It is usually assumed that although Memory Span is on the whole a poor measure of intelligence and its scores show rather little individual differences, it is nevertheless an extremely good test at the lower levels of mental ability. The present paper reports how Span for digits in WISC (Japanese edition) correlates with intelligence and academical efficiency. Subjects are: 83 mental defectives (MDs), from imbecilities to borderlines, 6-18 years of age: 263 normals, 6-15 years; 23 cerebral palsied children (CPs), 7-14 years. In this paper academical efficiency is in some cases used absolutely as the proof of intelligence. As an example, we can very safely assume that a child has normal intelligence when he is able to master operations of fractions, decimals, i.e., rational numbers. Findings and interpretations are: (a) Ability to repeat 6 digits forward and 4 or 5 backward means that the subject has normal intelligence, with very rare exceptions. But not always vice versa. (b) MDs, including borderline adolescents, hardly go beyond 5 digits forward, and 4 backward, with only one exception in this report. Again not always vice versa. (c) Generally speaking, correlations of subtests with global intelligence are lowest at the younger age (4 years in this report), and highest at the adult age, and again a little lower at the senility. While the correlation of Span with global intelligence remains constant throughout the different age levels, scoring about .5-.6. Hence it occurs that at the Kindergarten age, Span is one of the most effective subtests for measuring intelligence, (d) Development of Span of MDs as related to MA shows three stages. Below 4 years of MA, Span does not exceed 3 forward, no backward. Within 5-7 years of MA, Span ranges from 3 forward, and no backward, to 5 forward, and 4 backward. Here Span and MA have no correlation. Beyond 8 years of MA, Span is 5 or 4 forward, and 4 or 2 backward. (e) It is rather rare that a child has superior academical efficiency in spite of a little low IQ. Such a case can be found in CPs who have received enough academical training in spite of many hadicaps in everyday life. And it was found that a superior Span (here 5 or more forward, and 4 or more backward, ) goes with normal academical achievements, that is, the virtually normal intelligence, again with very few exceptions. (f) Span seems to have a particular role in thinking or reasoning. Span is a sort of capacity to retain in mind several elements which have not logical relationships between each other. While in solving a problem, we must often retain in mind several elements before we can make out the logic of them to hit at the correct solution. Moreover, Span means a sort of mental effort to keep attention and to inhibit automatism which often distracts thoughts from the correct course. (g) We can attribute a special validity to such tests as devised by Rey (1955) which requires the capacity to retain in mind a set of nonsense materials or nonsense series of stimuli. (h) Whether Span is subject to training, and if so, whether the increase of Span might be accompanied with that of intelligence or not, remains unsettled.
Despite the importance of task for leadership and small group analysis, there have not been enough psychological studies on task structure. It seems increasingly clear that task structure is intimately related to the results obtained in many experiments on the interaction process between individuals or leader-follower relations. The task to which group is exposed is defined as the structures of the path the group should follow in reaching the goal. The purpose of this study was to clarify the effects of the relevance of the individuals' goal-oriented activities upon their organization process. Six three-person groups were used as subjects in each of Exp. I and Exp. II. All of the subjects were 10 to 11 years old primary school boys. Relevance was defined as the degree of freedom of each individuals' goal-oriented activities. The degrees of relevance were operationally produced by the two kinds of task. One consisted of “6 questions” (high relevant), and the other consisted of “30 questions” (low relevant). Both of them were similar to the well known game called “twenty questions” which is a very popular radio program. In these tasks, the importance of one question should be increased as the number of questions allowed are decreased. Particularly, the first 6 questions of the 6 question game are more important than the first 6 questions of the 30 question game. Therefore we compare the group organization process observed during the first 6 questions (decisions) in the 6 question game with that of the 30 question game. And the greater the importance of each question, the greater the restriction of the freedom of the individuals' goal-oriented activities. Discussion or interaction in each group raised during the first 6 questions (decisions) process under the two task conditions was systematically observed and analysed by categories similar to Bales' interaction process analysis (Table 1). Each group performed co-operatively two 6 question and two 30 question games alternately. The main results of our expeiments were as follows: 1. Group-oriented activities, which were made for the purpose of controlling the individuals' goal-oriented activities, were more frequently observed under the 6 question game than the 30 question game (Table 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17), It seemed to be clear that the pressures toward uniformity were stronger under high relevant condition than under low relevant condition. 2. In Exp. I where the subjects were instructed to ask questions in turn, the high relevant task conditon induced more group steering role differentiation than low relevant task conditon, but the degree of group task role differentiation did not differ significantly between the 6 and 30 question games (Table 4, 5). 3. In Exp. II where such instructions as used in Exp. I were not given, the low relevant task condition induced more role (group steering and task role) differentiation than high relevant task condition (Table 12, 13).
In the Japanese speech, clitics are almost always indespensable to make a sentence, and children frequently use them in their word-chain utterances from very early period (at least by the end of one-year-period, and normally about the middle of that period). The simplest type of the utterances which contains such clitics is that consisting of one independent word [A] (in early childhood, it is mostly a noun, a verb, or an adjective) and one clitic [B]. And this AB-type may be one of those most frequently observed wordchain utterances in one-year-old children. Furthermore, as these clitics are small in number, these characteristics are very useful in studying the early formation of word-compounding function. The syntactical functions of the Japanese clitics can be classified roughly into the following: (1) Those which combine words logically [B′]; and, (2) those which appeal the speaker's sentiment to the hearer [B′′]. B′ expresses among others, grammatical “cases” in the sentence, while B′′ furnishes utterances with interpersonal-humanistic “tones” which are essential in everyday conversations. The clitics are one kind of particles (articles, prepositions, conjunctions, interjections, and the like in English), and B′ may correspond to preposition, and B′′ to interjection. But Bs (B′ and B′′) are essentially “postpositions” and are more important and more frequently used in speech than the particles in European languages are. Procedures are as follows: 1. Longitudinal speech samples of five normal one-year-old Japanese children were analysed to clarify the development of their word-compounding processes. Original speech samples were magnetic-taped records of speeches recorded 30min a day per week through one year. 2. In the analysis, frequencies of the same utterances were not taken into account, and only varieties of AB-type were considered. 3. As indices of the word-compounding, we used the following: (i) Overall average number of the utterances connected to a word; (ii) frequencies of every type of the combinations (e.g. one B combined to 3As; 2Bs combined to one A, etc.); (iii) average number of the utterances combined to a word in every type of the combinations; (iv) difference of ratios between the number of each subword-class in A and B. The results showed: 1. Children K and Y, who showed remarkable progress in their vocabularies also showed clear superiorities in the development of word-compounding. In the indices (i) to (iii), they make steady progress in increasing the scores. On the other hand, Children S and E, who were poor in vocabulary growth showed no signs of the development. 2. Data in the last period in Child K are the one to which index (iv) can be effectivelly applied. The result showed the sub-differentiations of linguistic functions of A (A′ and A′′, A′ means noun, A′′ not noun but mostly verb or adjective) and B (B′ and B′′).