La comprensión de enunciados metafóricos a edades tempranasestudio con niños hispanohablantes de 3 y 4 años

  1. Peláez Torres, Marta 1
  1. 1 Universidade de Vigo
    info

    Universidade de Vigo

    Vigo, España

    ROR https://ror.org/05rdf8595

Revista:
ELUA: Estudios de Lingüística. Universidad de Alicante

ISSN: 0212-7636,  2171-6692

Any de publicació: 2024

Número: 41

Pàgines: 129-144

Tipus: Article

DOI: 10.14198/ELUA.25038 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openRUA editor

Altres publicacions en: ELUA: Estudios de Lingüística. Universidad de Alicante

Objectius de Desenvolupament Sostenible

Resum

The metaphor is a phenomenon of very high frequency in human communication, although its comprehension requires complex interpretative processes. Until recent years, most of the work showed a late development of the comprehension of non-literal utterances, at about 7-10-year-old (Winner et al. 1976; Johnson 1982; Dryll 2009), while recent studies have noted the possibility of earlier development, at 3 or 4 years old (Siqueira & Gibbs 2007; Pouscoulous & Tomasello 2019). Thus, the main aims of this study are (i) to examine the early comprehension of non-literal utterances of the metaphoric field from a pragmatic perspective in a Spanish-speaking group considering age and gender variables, and (ii) to analyse the relationship between metaphoric comprehension and specific semantic knowledge. For that purpose, we took a sample of 115 children aged 3 and 4, all Spanish native speakers, and a visual comprehension test —image selection— of perceptive metaphors was performed at a first moment, trying with this type of test to avoid including methodological complexity to the task. Secondly, a semantic verification test was performed to evaluate the knowledge of the words which are necessary for a correct pragmatic interpretation of the first test. Collected data was analysed with SPSS Statistical programme. The results of the research provide scientific evidence for an earlier development of pragmatic abilities as children of the analysed ages proved to be able to correctly interpret the metaphoric utterances of this study, being age a significative and constant predictor variable. The other analysed variable did not prove to be statistically significative when interpreting the results. As for the second aim, a positive and significative correlation is established between metaphoric comprehension level and specific semantic knowledge. This work has provided scientific evidence to an emerging field of study in which only future research will solve those questions still with an answer.

Referències bibliogràfiques

  • Adams, C. (2002). Practitioner review: the assessment of language pragmatics. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 43(8), 973-987. https://doi.org/10.1111/1469- 7610.00226
  • Albelda Marco, M. (2007). La intensificación como categoría pragmática: revisión y propuesta. Peter Lang.
  • Albelda Marco, M. (2014). Escalaridad y evaluación: rasgos caracterizadores de la intensificación pragmática. En E. Putska y S. Goldschmitt (eds.). Emotionen, Expressivität, Emphase (pp. 79-94). Erich Schmidt Verlag.
  • Albelda Marco, M. y Fernández Colomer, M. J. (2003). Intensificación y metáfora. Actas del XXIII Congreso internacional de filología y lingüística románica, 2(1), 3-8. https://doi. org/10.1515/9783110946260-002
  • Aparici Aznar, M. e Igualada, A. (eds.) (2018). El desarrollo del lenguaje y la comunicación en la infancia. Editorial UOC.
  • Asch, S. y Nerlove, H. (1960). The development of double function terms in children: an exploratory investigation. En B. Kaplan y S. Wapner (eds.). Perspectives in Psychological Theory: Essays in Honor of Heinz Werner (pp. 47-60). International Universities Press.
  • Bazzanella, C. (2009). Noi come meccanismo di intensità. En B. Gili Fivela y C. Bazzanella (eds.). Fenomeni di intensità nell’italiano parlato (pp. 101-114). Franco Cesati.
  • Bauer, D. J., Goldfield, B. A. y Reznick, J. S. (2002). Alternative approaches to analyzing individual differences in the rate of early vocabulary development. Applied Psycholinguist, 23(3), 313-335. https://doi. org/10.1017/S0142716402003016
  • Berger, F. y Höhle, B. (2012). Restrictions on addition: children’s interpretation of the focus particles auch ‘also’ and nur ‘only’ in German. Journal of Child Language, 39(2), 383-410. https://doi.org/10.1017/ S0305000911000122
  • Briz Gómez, A. (1998). El español coloquial en la conversación: esbozo de pragmalingüística. Ariel.
  • Cabell, S. Q., Justice, L. M., McGinty, A. S., Coster, J. de y Forston, L. D. (2015). Teacher-child conversations in preschool classrooms: Contributions to children’s vocabulary development. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 30, 80-92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ecresq.2014.09.004
  • Calderón Guerrero, G. (2012). La comprensión de la metáfora en niños y jóvenes. El caso de las adivinanzas. Universidad Autónoma de Querétaro.
  • Calderón Guerrero, G., Vernon Carter, S. y Carrillo Pacheco, M. (2012). Interpretación y reinterpretación de adivinanzas metafóricas: La importancia del nivel de desarrollo y del tipo de tarea en niños de 7 a 13 años. Estudios de Lingüística Aplicada, 30(56), 61-82.
  • Calderón Guerrero, G., Maldonado Ahuamada, C. y Vernon Carter, S. (2017). La comprensión de las metáforas en niños de primaria. Revista electrónica de investigación educativa, 19(2), 104-113. https://doi. org/10.24320/redie.2017.19.2.1108
  • Cameron, L. (2003). Metaphor in educational discourse. Continuum.
  • Carpenter, M., Akhtar, N. y Tomasello, M. (1998). Fourteen-through 18-month-old infants differentially imitate intentional and accidental actions. Infant Behaviour and Development, 21(2), 315-330. https://doi. org/10.1016/S0163-6383(98)90009-1
  • Colonnesi, C., Koops, W. y Meerum Terwogt, M. (2008). Young children’s psychological explanations and their relationship to perception and intention understanding. Infant and Child Development, 17(2), 163- 179. https://doi.org/10.1002/icd.548
  • Corominas, J. (1987). Breve diccionario etimológico de la lengua castellana (3.ª ed.). Editorial Gredos.
  • Dryll, E. (2009). Changes in metaphor comprehension in children. Polish Psychological Bulletin, 40(4), 204-212. http:// dx.doi.org/10.2478/s10059-009-0015-1
  • Escandell Vidal, M. V. (2015). La comunicación. Lengua, cognición y sociedad. Akal.
  • Fernández Colomer, M. J. (2003). La metáfora en el español coloquial. Interlingüística, 14, 359-374.
  • Gentner, D. y Toupin, C. (1986). Systematicity and surface similarity in the development of analogy. Cognitive Science, 10(3), 277-300. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1003_2
  • Gentner, D. y Bowdle, B. (2008). Metaphor as structure-mapping. En R. Gibbs (ed.). The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought (pp. 109-128). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/ CBO9780511816802.008
  • Gombert, J. (1992). Metalinguistic Development. University of Chicago Press.
  • Hadley, P. A., Rispoli, M., Fitzgerald, C. y Bahnsen, A. (2011). Predictors of morphosyntactic growth in typically developing toddlers: contributions of parent input and child sex. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 54(2), 549-566. https://doi. org/10.1044/1092-4388(2010/09-0216)
  • Happé, F. (1994). An Advanced Test of Theory of Mind: Understanding of Story Characters’ Thoughts and Feelings by Able Autistic, Mentally Handicapped, and Normal Children and Adults. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 24(2), 129-154. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02172093
  • Johnson, J. (1982). The development of metaphor comprehension: its mentalmodel demand measurement and its process analytical models. Tesis doctoral, Universidad de York, Toronto.
  • Lakoff, G. y Johnson, M. (1980). Conceptual metaphor in everyday language. The Journal of Philosophy, 78(8), 453-486. https:// doi.org/10.2307/2025464
  • Lakoff, G. y Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh. Basic Books.
  • Linero Zamorano, M. J. (2015). La comprensión de sentidos no literales en niños y adolescentes: un estudio comparativo con oyentes, sordos con implante coclear y sordos no implantados. Tesis doctoral, Universidad de Málaga.
  • Lovas, G. S. (2011). Gender and patterns of language development in mothertoddler and father-toddler dyads. First Language, 31(1), 83-108. https://doi.org/10.1177/0142723709359241
  • Özçaliskan, S. (2005). On learning to draw the distinction between physical and metaphorical motion: Is metaphor an early emerging cognitive and linguistic capacity? Journal of Child Language, 32, 291-318. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/ S0305000905006884
  • Özçaliskan, S. (2007). Metaphors we move by: Children’s developing understanding of metaphorical motion in typologically distinct languages. Metaphor and Symbol, 22(2), 147-168. https://doi. org/10.1080/10926480701235429
  • Özçalışkan, Ş. y Goldin-Meadow, S. (2010). Sex differences in language first appear in gesture. Developmental Science, 13(5), 752-760. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467- 7687.2009.00933.x
  • Piaget, J. (1951). Play, dreams and imitation in childhood. Routledge.
  • Pouscoulous, N. (2014). The elevator’s buttocks. Methaphorical abilities in children. En D. Matthews (ed.). Pragmatic development in first language acquisition (pp. 239-259). John Benjamins Publising Company. https://doi. org/10.1075/tilar.10.14pou
  • Pouscoulous, N. y Tomasello, M. (2019). Early birds: Metaphor understanding in 3-year-olds. Journal of Pragmatics, 156, 160-167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2019.05.021
  • Rojas Nieto, C. y Jackson-Maldonado, D. (2011). Una introducción a la búsqueda de los efectos de la lengua maternal en el desarrollo del lenguaje. Tres generaciones de preguntas. En C. Rojas Nieto y D. Jackson-Maldonado (ed.). Interacción y uso lingüístico en el desarrollo de la lengua materna (pp. 9-26). Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México-Universidad Autónoma de Querétaro.
  • Sanmartín Sáez, J. (2000). Creación léxica I: Neologismos semánticos: las metáforas de cada día. En A. Briz Gómez y Grupo Val. Es.Co (eds.). ¿Cómo se comenta un texto coloquial? (pp. 125-142). Ariel.
  • Schulze, C., Grassmann, S. y Tomasello, M. (2013). 3-year-old children make relevance inferences in indirect verbal communication. Child development, 84(6), 2079-2093. https:// doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12093
  • Simonsen, H. G., Kristoffersen, K. E., Bleses, D., Wehberg, S. y Jørgensen, R. N. (2014). The Norwegian Communicative Development Inventories: Reliability, main developmental trends and gender differences. First Language, 34(1), 3-23. https://doi.org/10.1177/0142723713510997
  • Siqueira, M. y Gibbs, R. (2007). Children’s acquisition of primary metaphors: a crosslinguistic study. Organon, 43, 161-179. https://doi.org/10.22456/2238-8915.39590
  • Sperber D. y Wilson, D. (1996). Relevance. Communication and cognition (2.ª ed.). Blackwell.
  • Sperber D. y Wilson, D. (2004). La teoría de la relevancia. Revista de Investigación Lingüística, 7, 237-286.
  • Stiller, A. J., Goodman, N. D. y Frank, M. C. (2015). Ad-hoc implicature in preschool children. Language Learning and Development, 11(2), 176-190. https://doi.org/10.1080/15475441.20 14.927328
  • Vosniadou, S., Ortony, A., Reynolds, R. y Wilson, P. (1984). Sources of difficulty in the young child’s understanding of metaphorical language. Child Development, 55(4), 1588- 1606. https://doi.org/10.2307/1130028
  • Winner, R., Rosenstiel, A. y Gardner, H. (1976). The development of metaphoric understanding. Developmental Psychology, 12, 289-297. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012- 1649.12.4.289
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet