Comparing Perception of Antonymy Between Persian-Speaking Educable Children With Intellectual Disabilities and Typically Developing Children
Introduction: Antonymy is a key feature of everyday conversation, mental organization of words and discourse. It is also known that the most important characteristic of children with intellectual disabilities is language delay. Therefore, such children may have difficulties in the perception of antonymy. The purpose of this paper is to provide a comparative study of the perception of various types of antonymy between Typically Developing (TD) and educable Persian-speaking children with intellectual disabilities. Specifically, whether the perception of various types of antonymy is similar in these two groups of children. This research may offer clues for the necessity of the investigation of antonymy to help perceive the semantic knowledge by children with intellectual disabilities because the semantic knowledge is in turn vital for language comprehension.
Materials and Methods: The study subjects included 15 TD children between 6 to 8 years of age and 15 educable children with intellectual disabilities with mental age of 6 to 8 years. Data were collected via a researcher-made test of perception of antonymy. A total of 30 questions were used to compare the perception of antonymy in terms of simple, gradable, reverse, converse, open and close taxonomy antonyms. Each question included three words.
Results: Except for the gradable antonymy subcategory, the perception of various types of antonymy between two groups of children showed a significant difference (P<0.05).
Conclusion: The research findings indicated that children with intellectual disabilities had difficulties with antonymy perception.
Saeed J. Semantics. 3rd edition. Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley-Blackwell; 2008.
Kreidler CW. Introducing English Semantics. London: Routledge; 1998. [DOI:10.4324/9780203265574]
Lyons J. Semantics Vol 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1977. [DOI:10.1017/CBO9781139165693]
Cruse DA. Lexical semantic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1986.
Reimer N. Introducing Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2010. [DOI:10.1017/CBO9780511808883]
Murphy ML. Antonymy and Incompatibility. In: Brown K, editor. Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics .2nd edition. New York: Elsevier; 2006. [DOI:10.1016/B0-08-044854-2/01023-3]
Lobner S. Understanding semantics. London: Arnold; 2002.
American Association on Mental Retardation. Mental retardation: Definition, classification, and systems of supports. 10th edition. American Association on Mental Retardation: Washington D.C.; 2002.
Zigler E, Hoddap RM. Understanding mental retardation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1998.
Barrof GS, Olley G. Mental retardation: Nature, cause, and management. 3rd edition. London: Rutledge; 2012.
Milanifar B. [Psychology of Exceptional Children (Persian)]. 8th edition. Tehran: Qamos; 2007.
Roeleveld N, Zielhuis GA. The prevalence of mental retardation: A critical review of recent literature. Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology. 1997; 39(2):125-32. [DOI:10.1111/j.1469-8749.1997.tb07395.x]
Sharifi Daramadi P, Vakili S. [Psychology of the mentally disabled children (Persian)]. 2nd edition. Tehran: Avay-e Noor; 2012.
Peter K. Language disorders in children with mental deficiency. Social and Behavioral Sciences. 2015, 180:1643-8. [DOI:10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.05.058]
Fowler AE. Language in mental retardation: Association with and dissociations from general cognition. In: Burack JA, Hodapp RM, Zigler EF, editors. Handbook of Mental Retardation and Development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1998.
Clark E. What’s in a word? On the child acquisition semantics in his first language. Michigan: Moore; 1973.
Merrill, ED, Lookado, R, Rilea, S. Memory, language comprehension and mental retardation. In: Hodapp R, editor. International Review of Research in Developmental Disabilities. New York: Elsevier; 2003. [DOI:10.1016/S0074-7750(03)27005-1]
Carey S, Bartlet E. Acquiring a single new word, Papers and Reports on child language development. Stanford, California: Stanford University; 1978.
Jones S. Antonymy: A corpus-based approach. London: Routledge; 2002. [DOI:10.4324/9780203166253_chapter_11]
Murphy ML, Jones S. Antonyms in children’s and child directed speech. First Language. 2008, 28(4):403-30. [DOI:10.1177/0142723708091047]
Kreezer G, Dallenbach KM. Learning the relation of opposition. The American Journal of Psychology. 1929; 41(3):432-41. [DOI:10.2307/1414683]
Clark, EV. On the child’s acquisition of antonyms in two semantic fields. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior. 1972; 11(6):750-8. [DOI:10.1016/S0022-5371(72)80009-4]
Philips CA, Pexman PM. When do children understand “opposite”? Speech, Language, and Hearing Research. 2015; 58(4):1233-44. [DOI:10.1044/2015_JSLHR-L-14-0222]
Duchan, JF, Erikson, JG. Normal and retarded children’s understanding of semantic relations in different verbal contexts. Speech, Language, and Hearing Research. 1976; 19(4):767-76. [DOI:10.1044/jshr.1904.767]
Chapman DL, Nation JE. Patterns of language behavior in children with developmental language disorder. Communication Disorder. 1981; 14(3):245-54. [DOI:10.1044/jshr.1802.229]
Davies D, Sperber RD, Mccauley C. Intelligence-related differences in semantic processing speed. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology. 1981; 31(3):387-402. [DOI:10.1016/0022-0965(81)90025-4]
Megalaki O, Yazbek H. Categorization activities performed by children with intellectual disability and TD children. International Journal of Child Health and Human Development. 2013; 6:355-66.
Harris DB. Children’s drawings as measure of intellectual maturity: A revision and extension of the Goodenough Draw-a-Man test. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World; 1963.
Khanbani M. [Linguistic skills among normal and educable intellectual disability children in Isfahan (Persian)]. Journal of Exceptional Education. 2004; 37:10-7.