Showing papers on "Antecedent (grammar) published in 1978"

Evidence for Preschoolers' Understanding of Causal Direction in Extended Causal Sequences.

Abstract: KUN, ANNA. Evidence for Preschoolers' Understanding of Causal Direction in Extended Causal Sequences. CHILD DEVELOPMENT, 1978, 49, 218-222. The literature on children's causal reasoning indicates that the belief that causes precede their effects in time develops relatively late, sometime during the concrete operational period. The present study examined this issue using methods less dependent on memory and linguistic skills than earlier studies. The subjects were 80 children evenly distributed over the 4 age levels: 41/2, 6, 7, and 8 years. Children were presented with 10 causal chains, each having the form "A caused B caused C" where the events A, B, and C were portrayed on 3 separate cards. Subjects were asked why event B occurred and had to choose as the answer either the antecedent A or the consequent C event. To correct for response bias, after some of the causal chains, subjects either were asked what followed B or were asked a nonsense question. The results showed that children at all 4 age levels answered the why questions virtually without error, even when response bias was taken into account. A second study ruled out the possibility that the high rate of correct responding was an artifact of the order of mention of events. A third study, extending the procedure to even younger children, revealed a significant tendency already among 3-year-olds to answer why questions with antecedent events. The present investigation demonstrates that, contrary to current claims in the literature, the idea that causes precede their effects in time is believed by children who, judging by their age, are still in the preoperational period.

Antecedent and Contingent Modeling to Teach Basic Sight Vocabulary to Learning Disabled Children

Abstract: The results of this study support the validity and reliability of the TOLD subtests when they are used with language-impaired children. A group of children who had been classified as having deviant language performed significantly more poorly than a matched group of normal children on all seven subtests skills. Children with articulation problems were inferior to normal speakers on all but two receptive tasks. Even more interesting is the fact that the TOLD results appear to confirm the clinical classifications of the language-impaired child, since those with deviant language performed significantly worse than those with articulation and sentence imitation.