Abstract J. Piaget described how children first elaborate elementary, then empirical and finally logical deductions. A. R. Luria was one of the first to show that illiterate adults of premodern cultures exhibit no understanding of the syllogisms that presuppose logical deductions. He listed the explanatory factors that Piaget had also listed. An American research group led by M. Cole and S. Scribner repeated the syllogistic studies Luria had conducted. Although the results were replicated in different developmental regions and were consistent with Piaget and Luria's considerations, Cole and Scribner interpreted the results differently. They first confirmed the validity of the explanatory approach of Piaget and Luria. But then, in a second step, they withdrew this confirmation. According to their view, the test subjects did not want to deal with the logical problems because they considered other things to be more important. Finally, Cole and Scribner interpreted the answers in such a way that they might contain the same logical, abstract, and theoretical ability that is found in the answers that express an understanding of syllogisms. The present article reconstructs the argumentations of these three schools and criticizes the latter one.

中文翻译：

---

对个体发育和历史三段论的理解：J. Piaget、AR Luria、M. Cole 和 S. Scribner 的比较贡献

摘要 J. Piaget 描述了儿童如何首先阐述基本推理，然后是经验推理，最后是逻辑推理。AR Luria 是第一个表明前现代文化的文盲成年人不理解以逻辑演绎为前提的三段论的人之一。他列出了皮亚杰也列出的解释因素。由 M. Cole 和 S. Scribner 领导的一个美国研究小组重复了 Luria 进行的三段论研究。尽管结果在不同的发展区域得到了复制，并且与 Piaget 和 Luria 的考虑一致，但 Cole 和 Scribner 对结果的解释不同。他们首先证实了 Piaget 和 Luria 解释方法的有效性。但随后，在第二步中，他们撤回了这一确认。在他们看来，测试对象不想处理逻辑问题，因为他们认为其他事情更重要。最后，科尔和斯克里布纳以这样一种方式解释答案，即它们可能包含与表达对三段论理解的答案相同的逻辑、抽象和理论能力。本文重构了这三个学派的论点，并对后一学派进行了批判。