Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-07T08:45:07.232Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A test of metaphoric comprehension and some preliminary developmental data*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 September 2008

Marilyn R. Pollio  and
Howard R. Pollio
Marilyn R. Pollio
Affiliation:
Maryville College, The University of Tennessee
Howard R. Pollio
Affiliation:
Maryville College, The University of Tennessee
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The purposes of the present study was to develop a multiple-choice test of figurative language comprehension and to evaluate the development of such comprehension over a wide range of ages and children. To do this, samples of novel and frozen figures were selected from a corpus provided by elementary school children and then administered to 149 different children between 9 and 14 years. Results showed that the test produced was a reliable one, and one that produced meaningful developmental trends. In addition, differences were noted between the comprehension and production of novel and frozen figures of speech. These findings were discussed in terms of their methodological and developmental implications.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 6 , Issue 1 , February 1979 , pp. 111 - 120
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1979

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.)

Footnotes

[*]

A portion of the present data was presented at the Southeastern Psychological Association Meetings, April 1977 in Miami Beach, Florida. The authors would like to thank James D. Pickens, Marilla Davis, John Henson, and Jeff Page for their help in this study.

References

REFERENCES

Asch, S. E. & Nerlove, H. (1960). The development of double function terms in children. In Kaplan, B. & Wapner, S. (eds), Perspectives in psychological theory. New York: International Universities Press.Google Scholar
Barlow, J. M., Kerlin, J. R. & Pollio, H. R. (1971). Training manual for identifying figurative language (Technical Report No. 1). Metaphor Research Group, University of Tennessee, Knoxville.Google Scholar
Billow, R. M. (1975). A cognitive developmental study of metaphor comprehension. DevPsych 11. 415–23.Google Scholar
Fan, C. T. (1953). Item analysis table: a table of item-difficulty and item-discrimination indices for given proportions of success in the highest 27 percent and the lowest 27 percent of a normal bivariate population. Princeton, N.J.: Educational Testing Service.Google Scholar
Gardner, H., Kircher, M., Winner, E. & Perkins, D. (1975). Children's metaphoric productions and preferences. JChLang 2. 125–41.Google Scholar
Lockwood, B. R. (1974). Figurative language as a function of cognitive style. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Tennessee.Google Scholar
Pickens, J. D. (1977). Figurative language in the deaf. Paper presented at Southeastern Psychological Association Meetings,Miami.Google Scholar
Pollio, H. R., Barlow, J. M., Fine, H. J. & Pollio, M. R. (1977). Psychology and the poetics of growth. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Pollio, M. R. (1973). The development and augmentation of figurative language. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Tennessee.Google Scholar
Pollio, M. R. & Pollio, H. R. (1974). The development of figurative language in school children. JPsycholingRes 3. 138–43.Google Scholar
Schonberg, R. B. (1974). Adolescent thought and figurative language. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Tennessee.Google Scholar
Smith, J. W. A. (1976). Children's emphasis of metaphor: a Piagetian interpretation. L & S 19. 236–43.Google Scholar
Winner, F., Rosenstiel, A. K. & Gardner, H. (1976). The development of metaphoric understanding. DevPsych 12. 289–97.Google Scholar