Three-year-olds understand communicative intentions without language, gestures, or gaze
Richard Moore | Department of Developmental and Comparative Psychology, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig, Germany
Kristin Liebal | Department of Developmental and Comparative Psychology, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig, Germany
Michael Tomasello | Department of Developmental and Comparative Psychology, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig, Germany
The communicative interactions of very young children almost always involve language (based on conventions), gesture (based on bodily deixis or iconicity) and directed gaze. In this study, ninety-six children (3;0 years) were asked to determine the location of a hidden toy by understanding a communicative act that contained none of these familiar means. A light-and-sound mechanism placed behind the hiding place and illuminated by a centrally placed switch was used to indicate the location of the toy. After a communicative training session, an experimenter pressed the switch either deliberately or accidentally, and with or without ostension (in the form of eye contact and child-directed speech). In no condition did she orient towards the hiding place. When the switch was pressed intentionally, children used the light-and-sound cue to find the toy – and tended to do so even in the absence of ostensive eye contact. When the experimenter pressed the switch accidentally, children searched randomly – demonstrating that they were tracking her communicative intent, and not merely choosing on the basis of salience. The absence of an effect of ostension contradicts research that ostension helps children to interpret the communicative intentions underlying unfamiliar signs. We explain this by concluding that while it may play a role in establishing a communicative interaction, it is not necessary for sustaining one; and that even with a highly novel communicative act – involving none of the means of communication on which children typically rely – three-year-olds can comprehend the communicative intentions behind an intentionally produced act.
2020. Learning Process of Gaze Following: Computational Modeling Based on Reinforcement Learning. Frontiers in Psychology 11
Kano, Fumihiro, Richard Moore, Christopher Krupenye, Satoshi Hirata, Masaki Tomonaga & Josep Call
2018. Human ostensive signals do not enhance gaze following in chimpanzees, but do enhance object-oriented attention. Animal Cognition 21:5 ► pp. 715 ff.
Allen, M.L. & E. Armitage
2017. How Children Learn to Navigate the Symbolic World of Pictures [Advances in Child Development and Behavior, 52], ► pp. 153 ff.
Bohn, Manuel, Josep Call & Michael Tomasello
2016. Comprehension of iconic gestures by chimpanzees and human children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 142 ► pp. 1 ff.
Hoicka, Elena
2016. Parents and toddlers distinguish joke, pretend and literal intentional contexts through communicative and referential cues. Journal of Pragmatics 95 ► pp. 137 ff.
Vollmer, Anna-Lisa, Britta Wrede, Katharina J. Rohlfing & Pierre-Yves Oudeyer
2016. Pragmatic Frames for Teaching and Learning in Human–Robot Interaction: Review and Challenges. Frontiers in Neurorobotics 10
Fridland, Ellen & Richard Moore
2015. Imitation reconsidered. Philosophical Psychology 28:6 ► pp. 856 ff.
Moore, Richard, Josep Call, Michael Tomasello & Juliane Kaminski
2015. Production and Comprehension of Gestures between Orang-Utans (Pongo pygmaeus) in a Referential Communication Game. PLOS ONE 10:6 ► pp. e0129726 ff.
Moore, Richard, Bettina Mueller, Juliane Kaminski & Michael Tomasello
2015. Two‐year‐old children but not domestic dogs understand communicative intentions without language, gestures, or gaze. Developmental Science 18:2 ► pp. 232 ff.
Scott-Phillips, Thomas C.
2015. Nonhuman Primate Communication, Pragmatics, and the Origins of Language. Current Anthropology 56:1 ► pp. 56 ff.
Scott-Phillips, Thomas C.
2016. Meaning in great ape communication: summarising the debate. Animal Cognition 19:1 ► pp. 233 ff.
2016. Gricean Communication and Cognitive Development. The Philosophical Quarterly► pp. pqw049 ff.
Moore, Richard
2016. Meaning and ostension in great ape gestural communication. Animal Cognition 19:1 ► pp. 223 ff.
Moore, Richard
2018. Gricean communication, language development, and animal minds. Philosophy Compass 13:12
Zlatev, Jordan, Elainie Alenkær Madsen, Sara Lenninger, Tomas Persson, Susan Sayehli, Göran Sonesson & Joost van de Weijer
2013. Understanding communicative intentions and semiotic vehicles by children and chimpanzees. Cognitive Development 28:3 ► pp. 312 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 18 october 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers.
Any errors therein should be reported to them.