Advertisement

Review of Philosophy and Psychology

, Volume 7, Issue 2, pp 491–508 | Cite as

Mental Files in Development: Dual Naming, False Belief, Identity and Intensionality

  • Josef Perner
  • Brian Leahy
Article

Abstract

We use mental files to present an analysis of children's developing understanding of identity in alternative naming tasks and belief. The core assumption is that younger children below the age of about 4 years create different files for an object depending on how the object is individuated (e.g., as a rabbit or as an animal). They can anchor them to the same object, hence think of the same object whether they think of it as a rabbit or as an animal. However, the claim is, they cannot yet link their files to one another to represent that they have the same referent. Without linking the information contained in one file is not available in the other file. Hence, when thinking of the object as a rabbit (using the rabbit file) the information that it is also an animal is not available. For representing a person's belief about an object a vicarious file contains what the person believes about the object. To capture that the belief is about that object the vicarious file has to be linked to the regular file, which by assumption children younger than 4 years cannot do. This assumption can therefore explain why problems with alternative naming and understanding false beliefs are overcome at the same age.

Keywords

Noun Phrase False Belief Task Mental File Discourse Referent Colour Control 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Aichhorn, M., J. Perner, B. Weiss, M. Kronbichler, W. Staffen, and G. Ladurner. 2009. Temporo-parietal junction activity in theory-of-mind tasks: falseness, beliefs, or attention. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 21(6): 1179–1192. doi: 10.1162/jocn.2009.21082.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Apperly, I.A., and E. Robinson. 2002. Five-year-olds’ handling of reference and description in the domains of language and mental representation. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 83(1): 53–75. doi: 10.1016/S0022-0965(02)00102-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baillargeon, R., R.M. Scott, and Z. He. 2010. False-belief understanding in infants. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 14(3): 110–118. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2009.12.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baron-Cohen, S., H.A. Ring, S. Wheelwright, E.T. Bullmore, M.J. Brammer, A. Simmons, and S.C. Williams. 1999. Social intelligence in the normal and autistic brain: an fMRI study. European Journal of Neuroscience 11: 1891–1898.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brennan, S.E., and H.H. Clark. 1996. Conceptual pacts and lexical choice in conversation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 22: 1482–1493.Google Scholar
  6. Brunet, E., Y. Sarfati, M.C. Hardy-Baylé, and J. Decety. 2000. A PET investigation of the attribution of intentions with a nonverbal task. NeuroImage 11: 157–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Butterfill, S.A., and I.A. Apperly. 2013. How to construct a minimal theory of mind. Mind & Language 28: 606–637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cabeza, R., E. Ciaramelli, and M. Moscovitch. 2012. Cognitive contributions of the ventral parietal cortex: an integrative theoretical account. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 16: 338–352. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2012.04.008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chandler, M.J., and D. Helm. 1984. Developmental changes in the contribution of shared experience to social role-taking competence. International Journal of Behavioral Development 7: 145–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Clark, E.V. 1997. Conceptual perspective and lexical choice in acquisition. Cognition 64: 1–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Clements, W.A., and J. Perner. 1994. Implicit understanding of belief. Cognitive Development 9: 377–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Doherty, M. 1994. Metalinguistic understanding and theory of mind. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Laboratory of Experimental Psychology, University of Sussex.Google Scholar
  13. Doherty, M.J., and J. Perner. 1998. Metalinguistic awareness and theory of mind: Just two words for the same thing? Cognitive Development 13: 279–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Flavell, J.H. 1988. The development of children’s knowledge about the mind: From cognitive connections to mental representations. In Developing theories of mind, ed. J.W. Astington, P.L. Harris, and D.R. Olson, 244–267. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Gordon, R.M. 1986. Folk psychology as simulation. Mind & Language 1: 158–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gordon, R.M. 1995. Simulation without introspection or inference from me to you. In Mental simulation: Evaluations and applications, ed. M. Davies and T. Stone, 53–67. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  17. Gordon, A.C., and D.R. Olson. 1998. The relation between acquisition of a theory of mind and the capacity to hold in mind. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 68: 70–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Harris, P.L., and R.D. Kavanaugh. 1993. Young children’s understanding of pretence. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development 58(1): 1–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Heal, J. 1986. Replication and functionalism. In Language, mind, and logic, ed. J. Butterfield, 135–150. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Heim, I. 2002. File change semantics and the familiarity theory of definiteness. In Formal semantics: The essential readings, ed. P. Portner and B.H. Partee, 223–248. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
  21. Helming, K.A., B. Strickland, and P. Jacob. 2014. Making sense of early false-belief understanding. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 18(4): 167–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kamp, H. 1990. Prolegomena to a structural account of belief and other attitudes. In Propositional attitudes: The role of content in logic, language and mind, ed. C.A. Anderson, 27–90. Stanford: Center for study of language and information, Lecture Notes Series.Google Scholar
  23. Kamp, H., and U. Reyle. 1993. From discourse to logic. introduction to model theoretic semantics of natural language, formal logic and discourse representation theory. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  24. Kanwisher, N. 2010. Functional specificity in the human brain: a window into the functional architecture of the mind. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 107(25): 11163–11170. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1005062107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Karttunen, L. 1976. Discourse referents. In Notes from the linguistic underground (Syntax and semantics, vol. 7), ed. J. McCawley, 363–385. Waltham, MA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  26. Leslie, A.M. 1987. Pretense and representation: The origins of “theory of mind”. Psychological Review 94: 412–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Markman, E.M. 1989. Categorization and naming in children: Problems of induction. Cambridge: A Bradford Book.Google Scholar
  28. Millikan, R.G. 2000. On clear and confused ideas. an essay about substance concepts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Onishi, K.H., and R. Baillargeon. 2005. Do 15-month-old infants understand false beliefs? Science 308: 255–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Perner, J., and J. Brandl. 2005. File change semantics for preschoolers: Alternative naming and belief understanding. Interaction Studies 6: 483–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Perner, J., and G. Davies. 1991. Understanding the mind as an active information processor: Do young children have a “copy theory of mind”? Cognition 39: 51–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Perner, J., and J. Roessler. 2012. From infants’ to children’s appreciation of belief. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 16(10): 519–525. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2012.08.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Perner, J., and H. Wimmer. 1988. Misinformation and unexpected change: testing the development of epistemic-state attribution. Psychological Research 50: 191–197. doi: 10.1007/BF00310181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Perner, J., S. Stummer, M. Sprung, and M.J. Doherty. 2002. Theory of mind finds its Piagetian Perspective: Why alternative naming comes with understanding belief. Cognitive Development 17: 1451–1472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Perner, J., M. Aichhorn, M. Kronbichler, W. Staffen, and G. Ladurner. 2006. Thinking of mental and other representations: The roles of left and right temporo-parietal junction. Social Neuroscience 1: 245–259. doi: 10.1080/17470910600989896.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Perner, J., B. Rendl, and A. Garnham. 2007. Objects of desire, thought, and reality: Problems of anchoring discourse referents in development. Mind & Language 22: 475–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Perner, J., M.C. Mauer, and M. Hildenbrand. 2011. Identity: Key to children’s understanding of belief. Science (New York, N.Y.) 333(6041): 474–477. doi: 10.1126/science.1201216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Perry, J. 2002. Identity, personal identity and the self. Cambridge: Hackett Publishing.Google Scholar
  39. Pickering, M.J., and S. Garrod. 2004. Toward a mechanistic psychology of dialogue. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 27(02): 169–190.Google Scholar
  40. Pylyshyn, Z.W. 2007. Things and places: How the mind connects with the world. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  41. Rakoczy, H., D. Bergfeld, I. Schwarz, and E. Fizke. 2015. Explicit theory of mind is even more unified than previously assumed: Belief ascription and understanding aspectuality emerge together in development. Child Development. doi: 10.1111/cdev.12311.Google Scholar
  42. Recanati, F. 2012. Mental files. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Robinson, E.J., and I.A. Apperly. 2001. Children’s difficulties with partial representations in ambiguous messages and referentially opaque contexts. Cognitive Development 16: 595–615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Ruffman, T. 2014. To belief or not belief: Children’s theory of mind. Developmental Review 34(3): 265–293. doi: 10.1016/j.dr.2014.04.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Russell, J. 1987. ‘Can we say …?’ children’s understanding of intensionality. Cognition 25: 289–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Saxe, R., and N. Kanwisher. 2003. People thinking about thinking people: The role of the temporo-parietal junction in “theory of mind.”. NeuroImage 19: 1835–1842. doi: 10.1016/S1053-8119(03)00230-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Schurz, M., M. Aichhorn, A. Martin, and J. Perner. 2013. Common brain areas engaged in false belief reasoning and visual perspective taking: a meta-analysis of functional brain imaging studies. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 7: 712. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2013.00712.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Schurz, M., J. Radua, M. Aichhorn, F. Richlan, and J. Perner. 2014. Fractionating theory of mind: A meta-analysis of functional brain imaging studies. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews 42C: 9–34. doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2014.01.009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Sodian, B., and H. Wimmer. 1987. Children’s understanding of inference as a source of knowledge. Child Development 58: 424–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Sprung, M., J. Perner, and P. Mitchell. 2007. Opacity and embedded perspectives: Object identity and object properties. Mind & Language 22: 215–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Stummer, S. 2001. Sag es anders - ToM! von einem metalinguisitschem bewusstsein zu alternativen erklärungsansätzen. Dissertation, University of Salzburg.Google Scholar
  52. Taylor, M. 1988. Conceptual perspective taking: Children’s ability to distinguish what they know from what they see. Child Development 59: 703–718.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Tomasello, M. 1999. The cultural origins of human cognition. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  54. Wellman, H.M., D. Cross, and J. Watson. 2001. Meta-analysis of theory of mind development: the truth about false belief. Child Development 72: 655–684. doi: 10.1111/1467-8624.00304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Wimmer, H., and J. Perner. 1983. Beliefs about beliefs: Representation and constraining function of wrong beliefs in young children’s understanding of deception. Cognition 13: 103–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Cognitive NeuroscienceUniversity of SalzburgSalzburgAustria
  2. 2.Department of LinguisticsUniversity of KonstanzConstanceGermany

Personalised recommendations