Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-s6l46 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-30T22:48:56.444Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

How do children describe spatial relationships?*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 September 2008

M. V. Cox  and
T. Ryder Richardson
M. V. Cox
Affiliation:
University of York
T. Ryder Richardson
Affiliation:
University of York
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

H. Clark's hypotheses regarding the acquisition of spatial terms were tested using a task designed to elicit subjects' descriptions of different object arrangements. Children from 3 to 10 years and a group of adults were tested. There was some support for Clark's prediction that the perceptual difficulty of each dimension will affect the order of acquisition of the associated linguistic terms, in that the terms followed the predicted order (1) vertical, (2) horizontal-frontal, (3) horizontal-lateral, in the early years. However, it was concluded that since the horizontal-frontal terms lagged behind the others in later childhood and adulthood, perceptual difficulty alone was not an adequate explanation. In addition, no support was found for Clark's notion that linguistic terms associated with the ‘positive’ end of each spatial dimension will be acquired earlier than those associated with the ‘negative’ end.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 12 , Issue 3 , October 1985 , pp. 611 - 620
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1985

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Berman, P. W., Cunningham, J. G. & Harkulich, J. (1974). Construction of the horizontal, vertical and oblique by young children: failure to find the ‘oblique effect’. ChDev 45. 474–8.Google ScholarPubMed
Bierwisch, M. (1967). Some semantic universals of German adjectivals. FL 3. 1–36.Google Scholar
Clark, E. V. (1980). Here's the top: nonlinguistic strategies in the acquisition of orientational terms. ChDev 51. 329–38.Google Scholar
Clark, H. H. (1973). Space, time, semantics, and the child. In Moore, T. E. (ed.), Cognitive development and the acquisition of language. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Cox, M. V. (1979). Young children's understanding of ‘in front of’ and ‘behind’ in the placement of objects. JChLang 6. 371–4.Google ScholarPubMed
Cox, M. V. (1981). Interpretation of the spatial prepositions ‘in front of’ and ‘behind’. IJBD 4. 359–68.Google Scholar
Cox, M. V. (1985). The child's point of view: cognitive and linguistic development. Brighton: Harvester Press.Google Scholar
Durkin, K. (1978). Spatial and temporal prepositions in the language of young schoolchildren. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Cambridge.Google Scholar
Hill, C. (1975). Variation in the use of ‘front’ and ‘back’ by bilingual speakers. Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 1. 196–206.Google Scholar
Ibbotson, A. & Bryant, P. (1976). The perpendicular error and the vertical effect in children's drawing. Perception 5. 319–26.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kuczaj, S. A. & Maratsos, M. P. (1975). On the acquisition of front, back, and side. ChDev 46. 202–10.Google Scholar
Tanz, C. (1980). Studies in the acquisition of deictic terms. Cambridge: C.U.P.Google Scholar
Wilcox, S. & Palermo, D. S. (1974/1975). ‘In’, ‘on’, and ‘under’ revisited. Cognition 3. 245–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar