Metaphor, symbolic play, and logical thought in early childhood.

J A Seitz
{"title":"Metaphor, symbolic play, and logical thought in early childhood.","authors":"J A Seitz","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Development of the ability to understand diverse types of metaphor was examined in terms of play context (symbolic vs. constructive-object play), Piagetian operational level (preoperational vs. concrete-operational), and medium of presentation (pictures vs. words). Forty 4-year-olds and 80 6-year-olds (40 preoperational, 40 concrete-operational) were presented with six different types of metaphorical relationships (color, shape, physiognomic, cross-modal, psychological-physical, and taxonomic matches) in both pictures and words in a match-to-sample design. Results indicated that (a) constructive-object play, rather than symbolic play, facilitated the understanding of perceptual and taxonomic metaphor, suggesting differences in early styles of metaphoric usage; (b) despite previous findings, the study failed to replicate a relationship between operativity and metaphoric understanding; and (c) younger children did significantly better in the pictorial medium, suggesting a picture-superiority effect for more perceptible metaphorical relations (perceptual and physiognomic), whereas older children showed a word-superiority effect for more conceptual metaphors (psychological-physical and taxonomic).</p>","PeriodicalId":77145,"journal":{"name":"Genetic, social, and general psychology monographs","volume":"123 4","pages":"373-91"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1997-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Genetic, social, and general psychology monographs","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Development of the ability to understand diverse types of metaphor was examined in terms of play context (symbolic vs. constructive-object play), Piagetian operational level (preoperational vs. concrete-operational), and medium of presentation (pictures vs. words). Forty 4-year-olds and 80 6-year-olds (40 preoperational, 40 concrete-operational) were presented with six different types of metaphorical relationships (color, shape, physiognomic, cross-modal, psychological-physical, and taxonomic matches) in both pictures and words in a match-to-sample design. Results indicated that (a) constructive-object play, rather than symbolic play, facilitated the understanding of perceptual and taxonomic metaphor, suggesting differences in early styles of metaphoric usage; (b) despite previous findings, the study failed to replicate a relationship between operativity and metaphoric understanding; and (c) younger children did significantly better in the pictorial medium, suggesting a picture-superiority effect for more perceptible metaphorical relations (perceptual and physiognomic), whereas older children showed a word-superiority effect for more conceptual metaphors (psychological-physical and taxonomic).

儿童早期的隐喻、符号游戏和逻辑思维。
通过游戏情境(象征性与建构性客体游戏)、皮亚杰运算水平(前运算与具体运算)和呈现媒介(图片与文字)来检验理解不同类型隐喻能力的发展。在匹配样本设计中,向40名4岁儿童和80名6岁儿童(40名前运算型,40名具体运算型)展示了图片和文字中的6种不同类型的隐喻关系(颜色、形状、面相、跨模态、心理-生理和分类匹配)。结果表明:(a)建构物游戏比符号游戏更能促进感知隐喻和分类隐喻的理解,这表明早期隐喻使用风格存在差异;(b)尽管先前的研究结果,该研究未能复制操作性与隐喻理解之间的关系;(c)年龄较小的儿童在图像媒介上表现得更好,这表明在更多可感知的隐喻关系(知觉和面相学)上存在图片优势效应,而年龄较大的儿童在更多概念性隐喻(心理-生理和分类)上表现出文字优势效应。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信