Markson+(WK5)

=Intention and Analogy in Children's Naming of Pictorial Representations=

by: Paul Bloom and Lori Markson
This article seems to mainly say, in many more words...

Children, and to some extent adults, do not name things purely by shape, but largely based on what they are intended to represent.

I'm not sure what should be added to this, as that seems to really be the gist of it, but if someone wanted to throw in a couple quotes, examples, or definitions, I'm sure that would be appreciated tomorrow (later today) when we will all have to come to a consensus about this work.

One of the factors affecting the representation could be culture. It doesn't say too much about this in the article, but I think culture/socialization can change a children's naming of pictorial representations.

Here is something we can include in our discussion: What underlies children's and adult's naming of representations?
 * Big Question of Article:**


 * General Outline of Article:**
 * I.** Prior research suggests: (1) There is a direct connection between names and shape, //__**or**__// (2) A word that refers to an object can also be used to refer to a representation of the object, //and// shape is an excellent cue of what the object represents.


 * II.** Informed by the conclusions of the prior research (above), this article presents three studies which "...asked children to name pictures that represented objects __**//by virtue of intent and analogy, but not physical resemblance//**__ (p.1)."

Note: This section draws heavily from pages 2 and 3. I have not specified what is direct quote, and what is paraphrased in my own words - each section is a mixture of the two.
 * III. (General Outline of the Studies)**

//__Study # 1:__// "Drawing Task" //Procedure//: -Children were requested to draw pictures on separate sheets of paper, using a different-color crayon for each picture. -Each child was asked to draw a balloon, a lollipop, himself/herself/zirself, and the experimenter. -After a child completed the tasks, the experimenter asked the child to describe them. //Results/Discussion:// //-//it is important to note that the drawings often did not look anything like balloons, lollipops, or people, and even when they did, one could not tell from a drawing's appearance whether it represented a lollipop versus a balloon, or the experimenter versus the child. //-//A response based on the creator's intent would result in the child naming the pictures on the basis of what he or she had intended for them to depict. Children succeeded at this. __**Note**__//:// I actually don't understand this one. Would someone help? Children will put a label of an initial intent for waht he/she wants the item to look like when asked to draw it. Like wise, when they are shown a picture and ask to discribe the pics being held in fron or the that will draw their ideas from a varied array of topics. If they are given a nudge as to what the picture could be they don't depher the intend of the picture.

I think this speaks to children magical thinking and imagination. Although this is not well covered. I think he is touching on how a child's interpretation is much different than a grown woman or man which is why a child will say when a drawing clearly looks like a balloon to us clearly looks like a apple. However it is unclear to me how or why they think this underdevelopment maybe.

//__Study # 2:__// "Size Task" //Procedure:// -Children were told that they were going to be shown some pictures that had been drawn by a child of the same age and sex who had a broken arm. They were informed that the boy or girl had tried really hard to draw good pictures, but because of the broken arm, the pictures did not always come out looking like what the boy or girl had wanted. -The children were shown 4 sheets of paper, each of which depicted two shapes of unequal size. -They were told that each picture was of one of the following four item pairs: mouse-elephant, dog-house, tree-spider, or flower-bycicle. -The experimenter announced the names of the two items, without specifying which was which ("He/she drew a picture of a spider and a tree.") -The experimenter pointed to each figure in the picture and asked the children to describe it. ("Can you point to a spider? Can you point to a tree?") //Results/Discussion:// -A response based on analogical reasoning would result in the child describing the larger representation as the larger real-world item. Results suggest that children responded based on analogical reasoning.

__//Study # 3://__ "Oddity Task" //Procedure:// -The procedure for this task was identical to the procedure for the size task, except that the children were told that the boy or girl had drawn a picture of "some" of one item and "one" of another item ("He drew three shoes and one sock"). -The children were shown drawings of 4 ovals, one of which had a different orientation than the rest. -For each picture, the children were told that a boy or girl had drawn one of the following sets of items: cows and horses, shoes and socks, pigs and chickens, or cookies and apples. -Children were asked to describe the drawings using the same procedure as in the size task. //Results/Discussion:// -An appreciation of analogy would result in the child naming the three similar representations as the thing the creator intended to make "some" of, and the single oval with a different orientation as the thing the creator intended to make "one" of. -4 year-olds succeeded, but 3-year-olds did not.

-"The results suggest that children's naming of representations can be based on factors other than shape. The findings are strongest in the drawing task, and it is worth noting that children's responses in this task were often not subtle, both during the experiment itself and in informal discussion after the experiment. A child might insist, for instance, that one of his pictures was "a balloon" and rigorously correct the experimenter if she described it as a lollipop, even though it looked equally like either object. This shows that sameness of shape is not sufficient to determine the children's naming preferences: Something can be shaped like a lollipop, but not called a lollipop. In the two analogy conditions, size and oddity, the children were also able to correctly name items that bore no resemblance to what they depicted (p.4)." -"Finally, children's naming of pictures on the basis of intent and analogy is inconsistent with the claim that they are focusing exclusively on shape (p.5)." Based on researrch children learn the phsyical shapes of things rather three demisional or two deminisional. This happens in the first eitghteen months of development. The ability to recognize the picure as an intended item that is being respresented. By the time children are three they can corealate the differnce between a dog and a chicken and when even shown shaped in geometric form, when asked with on is a dog as compaired to a chicken. Even at that age more children will be able to give to a reason why this picture is of a dog and not a chicken.
 * IV. Discussion/Conclusion**

Given this studing, children that are younger then 4 years old can be given a picture of an object and told that there are three dogs and one chicken and with just a slight moevement of one circle on the page they will associate the number of items witht what the expermenter told them to look for.

Sundee Is [|guest (192.211.30.218)]