t o negate t h e sentence a s a u n i t with a
quent when t h e c h i l d i s denyinpFN statements than when t h e c h i l d i s a q r e e i n q
negative morpheme, while another i s t o negate t h e morpheme "not" w i t h i n t h e
with TA statements.
FN by a s s e r t i n g an affirmative morpheme which functions a s an o p p o s i t i o n a l .
The responses r e l e v a n t f o r t h i s canparison a r e of t h e forms " y e s , it is*
The "yas" response with t h i s d e n i a l function i s important h c c n u x it revciiln
o r "yes" combined with t h e copula i n e i t h e r f u l l o r c o n t r a c t e d form with
the c h i l d ' s knowledge of the l o g i c a l opposition
of "yes" and "no" by pointing
t h e r e f e r e n t name o r pronominal form.
Data presented i n Table 4 i n d i c a t e t h a t
.........................
up t h e binary c o n t r a s t between a f f i r m a t i o n and negation a s a ' t r u t h - f u n c t i o n a l
( I n s e r t Table 4 about here)
response system.
.........................
But one consequence of these two options f o r denying FNs i s
t h a t any simple comparison of t h e r e l a t i v e frequency of a f f i r m a t i v e and negat i v e responses t o FNs i s inadequate, f o r i f t h e c h i l d only says "ycs" i n
t o FNs than t o TAs a t both 30 and 36 months
reaponae t o a f a l s e negative sentence, one should be wary OF i n f e r r i n g t h a t
tailed, n
t h e c h i l d had denied the FN.
produced by younger s u b j e c t s .
sentence instead.
/
such e l a b o r a t e d "yes" responses were used s i g n i f i c a n t l y more o f t e n in response
,
The c h i l d may be mistakenly agreeing with tho
-
7).
( d = .01, Wilcoxon t e s t , one-
Elaborated "yes" responses t o any statement type wcro r a r e l y
Another comparison involving tho copula may be
framed which does t a k e i n t o account t h e response p a t t e r n s of t h e younger sub-
Similar problems occur i n i n t e r p r e t i n g a s o l i t a r y "no"
response t o FNs, since t h e c h i l d may only be i m i t a t i n g t h e negative'morpheme
jects.
i n t h e sentence.
o p p o s i t i o n a l l y a s s e r t i n g t h e r e f e r e n t name, c h i l d r e n should mark t h i s a s s e r t i o n
I f r e f e r e n t namings a r e being used t o c o r r e c t t h e FN statements by
I
But several p r e d i c t i o n s may be made which involve p r e d i c a t i v e
*laboration* of affirmation, negation, o r r e f e r e n t naming.
,
-
>
t
$
.
<
'
i
..
'1
3
..
8
*
t
. * ' . f
I
I
i
I
>
L
I
-.:
by using t h e copula.
:.
Once again, t h e ccmparison of responses t o
FNS
and TAs
.
Origins of Vcrbill Logic
Origlns of Verbal Logic
21
22
i a t h e r e l e v a n t one, since they d i f f e r only i n t h e negative morpheme.
i n c r e a s e s , while t h a t of "no" responses decreases.
Data f o r t h i s canparison c o n s i s t of responses with r e f e r e n t naming predi-
1
response p a t t e r n becomes more frequent than t h e "no" response p a t t e r n , and
I.
c a t i v e phrases a s components, and a s Table 5 i l l u s C r a t b s , such responscs a r e
t h i s "yes" advantage becomes extreme a t 36 months
more f r e q u e n t l y given t o FNs than t o TAs from 24 t o 36 months of age.
one-tailed, n
d i f f e r e n c e i s s i g n i f i c a n t a t 30 months
n
-
-
(d
-
This
.005, Wilcoxon t c s t , o n e - t n i l o d ,
9) and 36 months (6. .01, Wilcoxon t e s t , o n e - t a i l e d , n = 8 ) .
..........................
Three
-
t o only 6% "no" respcnses.
This developmental t r e n d i s a l s o d i s c e r n i b l e i n
t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n of i n d i v i d u a l response p a t t e r n s f o r t h e agc groups.
.
I f wc
a
r e p r e s e n t t h e number of c h i l d r e n who (a) used more "yes" than "no" responscs,
( I n s e r t Table 5 about h e r e )
(b) used more "no" than "yes" responses, and ( c ) used equal nwnbcrs of "yes"
...........................
and "no" responses as ( a , b , ' c ) t r i a d s , we can i l l u s t r a t e t h c s e s h i f t s simplyr
18 months
( 0 , 3, 0 )
24 months
( 2 , 5, 2)
2.36)
30 months
( 5 , 5 , 0)
3.40) t o
36 months
( 8 , 1, 1)
Subject AG (M.L.U. 4.07) used r e f e r e n t naming p r e d i c a t i v e phrase
responses i n response t o 7/12 FNs, b u t only 1/12 TAs; s u b j e c t DD (M.L.U.
made such responses t o 7/12 FNs and O / 1 1 TAs; and s u b j e c t TS (M.L.U.
1/12 FNs and t o O / 1 1 TAs.
( d= .01, Wilcoxon t c s t ,
9 ) , w i t h 49% of t h e FNs receiving "yes" responscs a s compared
female s u b j e c t s provided a l l t h e responses of t h i s type f o r t h e 24 month-old
group.
A t 30 months t h e "yes"
These r e s u l t s provide y e t another piece of evidence
t h a t language i s used f o r t r u t h - f u n c t i o n a l d e n i a l by some two and t h r e e year-
Subjects not represented i n t h e ( a , b , c ) t r i a d s respon ded with n e i t h e r "y e s "
o r "no" responses t o FNs ( t o t a l N = 10 f o r each age group).
"No" responses
\,*
a r e t h e predominant e a r l y responses t o FNs and by 36 months, 8 of 10 c h i l d r e n
olds.
"No" responses t o FNs were l e s s p r e v a l e n t , and when thcy occurred;often
d i f f i c u l t t o i n t e r p r e t , e s p e c i a l l y s i n c e they were r a r e l y elaborated.
Of 54
t o t a l "no" responses t o FNs a c r o s s a l l t h e age groups, 48 were s i n g l e words.
There i s some evidence t h a t "yes" c o r r e c t i o n s of FNs a r e a more dcvelopmentally advanced response p a t t e r n than "no" responses.
F i r s t , a s shown i n
Table 6 , f r a n 30 t o 36 months t h e predominance of "yes" responses s h a r p l y
predaninantly used "yes" responses.
S e v e r a l c h i l d r e n used responses r e v e a l i n g
tin intermediary s t a g e between "no" and "yes" responding t o FNs, e.g.:
JM
(M.L.U.
3.57)
:
No.
.
.yes she i s s i t t i n g down.
Referent naming responses t o f a l s e statements
The p o s s i b i l i t y of a s s e s s i n g whether very young c h i l d r e n use s i n g l e words
o t h e r than "no" t o c o r r e c t f a l s e stotemcnts i s provided by t h c stntemcnt typo
..........................
c o n t r a s t s of t h e sentence v e r i f i c a t i o n t a s k .
( I n s e r t Table 6 about h e r e )
d e r i v e s f r a n a canparison of t h e frequency with which c h i l d r e n use r e f e r e n t
Evidence f o r such a hypothesis
names i n response t o FNs, o r i n c o r r e c t d e n i a l s , and TAs, which a r e c o r r e c t
namings.
A s i m i l a r canparison may be made between naming responses t o FAs
.
O r i g i n s of Verbal L o g i c
O r i g i n s of Verbal Logic
24
23
and TAs. The l o g i c o f t h e argument i s t h a t c h i l d r e n w i l l be more l i k e l y t o u s e
experiment.
t h e name f o r t h e r e f e r e n t i f an i n c o r r e c t p r e d i c a t i o n h a s been made about it
from some 2s and 3 y e a r o l d s .
-
'.
by t h e e x p e r i m e n t e r i n r e f e r e n c e t o a b a l l .
The d a t a f o r t h e s e c a n p a r i s o n s a r e p r e s e n t e d i n Table 7.
..........................
I
( I n s e r t T a b l e 7 about h e r e )
.
I
...........................
-
(d.
-
(a
, 0 0 5 ) . and 36 month o l d s
(A
t o having t h e c h i l d s p o n t a n e o u s l y respond r a t h e r t h a n u s i n g t h e e x p e r i m e n t e r ' s
.
8
,
,025) and 36 month o l d groups
agree w i t h
TNs, o t h e r s which d i s a g r e e .
To s e e why t h l s might b e , i m a g i n e
an a d u l t ' s p o s s i b l e responses t o t h e true-negatrve.
= . 0 0 5 ) , 30 month o l d s
( d=
.
I n E n g l i s h , we u s e a
p o s i t i v e - n e g a t i v e answering system f o r "yes/no" q u e s t i o n s which i s e x t e n d e d
.005; a l l t e s t s were o n e - t a i l c d Wilcoxon).
(d =
FAs than TAs by t h e 24 month o l d
There i s an important a d v a n t a g e
words of "wrong" o r " r i g h t , " f o r by c a r e f u l a n a l y s e s , d i f f e r e n t u s e s o f "no"
do
t o r e s p o n s e s made t o s t a t e m e n t s when a s s e n t o r d i s s e n t a r e c a l l e d f o r ( C l a r k
S i g n i f i c a n t l y more r e f e r e n t naming r e s p o n s e s were a l s o provided f o l l o w i n g
I
in response
r e s p o n s e s which a r e e l a b o r a t e d i n t o s e n t e n c e s can b e d i s t i n g u i s h e d , some which
S i g n i f i c a n t l y more r e f e r e n t naming r e s p o n s e s were used i n r c s p o n s c t o FN
than t o TA s t a t e m e n t s by t h e 24 month o l d s
are p r e s e n t
Imagine a p a r t i c u l a r TN s t a t c m c n t , such a s "Tha(t i s n o t a c a r , " s a i d
t h a n i f i t h a s been c o r r e c t l y named, i f t h e i r namings a r e s e r v i n g a s c o r r e c tions.
Yet c l e a r c a s e s of agreement w i t h TNs
.05;
&
C l a r k , 1977).
T h i s answering system h a s t h e f e a t u r e t h a t an E n g l i s h s p e a k e r
1
normally responds "yes" f o r p o s i t i v e answers, whether t h e q u e s t i o n a s k e d is o f
E i g h t e e n month o l d s d i d n o t d i s p l a y a
b o t h t e s t s were o n e - t a i l e d Wilcoxon).
,
"Is it h o t today?") o r n e g a t i v e form ( e . g . , " I t ' s h o t t o d a y ,
s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e f o r t h i s c a n p a r i s o n , b u t of t h e f o u r s u b j e c t s who used
p o s i t i v e (e.9.
r e f e r e n t names a t a l l , a l l f o u r d i s p l a y e d d i f f e r e n c e s i n r e f e r e n t naming
i s n ' t i t ? " ) and "no" f o r n e g a t i v e q u e s t i o n s o f b o t h forms (Pope, 1 9 7 3 ) .
responses i n t h e d i r e c t i o n predicted.
T h i s s t a n d s i n c o n t r a s t t o t h e J a p a n e s e system o f agreement-disagreement i n
The l a c k of a d i f f e r e n c e a t 30 months
i s due t o t h e f a c t t h a t c h i l d r e n a t t h i s age ( s e e T a b l e 2) were responding t o
which one word, " h a i , " i s used f o r b o t h p o s i t i v e answers t o p o s i t i v e q u e s t i o n s
FAs p r e d a n i n a n t l y w i t h n e g a t i o n , and l e s s o f t e n w i t h r e f e r e n t names.
and n e g a t i v e answers t o n e g a t i v e q u e s t i o n s , and a n o t h e r word, " i i e , " i s u s e d a s
Responses t o True Negative S t a t e m e n t s
a p o s i t i v e answer t o n e g a t i v e q u e s t i o n s and a s a n e g a t i v e answer t o p o s i t i v e
q u e s t i o n s (Pope, 1973).
The d i f f i c u l t y of v e r i f y i n g t r u e n e g a t i v e s e n t e n c e s is a c o n s i s t e n t f i n d i n g
i n language canprehension s t u d i e s .
Akiyama (1979) n o t e s t h a t i n t h e E n g l i s h s y s t e m t h e
a l t e r n a t i v e r e s p o n s e s ("yes" and "no") a r e dependent on t h c s p c a k ~ r ' ~i n
; tention,
We p r e d i c t e d t h a t spontaneous j u d ~ j ~ m ~ n
o ft s
TNs a s t r u e would be a l a t e r - e m e r g e n t a b i l i t y t h a n c o r r e c t i o n s of f a l s e s t a t e -
whereas i n J a p a n e s e , t h e r e s p o n s e t u r n s on i t s agreement o r disagrcorncnt w i t h
ments.
t h e statement
A number o f i n t e r p r e t i v e d i f f i c u l t i e s a r i s e , howcvcr, g i v e n t h e t y p e s
of r e s p o n s e s - - p r i n c i p a l l y
statemonts.
single-word no's--which
These d i f f i c u l t i e s effectively make a t e s t of t h e f l t a t c d Ilypothosia
.".' 4 'q' " . .
1,
5
*e
'
3
I
.,
d.6
,
;
=., ;,nt,,
I
-
.. . ,
-,
.*
8
'
# ' I
9
4 %
3
.
a
',
9
$P.
' 1
,':'
;,
f
o f t h e query.
The i m p o r t a n t f e a t u r e of t h e E n g l i s h system f o r o u r i n v e s t i g a t i o n i s t h a t
t h e p r e s c h o o l e r s made t o such
impossible w i t h t h e m t h c d o l o g y u s e d i n t h i s m o d i f i e d s e n t e n c e v e r i f i c a t i o n
. , ; 4.
.
form
.
:.
,
t h e same word, s u c h a s "no," can b e used t o a g r e e o r d i s a g r c c w i t h t h e true:
,
negative statement.
I
.
&4,J
We have a l r e a d y n o t e d t h e p r e v a l e n t u s e o f "no" t o d e n y
*,
,
.i
i
<
1
1
9 .
C
I
;
Origins of Verbal Logic
Origins of Verbal Logic
25
26
But consider the potential uses of "no" to agree or disagree with a TN:
FA..
different TNs with "yes, it's not," where positive and negative agreement were
used in concord.
"No" as
(1) Speaker:
Listener:
TN agreement
That is not an artichoke.
No, it's not one.
The suggestion that when young children use neqnt'ion in rcsponsc to TNs
'*
does not roceive support.
It's a sunflower.
.,NO,,as TN disaqreement
( 2 ) Speaker:
Listener:
That is not an artichoke.
No1
*
(Speaker holding a sunflower)
to ag+se with TNs.
The 30 and 36 month olds somctimcs uscd nerlatlone
But only this much is clear.
The pragmatics-of-rlcqation
The overall proportions of TNs to which some
In (I), the listener responds with negative-agreement, whereas in (2), the
type of "xio" response was given, whether single word or sentcntial were sub-
listener responds with negative disagreement. In the former case, the agree-
stantial:
mont is with truth-value, in the latter case, tho listoncr notes thc lack of
36 months.'l
tives in response to TNs *to
Do children use nega-
reject the TN statements bccause thcy ere not
150 at 18 months, 140 at 24 months, 50% at 30 moiltlls, and 5 2 8 at
Apart from the negative-phrase repetition resImnscs (which have
been argued to function as agreements with TNs), virtually
tivo responses to TNs are ambiguous in function.
of these nega-
Discounting tho ncf~ativc-
pragmatically appropriate, or do they in some cases use negatives to agree
phrase repetitions, 75% of the remaining negative responses were the single-
with TNs?
word "no. "
In fact, there is some evidence that the 30 and 36 month-old groups used
negative sentences to agree with TNs.
If the child, like the spenkcr, in
Single word negations of course are ambiguous; they may have been used
either to agree or disagree with TNs.
The remainder of the negative responses
example (l), is using negative sentences such as "It's not" to agrec with the
are of the forms "No, (name of the referent)" or "No, ~ t ' s (a) (name of refer-
TN, such negative-phrase repetitions should be made more frcquently to TNS,
ent)."
where the negative-phrase was
true,
than for ENS, where it was false.
This
prediction is borne out for the 36 month olds, where 15 of the 119 total TNS
minable.
Once again, the function of the negation for the child is indcterThe consequence of such prevalent negative responses to TNs, whose
function is generally indeterminable (until the negative-phrase agreements at
received such responses (totals from BASIC categories 15 - 18) as opposed to
30 and 36 months), is that our second hypothesis--that judgements of TNs are
3 out of 120 ENS ( d = .025, Wilcoxon MPSR, one tailed test, n
true would be a later developing ability than that of judging false stotemonts
5
-
6), and the
-- cannot be assessed.
The early negations of young
data for tho four 30 month olds using this response at all displaycd tho die-
(FA6 and FNs) to be false
ference in the predicted direction (TN: 14/115~ EN:
children in response to TNs may be in agreement, but we cannot tell.
cases of TN agreement were
-.
- *..-.
3/117).
The clcare
*
interpretation would predict a large number of negative responses to TNs, and
the data reveal such a pattern.
Why should I think it is?
an appropriate conversational context for the negation.
--
they are always intending to convey that TNs are pragmatically inappropriate
(Speaker holding a sunflower)
So the
,
Origins of Verbal Logic
Origins of Verbal Logic
28
hypothesis regarding the temporal priority of the different judgemental
(whether affirmative or negativo in form).
abilities, as manifested in this task, cannot be tested.
dissent with "no" temporally prior to true statement assent with "yes" corres-
Ona might expect that "yes" responses would b; u 2 d to agree with TNs, but
interpretation problems abound yet again.
The appearance of false statement
ponds to the order traditionally reported for the first uses of "no" and "yes"
For "yes" responses to TAs, the
in children's speech productions (e.g., Greenfield
&
Smith, 1976; Jesperscn,
emergence of agreement across the four age groups is strikinq and clear, from
1917; Loopold, 1939).
OI (18 months), to 180 (24 months), to 22% (30 months) to 56% (36 months) of
ordering is a result of markedness values of different communicative behaviors1
the total statements presented received "yes' responses, and 92% of the total
since agreement is the unmarked or typical state of affairs in speaker-listener
number of yes responses were single words.
interactions, and disagreement is the marked state, the negative particle "no"
unclear in function.
But "yes" rcspon..cs to TNs were
Overall proportions of TNs to which "yes" responses
Greenfield
&
Smith (1976) suggest that this temporal
will be a more essential lexical item fok the child than the affirmative par-
were given were 00 (18 months), 160 (24 months), 21% (30 months), and 11%
ticle "yes."
(36 months).
opposition is consistent with Wason's (1965, 1972) account of the negative as
Only 32% of the total number of "yes" responses wcre single
The construal of negation as the marked value of the yes-no
words, whereas 68% were affirmative multi-word utterances with emphatic stress,
marking departure from expectations, and with the cross sectional evidence
such as "yes, it & I "
presented here.
The children seemed to use the "yes" rcsponses to a)ose
the TN with an affirmative statement, as if disagreeing with
TN.
But they did not make clear
what aspect
some aspect of
the
False Responses
it was that provoked their
An unexpected yet important response type was discovered in children's
emphatic responses, and none of the children offered reasons such as "that's
spontaneous responses to stimulus statements, and designated as 'False
'
a funny [i-e., inappropriate] thing to say" which might support the suggcstion
Responses.'
that negative comments to TNs are responses to the violated pragmatic condi-
False Responses provide further indication of preschoolers'
They are utterances which
knowledge about language at 2 and 3 years of age.
tions for the utterance of the TN.
spontaneouely express false statements, e.g.
Child
-
The developmental relation between assent and dissent
I
Does the affirmation of true statements precede or follow the negation
,
of false statements, or are these speech acts concurrent in development7
We found that children negated more
false affirmatives
That's a garden.
(2) KM:
There's the doggy.(Child touches cat)
There's the catty.(Child touches dog)
(C laughs uncontrollably)
than true affirmatives
with "no" responses, even at 18 months of age (females only).
In contrast,
(3) TSI
I
none of the 18 month,old
Utterance (Context)
(1) EHt
3
(Child pointing at ball)
(child looking at apple)
Biscuit.
1
4'.
i,
i
I
, '
I.
I
I
.
Origins of Verbal Logic
-
.
Ori<jinsof Verbal U g i c
29
Child
reflective on logico-linguistic knowledge structures. How truth conditions
Utterance (Context)
(4)
SH:
Cat. (Child looking at ball)
(5)
SMr
It's a battery. Oh, it's a biscuit.
(Child looking at biscuit) (C laughs)
become knowledge structures for the child, and how the preschooler's primitive
'.
logic of affirmation and negation serves as building biock for later logical
development (e.g., Falmagne, 1975, 1980) remains to be determined.
(6) SMr
A
It's a door.
It's a star.
currant findings indicate that the very young child, a5 dcvc-lol,inqapinCcm0-'
prerequisite for categorizing any response as,a False Response was that
logist, is acquiring fundamental knowledge about the structure of language
*
*
itself, as a system relating to the world through logical structure.
the child have produced the name of the referent in question during the word
production pretest of the experiment.
Otherwise, we would have insufficient
grounds for inferring that children are knowingly misnaming things.
/
I
False Responses began appearing in the responses of the 24 month old
I
group (3 of 10 subjects), and were produced by a greater number of subjects
at 30 months (7 of 10 subjects) and 36 months (5 of 10 subjects).
The overall
1,
frequency of such misnamings was rare and relatively constant across this age
.
range, occurring in response to approximately 3% of the total number of statemonts presented.
The importance of False Responses lies in their demonstration that children recognize the correspondence rules for truth which regulate language use
in statements about the world not only implicitly, as shown by their denials
of false statements, but reflectively, as evidenced in their systematic breaking of the correspondence rules in their False Response productions.
Collins
I
\
(1968) and Premack (1976) have provided compelling arguments that the ability
to myatematically
break
a rule and tho ability to say when n rule has bocn
I
broken jointly constitute evidence for reflective knowledge of that rule.
More generally, nonliteral uses of language demonstrated in these preschoolers'
False Responses, in early metaphorical namings (Winner, 19791, and insincere ,
linguistic communications (Davidson, 1974) all reveal the activity of a mind
.'
.'.
*
.#
But the
(Child looking at biscuit)
'
-
* .,
'
,
Y %
>l
.*
fr
-,
*
I
i
.k
*
,. I ,
-
4
.r
'
'
, I
I
4.
,,
U
..
-
- .- .
-
.-
1<
(j
I,
Origins OF Verbal Logic
,
Origins of Vurbal Logic
31
32
References
AkiyaM, M.M.
(1979).
Davidson, A. (1974).
Yes-no answering systems in~olylgchildren. Cog. Psychol.,
Anglin, J.M.
(1977).
Word, ob3ect and conceptual dcvclopmcnt. New York:
Austin. J.L. (1975).
How to do things with words (2nh ed.)
(J.O. Urmson &
Bellugi, U. (1967).
The acquisition of the system of negation in children's
Language development: Form and function in emerging
Cambridge, MA: M.I.T.
first language: the early stages. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
&
Just, M.A.
(1975).
Sentence-comprehension: a psycholinguistic
processing model of verification. Psychol. Rev.,
Chase, W.G.
&
Clark, H.H. (1972).
Mental operations in the comparison of
&
Clark, E.V.
(1977).
Psychology and language. New York: Harcourt
a rule.
(1968).
Donaldson, M.
&
How one could tell where a bee to guide his behavior by
Mind, 77, 55C
"^
W.J.M. Levelt (eds.), Advances in
Lloyd, P. (1974).
Sentences and situations: Children's
In F. Bresson (ed.). Problemes Actuels
en Psycholinguistique. Paris: C.N.R.S.
Falmagne, R.J.
Frege: Philosophy of language.
(1980).
New York: Harper
The development of logical competencc:
In R.H. Kluwe
&
A
&
Row.
psycholin-
H. Spada (eds.), Dcvclopmental
models of thinkinq. New York: Academic Press.
(ed.)
(1975).
ren and adults.
Civon, T. (1975).
Reasoning: representation and process in child-
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Negation in languager pragmatics, function and ontology.
Seligman, M.E.P.
oldi in-Meadow, S . ,
year-old.
Brace Jovanovich.
Collins, A.W.
&
Pragmatics Microfiche, 1.2, A2.
memory. New York: Wiley.
&
Brit. Soc. Sci. Res. Coun. Report.
Developmental aspects of pcrformancc with negatives.
In G.B. Flores D'Arcais
Falmagne, R.J.
82, 45-73.
sentences and pictures. In L. Gregg (ed.), Cognition in learning
Clark, H.H.
Cognitive development in preschool children: The
guistic perspective.
University Press.
Carpenter, P.A.
279-286.
comprehension of quantifiers.
Dumett, M. (1973).
before syntax. The Hague: Mouton.
A
(1975). Some fact's one simply cannot dony.
judgements of match and mismatch.
Press.
Bloom, L. (1973). One word at a time: the use of single word utteranccs
Brown, R. (1973).
Rrrwrts
Psycholinquistics. Amsterdam-London: North Holland.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Harvard University.
grammars.
, 2,
Donaldeon, M. (1970).
M. Sbisa, eds.) Cambridqe, MA: Harvard University Press.
Bloom, L. (1970).
.J.
&
8,179-187.
Flusberg, H.B.T.
&
Donaldson, M. (1972).
W.W. Norton.
speech.
on Child Lang. Dev.,
de Villiers, J.G.
11, 485-504.
-
Linguistic play and language acquisition. Papers
Greene, J.M.
Cognition,
(1970a).
Gelman, R. (1976).
Language in the two-
4,189-202.
The semantic function of negatives and passives.
Brit. J. Psychol.,
61.
17-22.
i
.
I
,
1
- 1 .
.'
/-
I
,
.
Oriqins of Verbal Logic
Oriqins of Verb1 Logic
I
34
33
Greene. J.M. (1970b).
Psychol.,
22,
Syntactic form and semantic function. Quart. J. EXE.
Piaget, J.
i
14-27.
Inhelder, B. (1969).
&
Weaver).
The psychology of the child (Trans. H.
New York: Basic Books.
I
Greenfield. P.M.
Smith. J.H. (1976).
&
early language development.
Jespersen, 0. (1917).
Johnson-Laird. P.N.
&
The structure bf communication in
Pope, E. (1973).
Negation in English and other languages.
Wason, P.C.
Copenhagen.
Premack, D. (1976).
Thinking: readings in cogni-
(eds.)(1977).
Scientist,
0
tive science.
Loopold, W.F.
Rescorla, L.A.
Speech development of a bilinqual child: A
Strawson, P.F.
Evanston,
6
Donaldson, M. (1976).
rnents from young children.
Mill, J.S.
(1956).
Nelson, K. (1973).
Osgood, C.E.
J. Child Lanq.,
(1971).
2
Concept formation in word learning.
(1974).
Wason, P.C. (1965).
Behav.,
New York: Philosophical Library.
I ,
Unpublished
Subject and predicate in logic and grammar.
&
Shaughnessy, E. (1971).
stages in processing concepts.
3,411-416.
Structure and strategy in learning to talk.
Res. Child Dev.,
(1976).
Trabasso, T., Rollins, H.
On a method of eliciting true/false judge-
A system of logic.
2,674-683.
London:
Methuen.
IL: Northwestern University Press.
Lloyd, P.
American
doctoral dissertation, Yale University.
linguistic record. Vol. 1: Vocabulary growth in the first two years.
Vol. 3: G r m a r and general problems in the first two years.
Language and intelligence in ape and man.
.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
(1939, 1949).
Question-answering systems. papers from the Ninth Regional
Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Socicty, 2, 482-492.
New York: Academic Press.
Wason, P.C.
Monog. Soc.
Cog. Psychol.,
Storage and verification
2,
239-289.
The contexts of plausible denial.
J. Vcrb. Learn. Verb.
In real life negatives are false.
Logique et Analyses,
4, 7-11.
(1972).
57-58, 17-38.
-
(1-2, Serial No. 149).
Where do sentences come from? In D.D. Steinberg
I
&
Werner, H.
&
Kaplan, B. (1963).
Symbol formation: an organismic-developmental
approach to language and the expression of thought.
L.A. Jakobovits (eds.), Semantics: An interdisciplinary reader in
New York: John Wiley
I
philosophy, linguistics and psychology.
&
Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Pea, R.D.
Sons.
Winner, E. (1979).
(1980).
The development of negation in early child language.
In
New names for old things: the emergence of metaphoric
language. J. Child Lanq.,
I
5, 469-491.
D.R. Olson (ed.), The social foundations of language and thought: essays
I
in honor of Jerome S. Bruner.
I
New York: W.W. Norton
I
Piaget, J. (1962).
Ilodgson).
Play, dreams and imitation (Trans. C. Gattegno
&
F.M.
New Yorkr Norton.
I
Piaget, J. (1954).
Cook).
!.
*,
The construction of reality in the child (Trans. M.C.
Now Yorkt Ballantine Books. ',:
*'
I
I
I
".-
,
*
I
'
i
1 '
*
)
,-
.'
1
I
I
,
Oriqino of Vorbal Logic
Origins of Verbal Logic
35
36
Footnotes
4 ~ h eresults are not described in terms of breakdowns of responsepatterns for these three types of word-stimuli for several reasons.
.
'under conditions where the sentence predicates are binary, such as
'
adjectivee, and so stimulus statements for these words were rarely prcscntcd
this result has been shown to depend on a conversion of negative predicates
to these age groups.
6
*
Shaughnessy, 1971).
'1n
general, information processing models of sentence verification
First,
few of the 18 and 24 month olds either produced or comprehended the vorbs or
odd/even, true negatives are verified more rapidly than false negativos, but
such as "not even" into "oddn (Chase & Clark, 19721 Trabasso, Rollins
',
Furthermre, there were no clear differences between
noun, verb, and adjective response-patterns or response-type frequencies in
the 30 and 36 mnth olds.
.'.
<
' .,
Data presented are thus collapsed across these word
categories.
postulate that the reason true negatives are more difficult than false negaI
tives is that they require a greater number of mental operations, which are
required in comparing the representations encoded from the sentence and the
picture (e.g., Carpenter
&
&
Just, 1975; Chase
&
Clark, 1972; Trabasso, Rollins
Shauqhnessy, 1971). Although such models tend to ignore the pragmatic
inappropriateness which Wason and Greene each argue play such a large role in
the difficulty of verifying true negatives, the two accounts are not mutually
exclusive.
The role of prior expectations in facilitating negative sentence
I
5'~iscuit'is the British term for 'cookie.'
'one
exception to the procedure was a fairly regular occurrence for the
18 and 24 month olds.
If a child neither produced a test word, nor comprehended
it, the stimulus statements belonging to the statement set for that stimulus
word were not presented to the child.
7 ~ h eassertion that such occurrences were "substantial" is clearer when
one knows that the youngest subject groups were very unresponsive in gcncral.
comprehension (de Villiers 6 Flusberg, 1975; Wason, 1965) and in promoting the
Specifically, at ages 18, 24, 30 and 36 months, the proportion of statements
tendoncy of speakers to produce negative sentences (Osgood, 1971) has bocn
to which
acknowledged by Clark
0.28, 0.08, and 0.05.
&
Clark (1977, pp. 111, 240), and in principle could be
incorporated into information processing models.
3''0bject" with Capital letter "0" is used throughout to refer generically
no
categorizable responses were obtained were, respectively, 0.54,
Once the proportions of "no" responses as described in
the text are calculated with respect to a denominator of "statements to which
some categorizable response occurred," rather than "statements presented," the
-
to the referents of statements concerning names, actions, and properties of
values for occurrences of negation change to 0.32 (18 months), 0.21 (24 months),
objects, in order to distinguish the general term from the descriptive term
0.54 (30 mynths) and 0.56 (36 months).
"object." ,
,
a
Origins of Verhal Logic
.
Origins of Verbal Logic
38
Proportione of "No" ~ e s p o n s e sfor
~ FAs and TAs
Table 2
*
4
Complexity of "No" Responses to FAs:
proportions of Solitary " ~ o " ~ a n"No"
d
Plus Elaboration
Age in months
Statement Tym
18
24
30
b
3- G
Age in months
Response
18
24
30
36
8
9
-
-20115
23-
12
53
115
-36
"No"
alone
-
Complex
2
wNO~a
66
66
92
92
a~~~~
Category 7.
b~~~~
categories 9 , 11, 13, 14, 32-34.
120
120
Origins of Verbal Logic
Origins of Verbal Logic
40
I
I
Table 3
Table 4
Each Subjects' Highest Level of Misnaming (FA) Correction by Age
Proportions o f "Yes" P l u s Predicative-Phrase ~ e s ~ o n s feosr ~FNs and TAs
Aye i n months
Age i n months
Statement Type
No c o r r e c t i o n
5
1
0
0
3
6
1
2
2
1
2
3
0
2
7
5
(10)
(10)
(10)
(10)
FN
Says "no"
Says "No.
gives c o r r e c t name
. .( c o r r e c t name) *
Coordinated Correction
(Total U Subjects)
c h i square (df
-
9) = 25.29, p <.005
18
24
30
36
0
2
14
_?_
52
84
117
120
a~~~~~ Category 5
O r i g i n s o f V e r b a l Logic
O r i g i n s o f Verbal Logic
42
41
Table 5
P r o p o r t i o n s of R e f e r e n t Naming P r e d i c t a t i v e - P h r a s e , Fk?sponscsa
f o r FNs a n d TAs
I
*
Table 6
P r o p o r t i o n s o f "yes"a and "no" l?esponsesb f o r r N s
---.
Age i n Months
S t a t e m e n t Type
FN
18
24
30
36
0
-
15
-
52
117
60
-
1
-
5
111
12
--
52
TA
Age i n months
0
41
84
77
Response t y p e
120
"yes"
4
18
24
30
36
1
7
36
59
52
84
117
120
120
a~~~~~ C a t e g o r i e s , 5 , 11, 2 1
I
I
a~~~~~~~~C a t e g o r y A.
b
c
m
C a~t e g o~r y B.
~
~
~
Origins of Verbal L o g i c
O r i g i n s of Verbal Logic
44
i
Table 7
Frequencies and Proportions of Referent Naming ~ e s p n s e s ' t o TAs, FAs, and FNs
APPENDIX
I
Age i n months
Statement Type
18
24
a~~~~~~~~ Category D
30
D e c i s i o n C r i t e r i a f o r Coding C a t e g o r i e s
36
:
I
/
I
O r i g i n s of V e r b a l Logic
Origirin of Vortml Logic
46
45
1.
(i.e.,
The BASIC coding c a t e g o r i e s
t i o n contours)
One d i s t i n c t i o n which demarcates a l a r g e number o f c a t e g o r i e s i s t h e
I
,
(1) " y e s , " "yeh," o r "uh-huh,"
PRIMARY/SECONDARY, o r 1/11 scheme d i v i s i o n , w h i c h ~ c o n b e r n st h e c h i l d ' s
a t t e n t i o n a l focus a f t e r t h e s t a t e m e n t i s p r e s e n t e d .
w i t h i n s e n t e n t i a l i n t o n a t i o n b o u n d a r i e s and n o t w i t h s e p a r a t e i n t o n a -
'.
o r headnodding,
(2) t h e r e f e r e n t name.
Responses a r e PRIMARY ( I )
u n l e s s t h e c h i l d s h i f t s a t t e n t i o n t o t h e mentioned O b j e c t ( i n t h e c a s e o f FA8
and TNs). i n which c a s e t h e r e s p o n s e was coded a s S ~ C O N D A R Y ( 1 1 ) .
4.
+
YES
R e f e r e n t Name:
I1
C r i t e r i a a r e a s i n 3, w i t h t h e e x c e p t i o n o f scheme (11).
Schemes I
b
and I1 a r e o n l y n o t e d i n s e c t i o n h e a d i n g s i n t h e c a t e g o r y c r i t e r i a .
D e f i n i t i o n s of terms such a s "head-nodding"
5.
a r e g i v e n once and subse-
..
q u e n t l y mentioned.
I
A h i e r a r c h i c a l p r i n c i p l e i s u t i l i z e d throughout d e c i s i o n - c r i t e r i a f o m u -
complexity whenever t h e y c o u l d p o t e n t i a l l y b e de!omposed
separately.
a n a l y z e d a s YES, ( I ) . t o g e t h e r w i t h R e f e r e n t
1.
S o l i t a r y YES:
+
R e f e r e n t Name
+
6.
7.
c o n s i s t i n g o f a t l e a s t two r a p i d ,
The response m e t b e e i t h e r a
+
Copula: I1
s o l i t a r y NEG:
Primary ( I )
(1) t h e word "no" o r "not" a l o n e ,
g r u n t s from b e i n g countcd as "yoh", t h o
I
R e f e r e n t Name
For a r e s p o n s e t o b e i n c l u d e d i n this c a t e g o r y , it must be e i t h e r :
(2) t h e idiom "uh-uh"
with r i s e - f a l l intonation,
(3) t h e g e s t u r e o f headshaking, c o n s i s t i n g (roughly) o f a t l e a s t t h r e e
Secondary (11)
YES + R e f e r e n t Name:
+
YES
c r i t e r i a a r e a s i n 5, w i t h t h e e x c e p t i o n of scheme ( 1 1 ) .
with f a l l - r i s e intonation,
r a p i d , d i s t i n c t c o n t r a d i r e c t i o n a l head movements i n t h e h o r i z o n t a l
C r i t e r i a a r e as i n l . , w i t h t h e e x c e p t i o n o f scheme ( 1 1 ) .
3.
I
(3) t h e c o p u l a " i s , " o r i t s c o n t r a c t e d form "'s."
p a t e r n a l i n t e r v i e w muat n o t e t h e u s e o f t h e t y p e o f a f f i r m a t i o n i n q u e s t i o n .
S o l i t a r y YES:
o r headnodding,
Object.
d i s t i n c t c o n t r a d i r e c t i o n a l head movements i n t h e v e r t i c a l p l a n e .
2.
"yeh," "uh-huh,"
I
o t h e r pronoun r e f e r r i n g t o t h e r e f c r e n t
(c) t h e pronoun "it" o r some
Copula ( I ) . ,
(1) t h e word "yes" o r "yeh" a l o n e ,
I n a d d i t i o n , t o avoid "eh"-like
(2a) o r ( 2 b ) , and (3) i n
Object.
For a response t o be i n c l u d e d i n t h i s c a t e g o r y , it must be e i t h e r :
( 3 ) t h e g e s t u r e of head-nodding,
I
(b) t h e pronoun "it" o r some o t h e r p r v o u n r e f e r r i n g t o t h e r e f e r e n t
~ r i m r y( I )
( 2 ) t h e idiom "uh-huh"
Copula:
(2) ( a ) t h e r e f e r e n t name,
and c a t e g o r i z e d
Copula ( I ) , b u t i s i n s t e a d
+
+
a sentence:
For example, "yes, i t ' s a b a l l " c o u l d have been d i s s e c t e d and
coded a s t h e more complex YES
R e f e r e n t Name
The r e s p o n s e must b e a combination o f ( 1 1 ,
(1) "yes,"
l a t i o n s , a c c o r d i n g t o which r e s p o n s e s a r e c a t e g o r i z e d a t t h e l e v e l of g r e a t e s t
+
YES
,
:
plane. ,
.
4
'
, ,
-i
3
I
I
I
I
I
I
O r i g i n s of Verbal Logic
*"
- ..
O r i g i n s of Verbal Logic
47
There a r e cases where t h e c h i l d uses negatives f o r pragmatic ends, such a s
t o accompany pushing something, t o d i s a g r e e about an O b j e c t ' s p l a c e o r manner.
Such cases a r e n o t coded a s negatfve$'for
or t o protest.
t h e purposes of t h e
categorization.
48
13. NEG
(1)
"no," " n o t , " "uh-uh,"
+
Referent Name:
L
Object.
I
(1)
"no," "uh-uh," o r headshaking,
(2)
t h e r e f e r e n t name.
10.
NEG
Referent Name:
( f o r example:
14. NEG
The response must be a combination of (1) and (2) i n a sentence ( c f . 3 ) :
+
( b ) t h e pronoun " i t " o r some o t h e r pronoun r e f e r r i n g t o t h e r e f e r e n t
Secondary (11)
C r i t e r i a a r e a s i n 7 , with t h e exception of scheme (11).
NEG
NEG
+
Referent Name
Copula:
"no," o r "not," o r "uh-uh,"
(2)
( a ) t h e name mentioned, when it d i f f e r s from t h e r e f e r e n t name (FAsr
(a) t h e r e f e r e n t name,
o r headshaking,
(b) t h e pronoun " i t " o r some o t h e r pronoun r e f e r r i n g t o t h e r e f e r e n t
Object.
+
" i s n ' t b a l l , " " i s n ' t it," " i t i s n ' t t h e b a l l . " )
NEG- phase:
r e p e t i t i o n (duplicate)
This response must be a near o r e x a c t d u p l i c a t e of t h e negative statement
presented a s t h e stimulus, where t h e following sequence i s p r e s e n t i n a sentence:
"No, i t ' s t h e b a l l . " )
Referent Name
"no, it i s n ' t , "
I
t h e copula " i s " o r i t s c o n t r a c t e d form "'s."
12. NEG
t h e copula " i s " o r i t s c o n t r a c t e d form "'s."
I
15.
Object.
(For exampler
8
(For example:
(b) t h e pronoun " i t " o r some o t h e r pronoun r e f e r r i n g t o tho r o f o r o n t
(3)
o r headshaking,
n o t TNs, s i n c e t h i s i s c a t e g o r i z e d a s e i t h e r 15 o r 16 below).
(3)
(2)
Copula
(1)
1
sentence :
"no," "uh-uh,"
+
8
The response must be a combination of ( I ) , (2a) o r (Zb), and ( 3 ) i n a
(1)
Mentioned Name
sentence :
I1
+
+
"not t h e c a r . " )
The response must be a combination of ( 1 ) . (2.31, o r ( 2 b ) , and ( 3 ) i n a
C r i t e r i a a r e i n 9 , except f o r scheme (11).
11.
'-
notTNs, s i n c e t h i s i s c a t e g o r i z e d a s 16 below),
o r "not," the p a t e r n a l interview must note t h e use ob t h e negative i n question.
9.
.
o r headshaking,
( a ) t h e name mentioned, when it d i f f e r s from t h e r e f e r e n t name (FAs;
(2)
S o l i t a r y NEG:
Mentioned Name
The response must be a combination of (1) and (2a) o r (2b) i n a sentence:
In a d d i t i o n , t o avoid "ne" o r o t h e r n a s a l g r u n t s from being counted a s "no"
8.
+
+
Copula:
11
C r i t e r i a a r e as in 11, except f o r scheme (11). '
an i n i t i a l pronoun ( e - g . , " i t " o r " t h a t " ) , " i s " o r t h e c o n t r a c t e d form "'s,"
"not" o r Che contracted form " n ' t , " and y e mentioned name.
(For example, " t h a t i s n ' t t h e car.")
Origins of v e r b a l Logic
Origina o f Verbal Logic
49
16.
NEG-phrase:
50
r e p e t i t i o n (different)
with t h e pronoun "it" o r " t h a t , " o r another pronoun r e f e r r i n g t o t h e
This response may be e i t h e r t h e combination of (1) and ( 2 ) , o r (2) alone
r e f e r e n t Object.
.- '.
i n s sentence:
(1)
an i n i t i a l "no," o r headshake,
(2)
a phrase which preserves t h e FN o r TN s t a t e m e n t s ' semantic s t r u c t u r e ,
(3)
"it is," o r " t i s . "
22.
Referent Name
+
Copula:
.
'.
I1
c r i t e r i a a r e a s i n 21, except f o r scheme (11).
b u t not i t s l e x i c a l items:
not" o r " i s n ' t a__"
17.
YES + NEG-phrase:
o r " t h a t ' s not a
.
"
I
23.
r e p e t i t i o n (duplicate)
name (FA8 and TNs), and where t h e r e i s not a s h i f t t o scheme ( 1 1 ) .
YES + NEG-phrase:
42, u n l e s s it i s p a r t of a "response-change" such a s " c a r .
repetition (different)
24.
(1) an i n i t i a l "yes" o r "yeh,"
(without
Mentioned Name
+
Copula
I
The response must be t h e combination of t h e response-type defined by 23,
a phrase which preserves t h e FN o r TN s t a t e m e n t ' s semantic s t r u c t u r e ,
b u t n o t i t s l e x i c a l items:
.ball"
cussed s e p a r a t e l y i n t h e t e x t .
I
sentencei
.
s h i f t o r scheme), in which c a s e it is not l i s t e d i n any category, b u t is d r s -
This response may be e i t h e r t h e combination of (1) and ( 2 ) , o r (2) alone i n
19.
If the child
h a s demonstrated a comprehension and production of t h e words, t h i s i s one of 36-
type defined by 15.
(2)
Mentioned Name
The response must be t h e namo mentioned, where it d i f f e r s from t h e r o f u r c n t
This response must be t h e combination of "yes" o r "yeh" with t h e response-
18.
.
t y p i c a l examples a r e " i t i s n ' t " o r " i t ' s
t h e copula "is" o r i t s c o n t r a c t e d form " ' s , "
t y p i c a l examples a r e a s i n 16 ( 2 ) above.
( u s u a l l y ) i n combination with tho
pronoun " i t " o r " t h a t , " o r another r e f e r r i n g t o t h e r e f e r e n t Oblect.
S o l i t a r y Referent Name: I
25.
The response must be t h e use of t h e r e f e r e n t name alone.
Other Name:
Elaboration
The response i s t h e c o r r e c t name of an Object o t h e r than t h e r e f e r e n t
20.
S o l i t a r y Referent Name:
I1
Object, o r ( i f they a r e non-coextensive) t h e mentioned Object.
This response-
The response must be t h e use of t h e r e f e r e n t name a l o n e , i n accord with t h e
type i s
secondary scheme (111, and hence focusing on t h e mentioned Object (wherc i t d i f -
% r e s t r i c t e d t o names i n t h e r e f e r e n t s e t :
o t h e r c a s e s a r e "claws,"
"eyes," "laying down."
f e r s from t h e r e f e r e n t Object).
21.
Referent Name
+
The response i s a l s o n o t an exemplar of e i t h e r t h e r e f e r e n t Object o r menCopula:
I
t i o n e d Object types.
This response-type includes cases where t h e r e s w n s e made
The response must be e i t h e r ( 3 ) , o r a combination of (1) and (2) i n a
(a name) i s a p p l i c a b l e t o t h e r e f e r e n t ( o r mentioned) Object i t s e l f , b u t which
a c t u a l l y concern a d i f f e r e n t f e a t u r o than tho one focuscd on by tho r o f o r o n t
'
(2)
t h e copula " i s " o r i t ' s contracted form "'a'
(usually)
( o r mentioned) Object name presented (e.g.,
" b a l l " a s a response when t h e r e f e r e n t
Cbject was "a r e d one," b u t a l s o a b a l l ) .
.'
i n combination
I
.
:
o r i g i n s of Verbal Loqic
51
26.
Other name:
Origins of Verbal Logic
~eneralization
52
The name of the r e f e r e n t Object ( o r t h e mentioned Object i f they a r e
non-coextensive)
i s applied c o r r e c t l y t o an exempiar 'of t h a t Object type
dif-
-
f e r e n t from t h e r e f e r e n t Object ( o r , again, t h e mentioned Object i f they o r e
non-coaxtensive).
This category does n o t d i s c r i m i n a t e between schemes I and
11.
32.
E x p l i c i t Opposition:
Type A 1
This response must be a conjunction formed by t i 0 s(entcnces, one of type (1)
and one of type ( 2 ) .
I t i s assumed t h a t t h e mentioned name i s d i f f e r e n t than t h e
r e f e r e n t name.
"not (mentioned name) ," o r " i t ( ' s ) n o t " $ where t h e r e f e r e n t Object
1
1
27.
Referent word questions
i s t h e focus of a t t e n t i o n ,
The response i s a question, marked by t e r m i n a l r i s i n q intonation,, t h a t
(2)
contains t h e r e f e r e n t word.
28.
e i t h e r mentioned name
tioned name
Mentioned word questions
+
pronoun
+
copula, mentioned name
+
copula8 where t h e mentioned Object i s the
+
pronoun, o r mcn-
focus of a t t e n t i o n .
The response i s a question, marked by terminal r i s i n g l n t o n a t i o n , t h a t
The o r d e r of (1) and (2) i s n o t considered f o r coding purposes.
If this
contains the mentioned word, when it i s d i f f e r e n t than t h e r e f e r e n t word
response-type occurs t o a TN, (1) i s c l a s s i f i e d a s e i t h e r 15 o r 16, and which-
(i.s.,
ever category of 2 0 o r 2 2 i s a p p l i c a b l e f o r ( 2 ) .
I
f o r FAs and TNs).
29.
-
Other questions
(Exampler
The response i s a question, again marked by terminal r i s i n g i n t o n a t i o n ,
which contains n e i t h e r t h e r e f e r e n t word nor t h e mentioned word (e.g.,
"not a dog," where t h e c h i l d i s looking a t t h e CAT, followed by
" t h a t ' s dog" where the c h i l d i s looking a t t h e mentioned Object, DOG.)
"Hey?",
33.
E x p l i c i t Opposition:
Type A2
"may?", "Eh?").
30.
This response must be a conjunction formed by two s e n t e n c e s , one of type (1)
Child i n d i c a t e s r e f e r e n t Object
The response c o n s i s t s of a p o i n t t o , a t a k i n g o f , o r i n g e n e r a l , an
i n d i c a t i o n of the r e f e r e n t Object, which was i n i t i a t e d
presented.
after
and one of type '(2).
I t i s assumed t h a t the mentioned name i s d i f f e r e n t than t h e
r e f e r e n t name.
the statement was
The c h i l d may have i n d i c a t e d t h e Object f o r the comprehension-
(1)
"not (mentioned name)" o r "it ( I s ) not" (scheme I ) ,
(2)
e i t h e r r e f e r e n t name + copula, r e f e r e n t name a l o n e , r e f e r e n t name
phase of t h e experimental t a s k , b u t must have withdrawn it before t h e s t a t o pronoun, o r r e f e r e n t name
ment was presented f o r t h i s response t o have occurred.
31.
Child i n d i c a t e s mentioned Object
C r i t e r i a are a s
i n 30, except f o r scheme (11).
7
I
pronoun
+
copula1 where t h e focus of a t t e n -
t i o n has n o t s h i f t e d from t h e r e f e r e n t Object t o t h e mentioned Object.
The o r d e r of (1) and ( 2 ) i s n o t considered f o r coding purposes.
r*aponsa-typt
, 1
+
+
occur* t o
If this
a TN, it i s c l a s s i f i e d a s e i t h e r 15 o r 16 ( f o r p o r t [ l ] ) .
-..
Origins of Verbal Logic
Origins of Verbal Logic
53
(1) e i t h e r r e f e r e n t name a l o n e , r e f e r e n t name
and i n whichever category of 19 o r 21 i s a p p l i c a b l e f o r ( 2 ) .
(Example:
"not a dog," where t h e c h i l d i s looking a t t h e r e f e r e n t CAT,
.
followed by " i t ' s a c a t , " with t h e same f o c u s . )
I
name
I
E x p l i c i t Opposition:
copula, o r r e f e r e n t name'+ pronoun
r e f e r e n t Object i s t h e focus of a t t c n t i b n ,
(2)
34.
+
I
'.
+
+ copulai where t h e
I.
e i t h e r mentioned name a l o n e , mentioned name
m e A3
name
pronoun, r e f e r e n t
+ pronoun, mentioned
+ copula, o r mentioned name + pronoun + copula; where t h e
Thin response must be a conjunction formed by a negation ( I ) , and two
sentences, one of type (2) and one of type ( 3 ) .
The negation must be t h e i n i t i a l
36.
mnt than t h e r e f e r e n t name.
False Response:
Type 1
One c r i t e r i o n t o be s a t i s f i e d before a response i s coded a s
(1) "no,"
e i t h e r r e f e r e n t name
+ copula, r e f e r e n t name a l o n e , r e f e r e n t name +
pronoun, o r r e f e r e n t name
+ pronoun + copula, where t h e r e f e r e n t Object
typo
of F a l s e Response ( t h u s f o r a l l of 36-42) i s t h a t the c h i l d must m a n i f c s t
production and comprehension of t h e words involved.
This response i s a misnaming of t h e r e f e r e n t alone, and n o t mcrely nn
i n t h e focus of a t t e n t i o n ,
I
The order of (1) and (2) i s n o t considered f o r coding purposes.
I t i s assumed t h a t t h e mentioned name i s d i f f o r -
p a r t of one of the two sentences.
(2)
*
mentioned Object i s t h e focus of a t t e n t i o n .
I
(3)
e i t h e r mentioned name
+ copula, mentioned name alone, mentioned name +
pronoun, o r mentioned name
+
pronoun
+
i m i t a t i o n of ( o r agreement with) t h e misnaming rendered by a FA statement (42)
copula; where t h e mentioned Object
(Example:
i s t h e focus of a t t e n t i o n .
The o r d e r of (1) + (2) and (31, o r (1) + (3) and ( 2 ) , i s not considered f o r
Stimulus:
"no, t h a t ' s b a l l , " where t h e c h i l d i s looking a t the r e f e r e n t BALL,
I
followed by " t h a t ' s c a r , " where t h e c h i l d i s looking a t t h e mentioned Object, CAR).
37.
False Response:
DX
" t h a t i s a dog"
C h i l d ' s response:
coding purposes.
(Example:
Referent Object:
" t h a t ' s a c a t " [about a dog])
Type 2
t
This response is an a p p l i c a t i o n of t h e r e f e r e n t Object name t o an Object
o t h e r than t h e r e f e r e n t which i t s e l f i s not a d i f f e r e n t exemplar of t h a t
35.
E x p l i c i t Opposition:
Type B
This response must be a conjunction formed by two s e n t e n c e s , one of type (1)
and one of type ( 2 ) .
I t i a assumed t h a t t h e mentioned name i s d i f f e r e n t than the
Object-type.
(Example:
Referent Object:
Stimulus:
MX;
" t h a t is a dog"
r e f e r e n t name.
C h i l d ' s responser
" t h a t i s a dog" [about b a l l ] )
Origins of Verbal Logic
I
Origins of Verbal Logic
55
38.
56
False Response: Type 3
(Exampler Referent Object:
BALL
This response is an application of the mentioned Object name to an
Stimulus:
Object which is neither the referent Object, the nkntloned Object, or another
"that is a ball"
Child's response:
"that's not a dalin)
exemplar of those two Object-types.
41.
(Example: Referent Objectr
1
Stimulus:
False Response: Type 6
WG
This response is a denial of a true-negative statement (TN) by a false-
"that is a cat"
'
It is a misnaming just as exemplars of
affirmative statement by the child.
4
Child's response: "that is a cat" [about CAR]
39.
False Response Type 1 (36) are, but of interest as a separate category due to .
False Response: Type 4
the difficulty of the TN stimulus statements.
The child's FA may take the
,
.+
This response is the conjunction of two sentences: one which is a False
following f o m r
Response Type 1, and anotherthich is either:
(1) the mentioned word alone,
(1) a False Response Type 2,
(2) the copula "is" alone,
(2) a False Response Type 3,
(3)
a pronoun referring to the referent Object in combination with ( 2 ) :
(3) an incorrect application of some other stimulus
"it is,"
word which is neither the referent name nor the mentioned name to an
(4) the mentioned word conjoined with (2) and (3): e.g., "it is a ball,"
Object other than the referent Object.
8
(Exampler
Referent Object :
(5) "yes" (or the other affirmatives) in combination with any Of (1)-(4).
I
WG
The child's attention must not have shifted to the mentioned Object
Stimulus: "that is a cat"
(aohemo 11).
Child's response:
"that's a ball" [about DOG],
(Exampler Referent Object:
"that's a dog" [about CAT])
40.
Stimulus:
BISCUIT
"that's not an apple"
Fnlne Rosponsor Typo 5
Child's response:
"it isl")
This response is a negation of the true-affirmative (TA) stimulus stote42.
False Response:
Type 7
ment eithor by1
This response is basically an agreement with the false-affirmative (FA)
(1) "no," "not," "u-huh," headshaking, or
stimlus statement, and consists of either:
(2) the combination of (1) with the copula "is" and a pronoun referring
(1) the mentioned word alone,
to tl-e referent Object (e.g.,
"it's not") or the referent nomo (o.g.,
(2) "yes," "yeh," "uh-huh," or head-nodding,
(3) the copula "is," pronoun
+
copula (referring to the referent Object,