Reasoning about a Structured Object: Three‐ and Four‐Year‐Olds' Grasp of a Borderline Case and an Unexcluded Middle

Abstract

Objects, in general, have structure; that is, they can be analyzed into parts. This gives rise to certain problems relating to predicate inheritance. For instance, an object may possess a property in part but not in whole (a borderline case) and different parts of an object may possess opposed properties, so that the object as a whole possesses neither (an unexcluded middle). Experiment 1 (N = 24) tested 3‐year‐olds' grasp of a borderline case, and Experiment 2 (N = 28) tested the ability of children as young as age 3 to grasp an unexcluded middle. Results suggest that children as young as the age of 3 possess a sophisticated ability to reason about the heritability of properties from parts to wholes. We discuss the results in relation to the basic interpretive structures available to young children, particularly object structure.

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

“…For example, given the statement If dogs are made of wood, then the sun will not rise tomorrow and the premise dogs are made of wood the conclusion the sun will not rise tomorrow is valid. A structureless predicate cannot be divided into parts and wholes (Sharpe, Cote & Eakin, 1999). Deriving the correct conclusion to the problem above necessitates a logical system, extensional logic, in which logical connectives are processed independently of the contents upon which they operate (Johnson-Laird, 1983).…”

“…Reasoning with elements like numbers work well in extensional systems because they are STRUCTURELESS predicates. A structureless predicate cannot be divided into parts and wholes (Sharpe, Cote & Eakin, 1999). For example, the number eight is even and thus cannot be odd.…”

Multiple sources of competence underlying the comprehension of inconsistencies: A developmental investigation.

“…If so, then children may judge inconsistencies as consistent. Indeed, children may sometimes treat the two parts of inconsistencies as if they pertain to different referents (e.g., Sharpe, Côt, & Eakin, 1999); when presented with statements such as “My dinner was good and bad,” children have been shown to treat each predicate as referring to a separate part of the meal (e.g., “The fish was good but the potatoes were bad”), thus eliminating the inconsistency. This possibility was examined in Condition 3.…”