Title Loaded From File

Second, we tested adult samples and selected reliable and valid items for the revised CVT (CVT-R). Third, we used a neutral tone of voice for the stimuli. We then examined awareness of Gricean maxim violations in 4�C6-year-olds and adults, to compare maxim understanding across age. We hypothesized that children and adults would be most aware of the violations of the maxim of relation. We also hypothesized that the detection of violation of any Megestrol Acetate maxim would be especially difficult for 4-year-old children, because both monolingual and bilingual 4-year-olds have been found to exhibit less understanding of all maxims than older children (Siegal et al., 2009). Moreover, children aged five or older who have an understanding of theory of mind (Perner et al., 1987; Wellman et al., 2001) may begin to show an understanding of pragmatics, because these two abilities are closely related (Happe, 1993). Method Participants Participants included 21 adults (M = 25.2 years, SD = 4.23; 10 males) and 64 preschoolers: 18 four-year-olds (M = 51.44 months, SD = 3.50, range PD-0332991 order = 47�C59 months; 8 males), 23 five-year-olds (M = 65.2 months, SD = 3.77, range = 60�C71 months; 12 males), and 21 six-year-olds (M = 75.7 months, SD = 2.75, range = 72�C81 months; 10 males). Children were recruited from kindergartens and nursery schools in Hyogo and Osaka prefectures. Data from one of the 4-year-olds were excluded from analysis because of experimental error, and data from a 6-year-old who refused to complete the task were also excluded. Therefore, data from 62 of the 64 preschoolers were included in the analyses. The design and purpose of the study were explained to the head administrators of the kindergartens and nursery schools, and their permission was obtained orally. Oral permission was also obtained from adult participants after they were informed of the GSK2118436 design and purpose of the study. The study was conducted in accordance with the ethics principles of the Japanese Psychological Association, and the study design was approved by the ethics review board of Kobe University. Materials CVTs used in previous studies had either 25 items (five questions for five maxims: the first and second maxims of quantity, the first maxim of quality, and the maxims of relation and politeness; (Surian et al., 1996; Siegal et al., 2009) or 20 items, including those mentioned above but excluding either the first maxim of quantity (Siegal et al., 2010) or the maxim of politeness (Surian et al., 2010). As noted above, previous studies have not examined the maxims of manner (��avoid obscurity of expression,�� ��avoid ambiguity,�� ��be brief,�� and ��be orderly��). In this study, we added conversations such as the following to examine the second maxim of manner: Question: ��Which do you like, tea or milk?�� Answer: ��Maybe tea or maybe milk.�� (The alternative, appropriate answer was ��I like milk.��) In the validation process, 30 adults (M = 24.7 years, SD = 6.