Comprehension Monitoring and the Apprehension of Literal Meaning.

BONITATIBUS, GARY. Comprehension Monitoring and the Apprehension of Literal Meaning. CHILD DEVELOPMENT, 1988, 59, 60-70. 2 experiments were done to test the hypothesis that the development of children's comprehension-monitoring skills in the referential communication paradigm is based in part on the ability to differentiate the literal, sentence meaning of a speaker's direction from the meaning or intention that the speaker wished to convey. It was found that children who could monitor their comprehension attended to the literal meaning of the message, whereas their peers who failed to monitor their comprehension did not. Successful monitors preferred knowledge of what was said over what was meant by a speaker to help them diagnose the cause of a failed communication, whereas poor monitors showed no preference. Successful monitors were able to recognize correctly what had been said, whereas poor monitors confused what was said with what was meant, causing them to recognize incorrectly directions that differed from the original but that conveyed the same speaker's intent. The availability of the speaker's possible intentions in the referent array was found to decrease the recognition performance of poor monitors but not successful monitors. Poor monitors, unlike successful monitors, were also willing to accept more than one version of a direction as what had been said, provided that both versions conveyed the same speaker's intent. The results are discussed in terms of the relative linguistic roles of literal versus speaker's meanings.

[1]  E. Robinson,et al.  Development in the understanding of causes of success and failure in verbal communication , 1977, Cognition.

[2]  E. Robinson,et al.  Developmental changes in the child's explanations of communication failure , 1976 .

[3]  David R. Olson,et al.  Children's understanding of the relation between expressions (what was said) and intentions (what was meant) , 1983 .

[4]  J. Flavell,et al.  Development of the ability to distinguish communicative intention and literal message meaning. , 1984, Child development.

[5]  C. Patterson,et al.  Nonverbal indicants of comprehension and noncomprehension in children. , 1980 .

[6]  J. Fodor.  Psychology and Language. , 1970 .

[7]  E. J. Robinson,et al.  The Young Child's Explanations of Communication Failure: A Re-Interpretation of Results , 1977 .

[8]  Terry Winograd,et al.  What Does it Mean to Understand Language? , 1980, Cogn. Sci..

[9]  D. Olson.  From Utterance to Text: The Bias of Language in Speech and Writing , 1977 .

[10]  John H. Flavell,et al.  The development of comprehension monitoring and knowledge about communication. , 1981 .

[11]  E. Robinson,et al.  The relationship between children's explanations of communication failure and their ability deliberately to give bad messages , 1978 .

[12]  J. Macnamara.  Cognitive basis of language learning in infants. , 1972, Psychological review.

[13]  Miriam E. Kotsonis,et al.  Comprehension-monitoring skills in learning-disabled children. , 1980 .

[14]  E. Robinson,et al.  Children's explanations of communication failure and the inadequacy of the misunderstood message. , 1977 .

[15]  Margaret C. Donaldson.  Children's Minds , 1978 .

[16]  S. Jackson.  Conversational implicature in children's comprehension of reference , 1981 .

[17]  H. H. Clark,et al.  Hearers and speech acts , 1982 .

[18]  J. Flavell,et al.  Effect of Presenting a Message in Written Form on Young Children's Ability to Evaluate Its Communication Adequacy. , 1985 .

[19]  Grover J. Whitehurst,et al.  The development of communication: Attribute variation leads to contrast failure , 1978 .