705
SUPPLEMENTARY REPORTS were relatively inexperienced with children. It was assumed that the three groups represented three different levels of experience with children’s speech. Test items, 20 spaces in length, were revealed letter by letter, as S anticipated each letter by predicting a likely word. The response for any particular space was correct only when the predicted word duplicated exactly the original text. Hence, the S who predicted “broken” where “broke” was the actual word was penalized through 6 spaces. Scoring by words gives credit to the Swho is aware that children omit, add, and substitute words and inflections in their attempts to use adult syntax. The total score for each phrase was made equal to the percentage of correct responses (redundancy). Results and Discussion. Statistical analysis of the results revealed significant Fs for the differences between the scores for erroneous and correct grammatical usage, F(l, 18) = 165.44, p < 0.01, between the scores for narrative and directive types of phrase, F(1, 18) = 35.78,~ -z 0.01, and the interaction of syntax and type F(l, 18) = 114.33, p < 0.01. The differences among the three adult groups were not significant. The mean redundancy found for the three groups combined was 51.9% for directive-correct, 41.3% for directive-error, 45.7% for narrativecorrect, and 42.6% for narrative-error.
Similarity
Between
On the basis of only the correct syntax items, the predictability of children’s directions and narration was compared with that of adult printed language of the same type (Black, 1959). A linear graph which plotted the percent of correct responses at each letter position in the phrases showed no essential difference. In sum, this study shows that the predictability of children’s language depends on the type of phrase and level of syntax. The role an adult plays in relation to children does not affect his predicting ability. The predicting technique indicates that children’s language, as it is actually uttered, yields less than 50% redundancy. REFERENCES
J. W. Predicting the content of short phrases. Quart. J. Speech, 1959,45,299-303. MENYUK, P. Alternation of rules in children’s grammar. J. oerb.L.earn. verb. Behav., 1964,3,48&488. (4. MENYUK, P. Syntactic rules used by children from preschool to first grade. J. Child Devel., 1964, 35, 533-546. (b). SHANNON, C. E. Prediction and entropy of printed English. Bell System Tech. J,, 1951,30,50-64.
BLACK,
(Received June 14,1967)
Children’s and Adults’ Noun Stimuli
Adjective
Responses
to
D. CECIL CLARK University of Washington, Seattle, Washington 98105 This analysis examined similarities between fifth-graders’ and adults’ sensory-adjective type responses to common noun stimuli. Similarity was determined by the identical and different responses given to each stimulus as well as their respective response strengths. Ninety-nine nouns from Underwood and Richardson’s adult norms were presented to 232 fifth-graders. Response hierarchies to each stimulus were obtained and compared with response hierarchies of adults for the same stimulus words. Results showed a moderately high degree of similarity between adults’ and children’s responses. The present report is an analysis of the similarities between fifth graders’ and adults’ sensory-adjective type responses to common noun stimuli. Criteria for similarity were the degree to which (a) identical responses are given to the stimuli as a group and to each individual stimulus, (b) different responses are given to a particular stimulus, and (c) response strengths of identical responses are similar. Studies by
Palermo (1963), Rosanoff and Rosanoff (1913), Woodrow and Lowell (1916), and examination of word-association norms (Entwisle, 1966; Palermo and Jenkins, 1964) suggest some similarity between children’s and adults’ free associations to nouns, adjectives, verbs, pronouns, and adverbs. Method. The group for the children’s norms consisted of 232 fifth-grade children in nine elementary
706
SUPPLEMENTARY
schools located in Palo Alto, California. The data on adult norms were drawn from the study of Underwood and Richardson (1956). The nine fifth-grade classes were randomly assigned to one of three groups, with three classes per group. Ninety-nine nouns were selected from the Underwood and Richardson (1956) norms; each was placed on a white card, and the pack shuffled thoroughly. The first 33 cards were administered to Group 1, the second 33 to Group 2, and the last 33 to Group 3. No two classes within agroupreceived thesamepresentation sequence. Each card was presented to a class for l&l 5 set, and Ss were asked to think of another word which besr described the word in front of them. Examples were given until children developed a set for giving only sensory-adjective type responses. The total number of Ss responding to each stimulus word ranged from 36 to 86; the mean per word was 72.5. The responses G-25, “Small,” “Pointed, ” “Sharp”) to a stimulus word were tabulated and then ranked according to their frequencies of occurrence; the frequencies were then converted to percentages. Thus, the stimulus word pin emerged with the response hierarchy “Sharp” (48x), “Pointed” (19x), “Small” (16x), Miscellaneous (17%); the response strength of “Sharp” was 48, of “Pointed”, 19, and of “Small”, 16. This procedure made the children’s norms identical in structure to the adult norms.1 Resubs. Twenty-eight of the response categories (e.g., “Small,” “Round, ” “Shiny”) that emerged from the children’s norms were identical to those in the adult norms; these categories were separately ranked within each set of norms according to their frequencies of occurrence. The rank-difference correlation between the rankings for the adults and the children was .79. Each stimulus word had a response hierarchy for the children and one for the adults; the product-moment correlation between these hierarchies for all 99 stimulus words was .44. i The children’s norms are available from the author or from the American Documentation Institute. To obtain a copy, order Document No. 9980 from the Chief, Photoduplication Service, Library of Congress, Washington 25, D.C., Auxiliary Publications Project, remitting $1.25 for 35 mm microfilm or $1.25 for 6 by 8-inch photocopies.
REPORTS
Each stimulus word had a “Miscellaneous” category into which were placed responses given by less than 5% of the Ss. Concerning those given by 5% or more, the average number of different responses per stimulus was 3.7 for the adults and 3.9 for the children, and the correlation between the number of different responses given to each stimulus by both groups was .51. The average percentage of responses falling in the “Miscellaneous” category was 15.7 for adults, and 25.4 for children. To 66 of the stimulus words, children and adults gave identical most-frequent responses. The strengths of these responses in the children’s group correlated .53 with the strengths in the adult group. For all identical responses given to the 99 stimulus words, the response strengths in the children’s group correlated .77 with the response strengths in the adult group. The above results indicate that children and adults showed a moderately high degree of similarity in their response hierarchies and response strengths for a given stimulus, and that children gave a greater variety of responses to a given stimulus than did adults.
REFERENCES
R. Word associafions of young children. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1966. PALERMO, D. S. Word associations and children’s verbal behavior. In L. P. Lipsitt and C. C. Spiker (Eds.), Advances in child development and behavior. New York: Academic Press, 1963. PALERMO, D. S., AND JENKINS, J. J. Word association norms grade school through coIlege. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1964. ROSANOFF, I. R., AND ROSANOFF, A. J. A study of association in children. Psychol. Rev., 1913, 20, 43-89. UNDERWOOD, B. J., AND RICHARDSON, J. Some verbal materials for the study of concept formation. Psychoi. Bull., 1956,53, 84-95. WOODROW, H., AND LOWELL, F. Children’s association frequency tables. Psychol. Monogr., 1916, 22, No. 5 (Whole No. 97). ENTWISLE,
D.
(Received June 21,1967)