{"title":"否定的早期含义是否与婴儿期成熟的否定概念相对应?","authors":"Eszter Szabó, Ágnes-Melinda Kovács","doi":"10.1016/j.cognition.2024.105929","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Young children acquire an amazing knowledge base, rapidly learning from, and even going beyond the observable evidence. They arrive at forming abstract concepts and generalizations and recruit logical operations. The question whether young infants can already rely on abstract logical operations, such as disjunction or negation, or whether these operations emerge gradually over development has recently become a central topic of interest. Here we target this question by focusing on infants' early understanding of negation. According to one view, negation comprehension is initially restricted to a narrow range of meanings (such as rejection or non-existence) and only much later infants develop a broader understanding that maps onto a fully-fledged negation concept. Alternatively, however, infants may rely on a fully-fledged negation concept from early on, but some forms of negation may pose more mapping and processing difficulties than others.</p><p>Here we tested infants' understanding of two syntactically and semantically different forms of negation, existential negation and propositional denial in a language (Hungarian) that has a separate negative particle for each, and thus the two negation forms can be directly compared. We engaged 15- and 18-month-old infants in a search task where they had to find a toy in one out of two locations based on verbal utterances referring to the object at one of the locations involving existential negation (<em>Nincsen</em> - not.be.3SG) or propositional denial (<em>Nem itt van</em> - not here be.3SG). In Experiments 1–3 we found a parallel development for these two kinds of negation. 18-month-olds successfully comprehended both, while 15-month-olds were at chance for both. In Experiment 4 we excluded the possibility that 15-month-olds' chance performance is explained by task-related difficulties, as they succeeded in a similar, but nonverbal task. Thus, 15-month-olds likely still have not solved the mapping for the two negation forms. The parallel performance of the two age groups with the two negation types (failing or succeeding on both) is consistent with the hypothesis that different forms of negation rely on similar conceptual underpinnings already in early development.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48455,"journal":{"name":"Cognition","volume":"254 ","pages":"Article 105929"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010027724002154/pdfft?md5=471b3c98ca100e618b168c352327ac39&pid=1-s2.0-S0010027724002154-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Do early meanings of negation map onto a fully-fledged negation concept in infancy?\",\"authors\":\"Eszter Szabó, Ágnes-Melinda Kovács\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.cognition.2024.105929\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Young children acquire an amazing knowledge base, rapidly learning from, and even going beyond the observable evidence. They arrive at forming abstract concepts and generalizations and recruit logical operations. The question whether young infants can already rely on abstract logical operations, such as disjunction or negation, or whether these operations emerge gradually over development has recently become a central topic of interest. Here we target this question by focusing on infants' early understanding of negation. According to one view, negation comprehension is initially restricted to a narrow range of meanings (such as rejection or non-existence) and only much later infants develop a broader understanding that maps onto a fully-fledged negation concept. Alternatively, however, infants may rely on a fully-fledged negation concept from early on, but some forms of negation may pose more mapping and processing difficulties than others.</p><p>Here we tested infants' understanding of two syntactically and semantically different forms of negation, existential negation and propositional denial in a language (Hungarian) that has a separate negative particle for each, and thus the two negation forms can be directly compared. We engaged 15- and 18-month-old infants in a search task where they had to find a toy in one out of two locations based on verbal utterances referring to the object at one of the locations involving existential negation (<em>Nincsen</em> - not.be.3SG) or propositional denial (<em>Nem itt van</em> - not here be.3SG). In Experiments 1–3 we found a parallel development for these two kinds of negation. 18-month-olds successfully comprehended both, while 15-month-olds were at chance for both. In Experiment 4 we excluded the possibility that 15-month-olds' chance performance is explained by task-related difficulties, as they succeeded in a similar, but nonverbal task. Thus, 15-month-olds likely still have not solved the mapping for the two negation forms. The parallel performance of the two age groups with the two negation types (failing or succeeding on both) is consistent with the hypothesis that different forms of negation rely on similar conceptual underpinnings already in early development.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48455,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cognition\",\"volume\":\"254 \",\"pages\":\"Article 105929\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010027724002154/pdfft?md5=471b3c98ca100e618b168c352327ac39&pid=1-s2.0-S0010027724002154-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cognition\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010027724002154\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cognition","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010027724002154","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
幼儿获得了惊人的知识基础,迅速从可观察到的证据中学习,甚至超越这些证据。他们开始形成抽象概念和概括,并开始使用逻辑运算。幼儿是否已经可以依赖析取或否定等抽象逻辑运算,或者这些运算是否是在发展过程中逐渐出现的,这个问题最近成为了人们关注的核心话题。在此,我们针对这一问题,重点研究幼儿对否定的早期理解。有一种观点认为,婴儿最初对否定的理解仅限于狭窄的含义范围(如拒绝或不存在),只有到了很晚的时候,婴儿才会发展出更广泛的理解,从而映射出一个完整的否定概念。在这里,我们测试了婴儿对两种句法和语义不同的否定形式--存在否定和命题否定--的理解,这两种语言(匈牙利语)都有单独的否定词,因此可以直接比较这两种否定形式。我们让 15 和 18 个月大的婴儿参加一项搜索任务,让他们根据涉及存在否定(Nincsen - not.be.3SG)或命题否定(Nem itt van - not here be.3SG)的言语,在两个地点中的一个地点找到一个玩具。在实验 1-3 中,我们发现这两种否定的发展是平行的。18 个月大的幼儿成功地理解了这两种否定,而 15 个月大的幼儿对这两种否定的理解都处于偶然状态。在实验 4 中,我们排除了 15 个月幼儿的偶然表现是由于任务相关困难所致的可能性,因为他们在类似的非言语任务中也取得了成功。因此,15 个月大的幼儿很可能仍未解决两种否定形式的映射问题。两个年龄组在两种否定类型上的平行表现(均失败或均成功)与不同形式的否定在早期发展中已依赖于相似概念基础的假设是一致的。
Do early meanings of negation map onto a fully-fledged negation concept in infancy?
Young children acquire an amazing knowledge base, rapidly learning from, and even going beyond the observable evidence. They arrive at forming abstract concepts and generalizations and recruit logical operations. The question whether young infants can already rely on abstract logical operations, such as disjunction or negation, or whether these operations emerge gradually over development has recently become a central topic of interest. Here we target this question by focusing on infants' early understanding of negation. According to one view, negation comprehension is initially restricted to a narrow range of meanings (such as rejection or non-existence) and only much later infants develop a broader understanding that maps onto a fully-fledged negation concept. Alternatively, however, infants may rely on a fully-fledged negation concept from early on, but some forms of negation may pose more mapping and processing difficulties than others.
Here we tested infants' understanding of two syntactically and semantically different forms of negation, existential negation and propositional denial in a language (Hungarian) that has a separate negative particle for each, and thus the two negation forms can be directly compared. We engaged 15- and 18-month-old infants in a search task where they had to find a toy in one out of two locations based on verbal utterances referring to the object at one of the locations involving existential negation (Nincsen - not.be.3SG) or propositional denial (Nem itt van - not here be.3SG). In Experiments 1–3 we found a parallel development for these two kinds of negation. 18-month-olds successfully comprehended both, while 15-month-olds were at chance for both. In Experiment 4 we excluded the possibility that 15-month-olds' chance performance is explained by task-related difficulties, as they succeeded in a similar, but nonverbal task. Thus, 15-month-olds likely still have not solved the mapping for the two negation forms. The parallel performance of the two age groups with the two negation types (failing or succeeding on both) is consistent with the hypothesis that different forms of negation rely on similar conceptual underpinnings already in early development.
期刊介绍:
Cognition is an international journal that publishes theoretical and experimental papers on the study of the mind. It covers a wide variety of subjects concerning all the different aspects of cognition, ranging from biological and experimental studies to formal analysis. Contributions from the fields of psychology, neuroscience, linguistics, computer science, mathematics, ethology and philosophy are welcome in this journal provided that they have some bearing on the functioning of the mind. In addition, the journal serves as a forum for discussion of social and political aspects of cognitive science.