Child language, theory of mind, and the role of procedural markers in identifying referents of nominal expressions: Problems and Perspectives

The absence of a simple one-to-one mapping between linguistic form and a speaker's intended interpretation is perhaps most evident in case of referring expressions. This is true for pronouns, which encode little if any conceptual content, as well as for full nominal expressions such as papers in this volume, the woman in the red dress, all of which can refer to different entities in different contexts of use. This chapter examines the use of referring expressions in spontaneous conversation by children aged 3 and younger, with specific focus on determiners/pronouns, which constrain possible interpretations by encoding procedural information about how the referent is to be mentally accessed. It argues that the procedural nature of meaning of these forms explains why children are able to use them appropriately before they exhibit the representational ability to correctly assess the mental states of others measured by standard theory of mind tests. Keywords: child language; conceptual content; nominal expressions; procedural information; referring expressions; theory of mind

[1]  Michael Tomasello,et al.  Young children's sensitivity to listener knowledge and perceptual context in choosing referring expressions , 2005, Applied Psycholinguistics.

[2]  Anna L. Theakston,et al.  The effect of perceptual availability and prior discourse on young children's use of referring expressions , 2006, Applied Psycholinguistics.

[3]  Jeanette K. Gundel,et al.  Cognitive Status and the form of Referring Expressions in Discourse , 1993, The Oxford Handbook of Reference.

[4]  M. Tomasello,et al.  Understanding attention: 12- and 18-month-olds know what is new for other persons. , 2003, Developmental psychology.

[5]  Ann E. Mulkern,et al.  Quantity implicatures in reference understanding , 1998 .

[6]  M. Maratsos,et al.  Preschool children's use of definite and indefinite articles , 1974 .

[7]  Michael Hegarty,et al.  Cognitive Status, Information Structure, and Pronominal Reference to Clausally Introduced Entities , 2003, J. Log. Lang. Inf..

[8]  D. Premack,et al.  Does the chimpanzee have a theory of mind? , 1978, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[9]  D. Bell.  Nevertheless, still and yet: Concessive cancellative discourse markers , 2010 .

[10]  T. Bennett-Kastor.  Noun phrases and coherence in child narratives , 1983, Journal of Child Language.

[11]  Daniela K. O'Neill,et al.  Two‐Year‐Old Children's Sensitivity to a Parent's Knowledge State When Making Requests , 1996 .

[12]  A. Papafragou,et al.  Scalar implicatures: experiments at the semantics–pragmatics interface , 2003, Cognition.

[13]  Anne Salazar Orvig,et al.  Dialogical beginnings of anaphora: The use of third person pronouns before the age of 3☆ , 2010 .

[14]  I. Noveck.  When children are more logical than adults: experimental investigations of scalar implicature , 2001, Cognition.

[15]  Lisa Matthewson,et al.  Grammar and Pragmatics in the Acquisition of Article Systems , 2005 .

[16]  Deirdre Wilson,et al.  Linguistic form and relevance , 1993 .

[17]  J. Hawkins.  On (in)definite articles: implicatures and (un)grammaticality prediction , 1991, Journal of Linguistics.

[18]  A. Gopnik,et al.  Early reasoning about desires: evidence from 14- and 18-month-olds. , 1997, Developmental psychology.

[19]  E. Robinson,et al.  Children's suggestibility in relation to their understanding about sources of knowledge. , 2003, Child development.

[20]  Jeanette K. Gundel.  Reference and Accessibility from a Givenness Hierarchy Perspective , 2010 .