Linear organization of spatial instructions: Development of comprehension and production

http://fla.sagepub.com/

First Language

http://fla.sagepub.com/content/6/16/53

The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/014272378600601605

1986 6: 53

First Language

Glenn Waller

comprehension and production

Linear organization of spatial instructions: development of

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:

First Language

Additional services and information for

http://fla.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Email Alerts:

http://fla.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Subscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Reprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Permissions:

http://fla.sagepub.com/content/6/16/53.refs.html

Citations:

What is This?

- Feb 1, 1986

Version of Record

Linear

_organization

of

_spatial

instructions:

_development

of

_{comprehension}

and

_production*

GLENN WALLER,

University

of Oxford

ABSTRACT

Spatial

instructions can be

_linearly

ordered so that the sequence in

which landmarks are mentioned

_corresponds

to the

_{spatial ordering}

of

those landmarks en route. Two

_experiments

were

_performed

to

in-vestigate

the

_ability

of children to utilize and to

_produce

such

_linearity

in

_receiving

and

_giving

_spatial

instructions. Children were shown to be

able to use

_highly

linear instructions

_by

_{four years, but} were able to

reorganize

less

_{orderly input only by}

seven _{years. It} was

_suggested

that

this

_{ability might}

be related to the

_ability

to

_identify

relevant locative

prepositions.

There was also a

_development

in the

_ability

to ’make allowances’ for the

_ability

of the

listener,

with older children

_(eight

years) producing

instructions that were suited to the skills of the other

child. It is

_suggested

that this demonstrates a

development

of

com-prehension

of the

_cognitive

and

_linguistic

skills of others.

Children communicate about their

_spatial

environment from an

_early

_age,

giving descriptions

of their own whereabouts as well as those of other

objects.

There has been little research into this use of

_spatial

reference,

partly

because of the difficulties in

_{classifying language}

used in a ’natural’

setting.

1 hese

_experiments

examine two linked issues.

_Firstly,

whether the

format of an instruction affects its usefulness to the

_listener,

and

_secondly,

whether the

_language

used in

_{giving spatial}

instructions

_changes

not

_only

as a

function of the

_speaker’s

_{age, but also} as a function of the age of the listener.

This

_might

_suggest

that the

_speaker

is

_developing

skills of

_modifying

linguistic

structure

_specifically

for the listener’s benefit. An

_important

_aspect

of _any communication is that the

_speaker

should be able to

_judge

its

potential

effect

_{upon the listener.} In these two

_studies,

the effectiveness of

* The author would like to thank the staff and _pupils of Wolvercote First School, Oxford, for

their _extremely kind _cooperation, and Susanna Millar, Paul Harris, Usha Goswami and Kate Hellin for comments on _{earlier drafts of this paper. This research} was carried out with the

different instruction formats will be

_compared,

and children’s

_spontaneous

use of these formats will be examined for evidence that the

speaker develops

understanding

of the listener’s

_capacities.

EXPERIMENT I

DEVELOPMENTAL DIFFERENCES IN THE ABILITY TO FOLLOW SPATIAL

INSTRUCTIONS

An

_adequate

_response to instructions

_depends

on the

_capacity

to

_identify,

recall and

_implement

the information received. This skill will be affected not

only by

the child’s level of interest and

_knowledge,

but also

_by

the structure

of the message. Studies on

_’story

schemata’

_suggest

that the

_optimum

_story

structure _{for young children is} a linear one, where events maintain

_temporal

order and do not

_diverge

into

_{sub-plots during}

_{the main sequence. For}

example,

Brown &

_{Murphy (1975)}

have shown that

_4-year-olds

are _poor at

reproducing

random or scrambled

_series,

but that

_they

tend to

_reproduce

sequential input

fairly

well. Nelson & Gruendel

₍₁₉₈₁₎

have found that

preschool

children will tend to

_impose

_{sequence upon recalled stories}

_by

omission or

_{repositioning}

of an event which is

_presented

out of

_temporal

order. There is some

disagreement

about the age at which the child

_imposes

such linear

_organization

_{upon scrambled}

_{input (Buss,}

_Yussen,

Mathews

II,

Miller & Rembold

_1983,

_{Poulsen, Kintsch,}

Kintsch & Premack

_1979),

but

there is

_general

_agreement

that the

_{developmental}

trend is towards linear

reproduction

of

_incoming

_information,

_provided

that

_sequencing

is relevant.

The nature of the material used seems to be crucial. Even

_3-year-olds

are

able to

_organize

_{disorganized input}

of

_{high familiarity}

and

_simplicity

(Faulkner

1983),

but children _{of 6 years have been shown} to omit some

specific

types

of

complex

information

_(e.g.

moral-oriented

_endings)

when

retelling

stories which were

_presented

in a linear format

_(Geva

& Olson

1983).

Sequencing

is

_obviously

relevant to the test materials in the studies cited

above,

which examine recall for stories. A similar benefit of

_{sequential input}

might

be shown where the recall task does not involve verbal

_reproduction

of a

_story.

In this

_experiment,

the

_ability

of children to

_respond

_{appropriately}

to instructions about the environment is

examined,

with

_particular

reference

to the value of

_linearity.

_Siegel,

Allen & Kirasic

₍₁₉₇₉₎

use multi-dimensional

scaling

to

_suggest

that a ’linear format for the

_cognitive

construction of route

representations’

emerges between 7 and 10 years,

though

Cousins,

Siegel

& Maxwell

₍₁₉₈₃₎

found a

_{relatively high ability}

to ’order’ landmarks _among

7-year-olds

with a

_fairly

simple

reconstruction task. In line with

_findings

on

the

_story

schema

_{(Buss et}

al.

1983,

Poulsen et al.

_1979),

one

_might

_expect

a

to an

_ability

to

_impose

a linear structure on information that is

_presented

in a

less

_orderly

fashion.

However,

even if this

_prediction

is borne out, the

_question

remains of how

this effect of

_linearity

will be mediated. The effect of

_linearity

upon

storage

and _{recall may be due} to the

_primacy

_{and recency of}

_{pertinent information,}

with

_end-point

information

_highlighted

for the child.

_{Alternatively,}

there

may be a more

_complex

mechanism,

_whereby

the child uses the order of the

landmarks to construct a linear

cognitive representation

which terminates in

the

_end-point

of the route. This

_experiment

will

_attempt

to differentiate these two mechanisms. If the more

_complex

mechanism is

_present,

there may be

something

about

linearity (other

than

simple temporal order)

that

helps

the child to differentiate the

_end-point

_{from any other landmark. A}

possible explanation

is that the

_linearity

is

_assisting

the child to

_identify

the

end-point

of the search

_{by directing}

the child’s attention to the relevant

locative

_preposition.

A set of route instructions will

_generally

contain a

number of transient locative

_prepositions

_(e.g.

_past,

_through)

and

_only

one

unequivocal

static locative

_(e.g.

next _to,

_under).

If there is a

development

in

the

_ability

to differentiate static locatives from

transients,

without

_(or

in

spite

of)

the

_surrounding

context, then there should be a

_development

in the

ability

to use

_disorganized

instructions.

Most studies of locative

_meaning

have concentrated on the

development

of

_{understanding}

of

_single,

isolated relations such as ’A is in front of B’ or ’A

is on

_top

of B’

_(Clark

_{1977, 1980,}

Johnston

1984,

Kuczaj

& Maratsos

_1975).

There seems to be a

_{sequential acquisition}

of correct _{usage of different}

locatives,

which is determined in

_part

_by

the child’s

_{conceptual preferences}

(Clark 1973),

by

the child’s

_knowledge

of the

_body’s

frame of reference

(Kuczaj

& Maratsos

₁₉₇₅₎

and

_by

situational

_variables,

such as the

_specific

task

_employed

_(Durkin

_1981).

These factors mean that one cannot assume

that the child who

_{responds correctly}

to a locative

_{(e.g. ’in’) actually}

under-stands its

_meaning.

Furthermore,

Johnston

₍₁₉₈₄₎

has shown that children’s

responses to locatives reveal that the child

_acquires

different

_meanings

at

different times for the same locative.

A criticism of this work is that it concentrates on limited

situations,

where an individual static locative is

_presented

to the child. This

_{procedure ignores}

the

_question

of how children

_develop

skills of

_extracting

the relevant

in-formation from more

_complex,

natural

_speech.

In this

_study,

a series of

instructions for

_finding

a

_prize

will be

_given

to children in order to find out if

the

_linearity

of instruction format assists them. The first condition will

simply

use a linear set of instructions to

_specify

the

_goal.

_{This should be easy}

for all

_children,

as the structure will be similar to that of a

_simple

_story.

In the

second

condition,

the

_end-point

_(goal)

will be

_presented

before the main

the terminal item of a set

_(Brown

& French

_{1976), performance}

should be

poorer than in the first

condition,

but if it is the linear

organization

of

part

of

the route instructions which is

_relevant,

then the child should be

_capable

of

using

the instructions

_effectively.

However,

a

_{good performance}

on the

second condition

_might

be due to a

_primacy

effect in memory. To check that

it is

_linearity

of the main

_body

of the instructions rather than

_primacy

or recency of the

end-point

information which is crucial to _{the young child’s}

understanding,

a third condition will be

used,

in which the linear order is

reversed. A

_{’primacy/recency’}

_hypothesis

would

_predict

that this condition

should be no harder than the

end-point

+ linear

_condition,

and so should not

become

_{significantly}

easier

_(across

a

particular

_age

range)

if that condition does not. A

_{’linearity’ hypothesis predicts}

that the

_ability

to use reversed

instructions should

_develop

later than the

_ability

to use the

_end-point

+ linear format. The final

_comparison

will be with a condition where the

instructions are

_scrambled,

which both

_hypotheses

would

_predict

to be the

most difficult format _{for young children.}

The literature on

_spatial

reference

_suggests

a wide age range for the

acquisition

of different locatives

_(e.g.

Johnston

_1984).

_However,

the

_present

study

is concerned more with the effects of linear

_organization

of a set of

instructions,

and will concentrate on children of between 4 and 9 years,

presuming

that the wide _range of locatives used will be understood

_by

the

children. If there is no such

_{understanding,}

then this can

_only

work

_against

the

_hypothesis

of more linear formats

_producing

better

_{comprehension}

in

younger children. This age range was chosen because it seems to _encompass

the

_{period during}

which

_{reorganization}

of scrambled stories becomes

_easier,

and so should

_highlight

the value of

_linearity

to _{the younger children.}

METHOD

Subjects

64 children from an Oxfordshire First School served as

_subjects,

divided into 4 age groups of 16 children each. Mean ages of the groups were

_4;2

_years

(range

3;10-4;6),

5;5

years

(range

5;2-5;9), 7;1

years

(range

6;10-7;3)

and

9;5

years

(range 9;3-9;9).

All children were fluent

_{English speakers.}

Materials

Each child selected a

_piece

of fruit

_{(’prize’)}

as the

_object

to be hidden. There were four

_possible

_{hiding places -}

small white

_pots,

in full

_view,

under which

the

_prize

could be hidden. Basic instructions were

_{generated by}

an adult who was familiar with the room but not _{with the purposes of the}

_experiment.

Two

sets of instructions were made for each of the four

_{hiding places,}

and were

End Point. No connectives were used. This format was defined as Linear. Each of the 8 sets of Linear instructions was then transformed into three

different formats.

_Thus,

each instruction was

_presented

in a total of four

different

_formats,

as follows:

Linear -

(1)

(2) (3) (4)

End-Point + Linear -

_{(4) (1)}

_{(2) (3)}

Reversed -

(4) (3) (2) (1)

Pseudorandom -

(3)

(1)

(4) (2)

Since there were two sets of instructions for each

_{hiding place,}

four

_hiding

places

and four different formats for each

_instruction,

a total of 32 sets of

instructions were created.

_(See

Table 1 for

_originals

and

_{transformations.)}

TABLE 1. Basic instructions and

_{modifications}

_given

_by

the

_experimenter

to describe the location

_of

the

_prize

to the children in

_Experiment

I

Procedure

The

_testing

area was the school’s Television

_Room,

which all the children

used at least once a week for other activities. Each child heard 8 sets of

ever heard the same set twice

_(even

in a different

_order)

and so that each

child heard two of each of the four Instruction Formats. The order of these 8

sets was randomized

_differently

for each child.

The

_experimenter

first toured the room with the

_{child, pointing}

oust

the

pots

and

_ensuring

that the child could name the

_{adjacent objects (used}

as

end-points

in the

_{instructions).}

The child then waited in the

_hallway

while

the

_experimenter

hid the

_prize

under one of the four

_pots.

The

_experimenter

then returned to the

_hallway,

asked the child to

_try

to find the

_prize

first time

if

_possible,

and then read the relevant

_transcript.

The child then went back

into the room and looked for the

_prize,

while the

_{experimenter unobtrusively}

noted the number of

_pots

searched. This was

_repeated

until the child had

searched for the

_prize

_{in response} to each of the

_eight

sets of instructions.

Scoring

Each child’s _responses were scored as the mean number of

_pots

_(ranging

from 1 to

₄₎

that had been searched

_(over

two

_trials)

to find the

_prize

for each

of the four different Instruction Formats.

_Hence,

each child

_yielded

four

scores.

RESULTS .. -

,

,

Subjects’

mean scores are

_presented

in Table

_2,

as a function of

_Age

and Instruction Format.

_Inspection

of the means

_suggests

that fewer searches are

required by

older children. Instruction Format also has a marked

_effect,

with more searches needed with the Reversed and Pseudorandom Formats

TABLE 2. Mean number

_{of searches}

taken

_by

children

_{of different}

_ages to

[image:7.422.64.391.410.573.2]

and fewer

_required

with the Linear Format.

However,

this effect of

In-struction _{Format appears} to be

_present

_{for the younger children}

_only.

Older

children

_require

_relatively

few searches

_regardless

of the

_type

of format. To

confirm these

conclusions,

an

_{Age (4 levels)}

x Instruction Format

_(Linear,

End-Point +

_{Linear, Reversed, Pseudorandom)}

ANOVA with

_repeated

measures on the second factor was carried out,

_using

the mean number of

searches taken

_by

each child over two trials as the

_dependent

variable. This shows

_significant

main effects of

_Age

_{[F(3,60)=7.87,}

P<0.001]

and of

In-struction Format

_{[F(3,180)=8.58,}

P<0.001].

There is also a

_significant

inter-action of

_Age

x Instruction Format

_{[F(9,180)=2.11,}

P<0.05].

The main effect of

_Age

is due to a

_general

_{decrease with age in the number}

of searches

_required.

The main effect of Instruction Format is due to the

Linear,

End-Point + Linear and Reversed Formats all

_being

easier than the Pseudorandom Format.

However,

these conclusions must be

_qualified

by

the

_two-way

interaction of

_Age

x Instruction Format. Further

_analysis

of the

_simple

main effects of

_Age

of child for the different Instruction Formats showed that whereas

_Age

has a marked effect for the Reversed

Format

_{[F(3,240)=5.22,}

P<0.01]

and for the Pseudorandom Format

[F(3,240)=11.65,

P<0.001],

there is very little effect for the Linear Format

and the End-Point + Linear Format

_{[F(3,240)<1.2,}

both

cases].

_Tukey’s

test

_{[q(4,240)=4.40, HSD(p=0.05)=0.549]}

confirmed that the effect for

Reversed Format is due to the

_{4-year-olds requiring}

more searches than

7-year-olds

(P<0.01)

and

_{9-year-olds (P<0.01).}

The effect for

Pseudo-random Format is due to

_{4-year-olds requiring}

more searches than

7-year-olds

_(P<0.01)

and

_{9-year-olds (P<0.01),}

and

_{5-year-olds requiring}

more

searches than

_{7-year-olds (P<0.05)}

and

_{9-year-olds (P<0.01).}

The

_simple

main effects of _{Instruction Format for different ages of child showed that} there is an effect for

_4-year-olds

_{[F(3,180) =9.39,}

P<0.001 ] and

_5-year-olds

[F(3,180)=4.95,

P<0.01],

but not for 7- or

_9-year-olds

[F(3,180)<1,

both

cases].

Tukey’s

test

_{[q(4,180) =4.40,}

_{HSD(P=0.01)=0.563]}

confirmed that

the effect for

_4-year-olds

is due to the children

_requiring

more searches for Pseudorandom instructions than for Linear

_(P<0.01)

or End-Point +

Linear

_(P<0.01).

The effect for

_5-year-olds

is due to the children

_requiring

more searches for Pseudorandom than for Linear instructions

_(P<0.01).

To summarize this

interaction,

7- and

_9-year-olds

are

_{equally capable}

of

using

all of the formats.

_However,

_4-year-olds

are

_{hampered by}

both

Reversed and Pseudorandom

instructions,

and

_5-year-olds

are

_{hampered by}

the Pseudorandom Format.

DISCUSSION

These results

_strongly

_support

the

_predictions

that the Linear and End-Point

support

for the

_prediction

_{that younger children would find it} more difficult

to _cope with the Pseudorandom and Reversed Formats. There was some

indication that _{young children find it}

_especially

difficult to _{cope with the}

Pseudorandom Format as

_compared

to the Reversed

Format,

as the

5-year-olds were

_only

_{hampered (relative}

to the Linear

_{Format) by}

the scrambled instructions. The lack of any difference between the Linear and End-Point

+ Linear conditions shows that children are not

_{being hampered}

_by

remem-bering only

the terminal item of the

instructions,

even at _{4 years. This}

suggests

that the

_temporal

order of landmarks and locatives is not sufficient

to

_explain

the effects of

_linearity

_{upon recall. This}

_probably

differs from

Brown & French’s

_{(1976) findings}

because the children here were not asked

to reconstruct an entire sequence, but could

_complete

the task if

they only

identified the

_end-point

_{of the sequence from the whole}

_description.

Some

_general

conclusions can now be drawn

_regarding

children’s

_reception

and use of

_spatial

instructions. It seems that there is an

_{early ability}

to take

advantage

of the

_linearity

of

_incoming

information,

which is

_present

for the

Linear and End-Point + Linear Formats. This is

_probably

not a

_simple

ability

to use

primacy

and recency effects to

_identify

the

_end-point

in-formation,

which is

_equivalently

_placed

in the End-Point + Linear and Reversed

Formats,

since there was a

significant development

with age in the

ability

to use Reversed

instructions,

but not End-Point + Linear instructions.

Between 4 and _{7 years,} the child seems to learn how to

_{’manipulate’}

instructions,

either

_through

a

_{’screening’}

of the information or

through

a

’mental

_{rearrangement’.}

This means that the identification of

end-points

and static locatives is

better,

so that the resultant search

_pattern

is more

efficient.

This effect of linear

_presentation

on _{young children is}

_compatible

with the

results of other research. The

_ability

to use linear

_organization

of

_cognitive

maps for routes seems to be

_present

earlier than was

_{predicted by Siegel et}

al.’s

_{(1979) study,}

but it is

_possible

that

_{Siegel et}

al.’s use of MDS _{may have}

led to a less realistic reflection of the

_cognitive

_{representation.}

Baird,

Merrill

& Tannenbaum

₍₁₉₇₉₎

showed that adults find that

_MDS,

derived from their

own

_{paired-distance}

_{estimates, gives}

an

_{’unsatisfactory’ representation}

of

the environment.

The

_present

results are most

_congruent

with those of Poulsen et al.

_(1979),

who showed a

_development

between 4 and 6 years in the

_ability

to recall

scrambled

_input.

Of course, the results of this

study

are based on

_relatively

short

_{descriptions,}

and it

_might

not be until a later age that children would be

able to utilize

_longer

scrambled

_{descriptions (cf.}

Buss et

_al.,

_1983).

While this

_study

has not

_explicitly

_{tested the way in which}

_linearity

has

_helped

the

child to understand

_spatial

reference,

it seems

_likely

that it has been effective

static locative which

_uniquely

marks the

_end-point

from the other in-structions. The notion that the value of

_linearity

may lie in its

ability

to

highlight

the static

locative,

and hence teach the child the locative’s

meaning,

will be taken _{up in} the General Discussion.

The

_following

_study

will examine the

development

of children’s

_ability

to

provide

linear instructions when

_appropriate.

EXPERIMENT II

DEVELOPMENT OF THE USE OF LINEARITY IN GIVING SPATIAL INSTRUCTIONS

Having

shown that the format of

_spatial

instructions influences the

com-prehension

of the

listener,

it is now relevant to ask whether children have

any

insight

into this influence. This

might

suggest

a

_development

in the

ability

to use more linear forms

_{appropriately (i.e.}

_{for younger}

_listeners).

Of course, this is related to the classic

_problem

of the child’s

_ability

to take

alternative

_perspectives

in

_{communication,}

which has been examined

_using

two

_types

of task: the ’referential communication’ task and the more

naturalistic studies of

_sensitivity

to listener status. The referential

com-munication

_{paradigm (see}

_Glucksberg,

Krauss &

_{Higgins 1975)}

shows a

development

in the

_ability

to select and transmit critical

_aspects

of a

display,

with

_development

_{complete by}

_{11 years.}

_{However, Flavell, Botkin,}

_Fry,

Wright

& Jarvis

₍₁₉₆₈₎

have shown that the

_ability

to take the role of another and to select

_appropriate

_{information may be}

_present

at 3 to _{4 years if the} task is

_{sufficiently simple.}

The tasks chosen

_{by Glucksberg}

and his

col-leagues

were rather

_complex

and unusual for the

_child,

since

_they

involved

highly

artificial referents and

_deprived

the child of some of the normal

mechanisms of communication

_{(e.g. gestures).}

A better

_study

is that of

Greenberg, Kuczaj

II &

_Suppiger

_(1983),

who have shown that children of 2

to 6 _years

_attempt

to communicate more information about a more

_complex

referent,

regardless

of the status of the listener. Five- and

_{six-year-olds}

were

shown to make

_spontaneous

allowance for the listener’s characteristics

_(lack

of visual

_knowledge)

_{by using}

a

_greater

number of informative modifiers.

However,

even children of 3 to _{4 years} were

_capable

of

_making

such

allowances if

_they

were made aware of the listener’s characteristics

_by

a

questioning

session. _{It may be that young children} can discern and transmit

sufficient necessary information in more realistic

_settings

and

_given

adequate prompting.

Turning

to the second

_type

of

task,

there is a

_large

number of naturalistic

studies

_showing

that young children can make

_{sophisticated stylistic changes}

in their

_{speech, according}

to the

_perceived

status _{of the other person}

_(see

Shatz

_1983).

A

_problem

with such studies is that

_they

tend to _{lack any}

be tested. Thus the

_finding

that

_4-year-olds

can use

_’baby

talk’ to

2-year-olds,

for

_example

_(Shatz

& Gelman

_1973),

does not mean that

_{the ’baby}

talk’

is

_necessarily

an

_improved

form of communication in that

setting.

_However,

since it

has now been established that a linear account is

_highly

informative

to a _younger

child,

it is

_possible

to ask whether older children have

de-veloped

the skill of

_using

this format in

_spatial

reference. This would be

signalled

by

use of more linear

_descriptions

_by

older children

_addressing

4-and

_5-year-olds,

but not

_necessarily

_{towards their peers.}

In this

_study,

children were asked to describe the location of an

_object

which

_they

had

_just

hidden

_(in

the same

_setting

as the

_previous

_study).

It was

predicted

that

_only

_{the oldest group would be able} to make

_adjustments

to

the

_linearity

of their

_{descriptions (as}

rated

_by

_{adults) according}

to _{the age of} the

listener,

and that these

_adjustments

would be in the direction of

_greater

effectiveness.

METHOD

Subjects

A _{different group} of 72

_pupils

from the same Oxfordshire

_Nursery

and First School served as

_subjects.

There were three age groups of 24 children

_each,

with mean _ages

of 4;6

_years

_(range

_4;1

to

_{4;9), 5;9}

_years

_(range

_5;6

to

_5;11)

and

_8;9

_years

_(range

8;5

to

_8;11).

The

_single

_{group of}

_8-year-olds

was used due to the

_apparent

lack of differences between the 7- and

_9-year-olds

in

Experiment

I.

Materials

The same four

_{hiding places}

were used as in the

_{previous study,}

and

_pieces

of

fruit were

_again

used as

_prizes.

No

_{predetermined}

instructions were used in

this

_study.

The

_only

additional

_equipment

was a cassette

_recorder,

used to record the children’s

_{descriptions.}

These were then transcribed for adult

rating.

Procedure

The same

_testing

area was

_used,

with no

_changes

in the

_layout

of the room.

Each child

_{participated twice,}

once as a

_{’Speaker’}

and once as a ’Listener’.

Children were

_paired

so that each age group communicated to each of the

three age groups. Thus there were _{nine groups for}

_{comparison (4-4, 4-5,}

4-8, 5~, 5-5, 5-8, 8-4,

8-5, 8-8),

each with 8

_pairs

of children. No child ever

gave and received information from children in the same _age

_pairing

_(so

that a child who told a

_5-year-old

where the

_prize

was hidden would never be told

by

a

_5-year-old,

for

_example).

Each

_{pair performed}

two trials.

the

_{previous study.}

Then one child

(the

listener)

waited in the

hallway

while

the other child

_{(the speaker)}

hid the

_prize

under a

_pot

_{designated by}

the

experimenter.

Then the

_experimenter

and the

_speaker

returned to the

hallway,

and the

_experimenter

asked the

_speaker

to tell the listener how to

find the

_pot

where the

_prize

was

hidden,

so that it could be found first time if

possible.

The

_{ensuing description}

was

_recorded,

and then the listener went to look for the

_prize.

The

_procedure

was then

_repeated,

with the two

children in the same roles.

TABLE 3.

_{Examples from}

_Experiment

II

_{of children’s descriptions of how}

to

find

the

_prize,

and adults’

_{ratings of linearity of}

the

_descriptions

Each of the 144

_descriptions

was transcribed

(see

Table 3 for

_examples).

These

_transcripts

were

given

to five

_judges,

who each rated the

_transcripts

for

_Linearity

on a scale of 1

_(Least

_Linear)

to 7

_{(Most Linear).}

The

_judges

were blind to _{the children’s ages and} to the

_layout

of the

_classroom,

so that

their

_ratings

would reflect the structural

_organization

of the communication

rather than its reference to

_particular

locations in the classroom. The exact

question

asked was: ’To what extent does the child’s

_description

_appear to

follow a

_linear,

unidirectional

_{sequence?’.}

Scoring

RESULTS

The mean adult

_ratings

of

_linearity

are

presented

in Table 4. The results

suggest

that there is a

_general

increase with

_Age

of

Speaker

in the

linearity

of

children’s instructions. The low

_{linearity rating}

for

_{8-year-old speakers}

addressing

8-year-old

listeners

_suggests

that there may be a

_tendency

for

older children to use less linear instructions for their peers. In confirmation

of these

_findings,

an

_Age

of

Speaker

(3 levels)

x

_Age

of Listener

_{(3 levels)}

ANOVA was carried out on the adults’ mean

_ratings

of

_Linearity

of each

transcript.

The ANOVA shows a

significant

main effect of

Age

of

Speaker

[F(2,63)

=21.33, P<0.001 and

a

_significant

interaction of

Age

of

Speaker

x

[image:13.420.62.385.233.380.2]

Age

of Listener

_{[F(4,63)=3.00,}

P<0.025].

TABLE 4. Mean adult

_ratings

_of

_linearity

_{of speakers’ descriptions for}

different

ages

of

listener in

Experiment

II

The main effect of

_Age

of

_Speaker

is due to a continuous

_development

in

the

_tendency

to

_produce

linear

_{instructions,}

over the age range which was

identified as

_important

in the

_previous

_study.

However,

this effect must be

qualified

by

reference to the interaction of

_Age

of

_Speaker

x

_Age

of

Listener. Further

_analysis

of the

_simple

main effects of

_Age

of

_Speaker

for

different ages of listener show that there is a

_significant

effect of

_Age

of

Speaker

for

_4-year-old

listeners

_{[F(2,63)=9.97,}

P<0.001]

and for

5-year-olds

_{[F(2,63)=15.88,}

_P<0.001],

but not for

_8-year-olds

_{[F(2,63)<1.5].}

Tukey’s

test

_{[q(3,63) =3.40, HSD(P=0.05)=1.06]}

shows that the effect for

4-year-old

listeners is due to

_{8-year-olds giving}

more linear instructions than

4- or

_5-year-old

_{speakers (P<0.01,}

both

_cases).

The effect for

_5-year-old

listeners is also due to

_8-year-old

_speakers

_giving

more linear instructions

of

_speaker

shows that

_although

there is no

_significant

effect of

_Age

of

Listener for

_4-year-old

_speakers

_{[F(2,63)=0.03]}

or for

_{5-year-old speakers}

[F(2,63) =0.60],

there is a marked effect of

Age

of Listener upon

8-year-old

speakers

[F(2,63)=6.98,

P<0.01].

Tukey’s

test

_{[q(3,63)=3.40,}

HSD(P=0.05)=1.06]

confirmed that

_{8-year-olds give}

less linear

_descriptions

to

_8-year-old

listeners than

_{they give}

to

_5-year-olds

_(P<0.01)

or to

4-year-olds

_(P<0.05).

To

summarize,

these results show that

_{8-year-old speakers}

use more

linear instructions _{than younger}

_speakers

when

_addressing

4- or

_5-year-old

listeners,

and that the

_{8-year-old speaker}

uses more

_linearity

in instructions

to _younger children than to _{same-age peers. This shows} a

_degree

of

_flexibility

in the way in which the

_8-year-old

delivers instructions.

DISCUSSION

This

_experiment

was

_primarily

_designed

to find whether children

_develop

an

ability

to use more effective means of

_{communicating}

about the

environ-ment. As it had

_previously

been shown

_{(Experiment I)}

that a linear format is

an effective form at _{all ages, then} a

_possible

outcome

_might

have been for the

older children to use a

_highly

linear Instruction Format at all times.

How-ever, the results show that

although

the

8-year-olds

do more

_frequently

produce

linear information _{than younger}

_children,

_they

are

_{especially likely}

to do this for _young

_listeners,

who would have

_particular

difficulties with

non-linear information. This

_suggests

that the

_8-year-old

is able to take the

sophistication

of the listener into account when

_formulating

a

_spatial

reference.

GENERAL DISCUSSION

These two

_experiments

have shown that there is a

_development

between 5

and _{7 years in} the

_ability

to deal with

_disorganized

instructions,

and that

children as _young as _{8 years} are able to make

_adjustments

to their

_speech

which make use of this

_{developing ability.}

The

_examples

in Table 3

demonstrate this

_development

of

_linearity

in

_production.

Some

_examples

(e.g.

iii)

suggest

that the

_8-year-olds

may be able to

_produce

the End-Point

+ Linear format which was included in the first

_experiment.

The studies

relate

_findings

on children’s individual

_capacities

in a more

_{experimentally}

constrained

_setting

to more natural

_patterns

of

_dyadic

interaction. This

relationship

not

_{only gives}

the

_findings

of

_Experiment

I more relevance to

children’s normal

behaviour,

but also shows that

_Experiment

II is

addres-sing

a

_pattern

of interaction which is of some value to the child.

Children appear to be able to use

_linearity

in

_{receiving spatial}

instructions

develop-ment of such a

_style

of

presentation,

there seems to be a

_development

of skill

in its

_application,

so that it is

_heavily

used when it would be

_particularly

beneficial

_(i.e.

for _younger

_listeners).

These studies

_suggest

that there is

development

of the selective use of effective communicative

_styles,

rather than

_simply

in the use of

_syntactic

_styles

(Shatz

& Gelman

_1973).

A

_complex

model of the child’s

_cognitive

and

_{linguistic processing}

would be needed to

account for these

_findings.

It seems that

_Siegel

et al.’s

₍₁₉₇₉₎

’linear format for

_cognitive

construction

of route

_{representations’}

is less

_{straightforward}

than had been

_envisaged.

Children of a _{young age} can benefit from a linear

_{presentation, suggesting}

that it is more conducive to memory for

(or

identification

_of)

relevant

information.

_However,

_7-year-olds

have the

_ability

to ’select and

re-organize’ input,

so that

_linearity

is no

_{longer particularly}

beneficial,

at least for

_simple

instructions. It seems that the

_production

of linear instructions

(more

like

_Siegel

et al.’s

_findings)

is

_{possible by}

_{8 years.}

A more

_linguistic

_explanation

_{may be}

_{helpful. Possibly}

the children in

Experiment

I are

_becoming

better at

_identifying

the static locative

pre-positions

used in all the instructions

_(by,

_under,

_near)

as more

_likely

to

indicate the

_end-point

than the

_prepositions

used in other

_parts

of the

instructions

_(past,

across,

ahead,

etc.).

However,

this cannot be the entire

case, as described

earlier,

because the End-Point + Linear Format was

useful at an earlier _{age than the Reversed Format. So the} structure of the

whole

_spatial

reference is

_affecting

the value of

_{particular linguistic}

forms

within it. The

_{8-year-olds’}

_ability

to

_adapt

instructions

_according

to _{the age}

of listener

_(Experiment

_II)

is

_probably

the

_product

of a skill of

_using

static

locatives and landmarks in

_{appropriate places,}

rather than

_simply

_using

the

correct locative and landmark

_(see

Table

4,

examples iii-v). Possibly

it will

be necessary for young children to

_develop

a more

_{general cognitive}

skill of

benefiting

from

_{linearity prior}

to

_being

able to select the static locative

preposition

from a

_complex

set of

instructions,

as _{linear instructions may}

serve to

_highlight

and define the locative in a realistic context.

Summary

These studies have shown that children are

_developing

skills of

_adapting

communication in a _{way which will make their}

_speech

more

_helpful

to the

listener,

with

_{8-year-olds using}

more linear

_organization

of

_speech

when

addressing

children who will benefit from such a structure. It seems that the

ability

to communicate

_depends

not

_only

on the amount or

_formatting

of

the children’s

_knowledge,

but also reflects the

_speaker’s

_knowledge

about

REFERENCES

Baird, J. C., Merrill, A. A. & Tannenbaum, J. (1979). II: A familiar environment. Journal of

Experimental Psychology: General, 108, 92-98.

Brown, A. L. & French, L. A. _(1976). Construction and

regeneration of

logical sequences using

causes _{and consequences.} Child Development, 47, 930-940.

Brown, A. L. & Murphy, M. D. (1975). Reconstruction of arbitrary vs. _logical sequences by

preschool children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 20, 307-326.

Buss, R. R., Yussen, S. R., Mathews II, S. R., Miller, G. E. & Rembold, K. L. _(1983). Development of children’s use of a _story schema to retrieve information. Developmental Psychology, 19, 22-28.

Clark, E. V. (1973). Non-linguistic strategies and the acquisition of word _{meanings. Cognition,}

2, 161-182.

&mdash; (1977). Strategies and the mapping problem in first _language acquisition. In J. Macnamara (ed.), Language Learning and Thought (London: Academic Press).

&mdash; (1980). Here’s the top: non-linguistic strategies in the _acquisition of orientational terms.

Child _Development, 51, 329-338.

Cousins, J. H., Siegel, A. W. & Maxwell, S. E. _{(1983). Way-finding} and _{cognitive mapping} in large-scale environments: A test of a _{developmental} model. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 35, 1-20.

Durkin, K. _{(1981). Aspects} of late _{language acquisition:} school children’s use and

com-prehension

of prepositions. First Language, 2, 47-59.

Faulkner, D. M. (1983). An _{Investigation Concerning} the Development of Organisation in Semantic Memory. Unpublished Doctoral Thesis, University of Oxford.

Flavell, J. H., Botkin, P. T., Fry, C. L., Wright, J. W. & Jarvis, P. E. _(1968). The Development

of Role-Taking and Perspective Skills in Children (New York: _Wiley).

Geva, E. & Olson, D. _(1983). Children’s _{story-retelling.} First _Language, 4, 85-110.

Glucksberg, S., Krauss, R. & Higgins, E. T. _(1975). The _development of referential

com-munication skills. In F. D. Horowitz (ed.) Review _{of Child Development} Research (Vol. 4)

(Chicago: University of Chicago Press).

Greenberg, J., Kuczaj II, S. A. & Suppiger, A. E. _(1983). An examination of adapted communication in young children. First Language, 4, 31-40.

Johnston, J. R. _{(1984). Acquisition} of locative meanings: behind and in front of. Journal of

Child Language, 11, 407-22.

Kuczaj, S. & Maratsos, M. _(1975). On the _acquisition of front, back and side. Child Develop-ment, 46, 202-210.

Nelson, K. & Gruendel, J. M. _(1981). Generalized event _{representations:} basic _building blocks of cognitive development. In M. E. Lamb & A. L. Brown _(eds), Advances in

Develop-mental _Psychology (Volume 1) (Hillsdale, N. J.: _Erlbaum).

Poulsen, D., Kintsch, E. K., Kintsch, W. & Premack, D. _(1979). Children’s _{comprehension}

and _{memory for stories.} Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 28, 379-403.

Shatz, M. (1983). Communication. In J. H. Flavell and E. M. Markman (eds) Handbook _of

Child _Psychology, Vol. 3 (New York: Wiley).

Shatz, M. & Gelman, R. (1973). The development of communication skills: modifications in

the _speech of _{young children} as a function of listener. Monographs of the _Society for Research in Child Development, 38, (5, Serial no. _152).