| |
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
Carol Kit Sum TO, Division of Speech & Hearing Sciences, The University of Hong Kong |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TO Carol Kit Sum - Division of Speech & Hearing Sciences, The University of Hong Kong
|
WOO Estella - Child Assessment Service, HKSAR Government
|
CHEUNG Pamela Sau Ping - Child Assessment Service, HKSAR Government
|
SHEH Annie - Child Assessment Service, HKSAR Government
|
LAM Lorinda - Child Assessment Service, HKSAR Government
|
WONG Anita - Division of Speech & Hearing Sciences, The University of Hong Kong
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| SRCLD Year: |
2011 |
| Presentation Type: |
Poster Presentation |
| Poster Number: |
|
| Presentation Time: |
(na) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| - Cognition/Language |
| - Language Acquisition |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rationale: This study compares the developmental sequence of understanding five types of figurative languages including lie, persuasion, hyperbole, white-lie and irony.
Methods: Seventy-eight children aged at 5;6, 6;0, 7;0 and 8;0 were recruited. A total of ten vignettes of characters interacting were constructed. Each vignette was embedded with a remark encoding one type of figurative language. After listening to each vignette, a child was asked two questions about the truth of the remark and intent of the character making the remark.
Results: Children were more successful at understanding lies followed by persuasion and then hyperbole. White lies were often taken as lies without the good intention. Children had most trouble understanding irony and only about 14% of the oldest children can understand ironic remarks.
Conclusions: The five types of figurative languages differ from one another in the difficulty they pose. The pattern could be explained in terms of the level of representation that one attributes to others as well as socio-cognitive maturity.
Funding source: General Research Fund, Hong Kong Research Grants Council |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|