On the Acquisition of Front, Back, and Side

Kuczaj, Stan A.; Maratsos, Michael P

doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.1975.tb03291.x

Cited by 107 publications

(77 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Significant differences (p<.05) between Task I (self actions) and Task IV (pictures), resulted in at-value of 2.44, with Task I eliciting more correct responses than Task IV. These results differ with researchers (Harris and Strommen, 1972;Kuczaj and Maratsos, 1975) who found that children, ranging in age from 2.6 to 7.5, performed better on tasks that used their bodies as referents than tasks using objects as referents. However, research supports the finding of significantly better performance on object manipulation tasks as compared to picture tasks (Washington and Naremore, 1978).…”

Section: Comparisons By Age Groupcontrasting

confidence: 56%

“…He felt that the word pairs were initially used interchangeably by children during the acquisition process, but the "marked" or "positive" pair would be acquired first. A number of subsequent studies have confirmed H. Clark's theory in terms of order of acquisition of prepositions (Harris and Strommen, 1972;Kuczaj and Maratsos, 1975;Washingon and Naremore, 1978), while conflicting results indicate that some "unmarked"/"negative" word pairs are acquired first, such as "in back of"(unmarked or negative) before "in front of"…”

Section: Complexity Hypothesismentioning

confidence: 84%

“…Clark, 1981;Johnston, 1984). These researchers have investigated assessment variables such as context (picture, object, no context) and response (self actions, manipulating, pointing) in assessing normal children's understanding and use of prepositions (Harris and Strommen, 1972;Kuczaj and Maratsos, 1975;Wilcox and Palermo, 1975;Silliman, 1979;Levine and Carey, 1982). Most have considered these variables separately, but a few have contrasted a limited number of variables with significant results for some age groups (Ault, Cromer and Mitchel, 1977;Washington and Naremore, 1978).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Assessment variables of context, task, and response mode have also been examined to determine how they affect children's expression and comprehension of different prepositions, according to their age (Harris and Strommen, 1972;Wilcox and Palermo, 1975;Kuczaj and Maratsos, 1975;Ault, Cromer and Mitchel, 1977;Washington and Naremore, 1978;Johnston and Slobin, 1979;Silliman, 1979;Levine and Carey, 1982;Johnston, 1984). Significant differences in children's performances on tasks assessing comprehension and use of prepositions have resulted from using varied contexts, tasks and response modes.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

An investigation of the effect of using varying stimuli to assess normal children's comprehension of five locative prepositions

Versteeg¹

2000

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Assessing children's knowledge of locative prepositions has been a focus of interest for both researchers and practicing clinicians over the past two decades (Boehm, 1969;E. Clark, 1973).Information about locative prepositions can give insight into how children acquire understanding of these relationships, as well as providing information about assessing and faciljitating this understanding in both normal and I language disordered children. Speech-language pathologists routinely 2 assess normal and language disordered children's understanding and use of locative prepositions, since these relationships are so frequently occurring in our language and appear to have value across different communicative contexts (Zyve, 1927;Lahey and Bloom, 1977).A recurring concern in recent research appears to be the role that assessment variables play in accurately measuring children's knowledge and use of prepositions. Age and order of acquisition of prepositions has become a dynamic rather than static standard, as different ways of assessing prepositions also give different results (Johnston and Slobin, 1979; E. Clark, 1981;Johnston, 1984). These researchers have investigated assessment variables such as context (picture, object, no context) and response (self actions, manipulating, pointing) in assessing normal children's understanding and use of prepositions (Harris and

show abstract

Section: Comparisons By Age Groupcontrasting

confidence: 56%

Section: Complexity Hypothesismentioning

confidence: 84%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

An investigation of the effect of using varying stimuli to assess normal children's comprehension of five locative prepositions

Versteeg¹

2000

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…explanatory framework for acquisition of meaning, predicting both the finding that children acquire the meanings of general words before the meanings of specific words with more semantic components (e .g ., give before sell), and the finding that children often initially treat specific words as though they had the same meanings as general words of the same family (e .g ., sell understood as give ; e .g ., Bowerman, Note 1 ;Clark, 1973 ;Gentner, 1975Gentner, , 1978Kuczaj & Maratsos, 1975) .…”

Section: Verb Semantics and Sentence Memory 57mentioning

confidence: 99%

Verb semantic structures in memory for sentences: Evidence for componential representation

Gentner¹

1981

Cognitive Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This research contrasts two hypotheses concerning componential storage of meaning . The Complexity Hypothesis assumed by Fodor (The language of thought, NY : Crowell, 1975), Kintsch (The representation of meaning in memory, Hillsdale, NJ : Erlbaum, 1974), and Thorndyke (Conceptual complexity and imagery in comprehension and memory . Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1975, 14, 359-369) states that a word with many semantic components will require more processing resources, comprehension time, and long-term memory space than a word with few components, and thus will interfere more with memory for surrounding words . This memory prediction was tested against an alternative prediction based on connectivity . The Connectivity Hypothesis views verb semantic structures as frames for sentence representation and states that memory strength between two nouns in a sentence increases with the number of underlying verb subpredicates that connect the nouns . Thus, the Complexity Hypothesis predicts that a verb with many subpredicates will lead to poorer memory strength between the surrounding nouns than a verb with few subpredicates, while the Connectivity Hypothesis predicts that verbs with many subpredicates will lead to greater memory strength between nouns in cases when the additional subpredicates provide semantic connections between the nouns .In three experiments, subjects recalled subject-verb-object sentences, given subject nouns as cues . General verbs, with relatively few subpredicates, were compared with more specific verbs whose additional subpredicates either did or did not provide additional connections between the surrounding nouns . The level of recall of the object noun, given the subject noun as cue, was predicted by the relative number of connecting subpredicates in the verb, but not by the relative number of subpredicates . This finding supports the Connectivity Hypothesis over the Complexity Hypothesis . These results are interpreted in terms of a model in which the verb conveys a structured set of subpredicates that provides a connective framework for sentence memory .The idea that word meanings have componential structures has a long history in western thought . The analysis of concepts into more basic concepts has been a tradition in philosophy at least since Socrates and VERB SEMANTICS AND SENTENCE MEMORY 571964), linguists (e .g ., Bendix, 1971 ;Bierwisch, 1971 ;Chafe, 1970 ;Fillmore, 1971 ;Lakoff, 1970 ;McCawley, 1968 ; Talmy, Note 4), computer scientists (e .g ., Schank, 1972 ;Schank & Colby, 1973 ;Schank, Goldman Rieger, & Riesbeck, Note 5), and psychologists (e .g ., Abrahamson, 1975 ;Clark, 1973 ;Clark, 1974 ; Genter, 1975 ;Rumelhart & Levin, 1975 ;Smith, Shoben, & Rips, 1974) . It is easy to understand the appeal of the componential approach . It offers a powerful way of capturing generalities about relatedness among meanings, as well as a natural set of explanatory principles for some important psycholinguistic phenomena .One example of this economy of explanation is the assum...

show abstract

Kinesthetic Development

Haywood¹

2020

The Encyclopedia of Child and Adolescent Development

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Kinesthesis is one's body sense that is derived from multiple receptors throughout the body. Infantile reflexes elicited prenatally indicate that at least some kinesthetic receptors are functional before birth. The muscle spindle receptors that play the major role in position and movement sense are mature by 3 years of age. Kinesthetic perception is also functional at birth, yet proprioceptive sensitivity and precision, tactile localization, and various aspects of body awareness develop in childhood, with large improvement by about 8 years and smaller refinements extending into adolescence. Perceptual intermodal integration (sensory integration) is also functional at birth. Amodal attributes of objects and events can be transferred between vision and kinesthesis during the first year of life. As with aspects of kinesthetic development, large improvements in integration are seen during childhood, with smaller refinements into adolescence.

show abstract

On the Acquisition of Front, Back, and Side

Cited by 107 publications

References 1 publication

An investigation of the effect of using varying stimuli to assess normal children's comprehension of five locative prepositions

An investigation of the effect of using varying stimuli to assess normal children's comprehension of five locative prepositions

Verb semantic structures in memory for sentences: Evidence for componential representation

Kinesthetic Development

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About