Future Talk, Plans, and Hypothetical Thinking in Young Children from Three Social Groups in Argentina

ALAM, FLORENCIA; ROSEMBERG, CELIA RENATA; MIGDALEK, MAIA JULIETA

Amsterdam

Congreso; 13th International Congress for the Study of Child language; 2014

Nelson (1989, 2007) and Hudson (2006) maintain that prediction of future events, which may involve planning and hypothetical thinking, is a critical dimension of development. Previous studies on this topic have focused on middle income children. In contrast this study analyzes the future talk and planning skills shown by children from three social groups in Argentina: urban marginalized neighbourhoods (UM), Toba native suburban communities (TN), and middle-income families (MI). Thirty 4-year-old children -10 MI, 10 UM, 10 TN- were asked about their plans for Children´s Day, a widespread celebration in Argentina. Once they finished formulating their plan, they were presented with hypothetical mishaps that could take place in the future event. They were then asked to think of a way to remedy the situations. The analysis considers 1) the temporal frame of reference ?future, hypothetical, past, and general- of each elaboration; 2) the strategies employed to face the mishaps: abandoning the plan (AP), denying the obstacle (DO), and modifying the plan (MP). Results showed that the three groups elaborate by referring to past and general events, but MI and UM do it more than TN (Present:TN:0.27,MI:0.43,UM:0.48; Past:TN:0.03;MI:0.07;UM:0.05). The TN children´s elaborations adopted a future frame more often than the other groups´ elaborations (TN:0.64;MI:0.31; UM:0.42;ANOVA:F(2.27)= 5.07, MSE=.056; p<.01). A hypothetical frame was rarely adopted in the accounts (TN:0.05;MI:0.12;UM:0.03). However, when the mishaps were presented, the three groups of children tend to use a MP strategy (TN: MP:0.84;DO:0.11;AP:0.11ANOVA:F(2.48)=15.89,MSE=0.22,p<.001; MI: MP:0.84;DO:0.16 AP:0 ANOVA: F(2.48)=35.52, MSE=0.44, p<.001; UM MP:0.72; DO:0.38 AB:0.07 ANOVA: F(2.48)=9.13, MSE=0.34, p<.001) that resorts more often to a hypothetical frame of reference than the other strategies (MP:0.36 versus 0.06; t(71)=2.88, p<.01). Therefore, although the hypothetical frame of reference was adopted infrequently in the accounts, it was used when the cognitive strategy demanded it, showing a relationship between strategy and linguistic resources.