Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T09:28:37.528Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Theory of mind in recognizing and recovering communicative failures

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 March 2016

FRANCESCA M. BOSCO  and
ILARIA GABBATORE Open the ORCID record for ILARIA GABBATORE [Opens in a new window]
FRANCESCA M. BOSCO*
Affiliation:
University of Turin and Neuroscience Institute of Turin
ILARIA GABBATORE
Affiliation:
University of Oulu
*
ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE Francesca M. Bosco, Department of Psychology, University of Turin, Via Po 14, 10123 Turin, Italy. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We analyzed the role played by theory of mind (ToM) in children's ability to recognize and repair different kinds of communicative failures. In particular, we analyzed three different kinds of communicative failures: failure of the expression act, communicative meaning, and communicative effect. We administered videotaped stories, in which people act out a communicative failure and first- and second-order ToM tasks, to 120 children ranging in age from 3.5 to 8.5 years. The children showed a trend of increasing difficulty in managing the communicative failures investigated. Moreover, children's ToM ability is partially correlated with recognition and repair of a communicative task; however, it is not able to explain the trend of difficulty we detected. We suggest that the factor better explaining such trend is the increasing complexity of the mental representations underlying the three different kinds of failures.

Type
Articles
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 38 , Issue 1 , January 2017 , pp. 57 - 88
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Airenti, G., Bara, B. G., & Colombetti, M. (1993a). Conversation and behavior games in the pragmatics of dialogue. Cognitive Science, 17, 197–256.Google Scholar
Airenti, G., Bara, B. G., & Colombetti, M. (1993b). Failures, exploitations and deceits in communication. Journal of Pragmatics, 20, 303–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Angeleri, R., Bosco, F. M., Gabbatore, I., Bara, B. G., & Sacco, K. (2012). Assessment Battery for Communication: Normative data. Behavior Research Methods, 44, 845–861.Google Scholar
Anselmi, D., Tomasello, M., & Acunzo, M. (1986). Young children's responses to neutral and specific contingent queries. Journal of Child Language, 14, 135–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bara, B. G. (2010). Cognitive pragmatics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bara, B. G. (2011). Cognitive pragmatics. Intercultural Pragmatics, 3, 443–485.Google Scholar
Bara, B. G., Bosco, F. M., & Bucciarelli, M. (1999). Developmental pragmatics in normal and abnormal children. Brain and Language, 68, 507–528.Google Scholar
Baron-Cohen, S., Leslie, A., & Frith, U. (1985). Does the autistic child have a theory of mind? Cognition, 21, 37–46.Google Scholar
Bazzanella, C., & Damiano, R. (1999). The interactional handling of misunderstanding in everyday conversations. Journal of Pragmatics, 31, 817–836.Google Scholar
Beal, C. R., & Flavell, J. H. (1982). Effect of increasing the salience of message ambiguities on kindergartners’ evaluations of communicative success and message adequacy. Developmental Psychology, 18, 43–48.Google Scholar
Bernard, S., & Deleau, M. (2007). Conversational perspective-taking and false belief attribution: A longitudinal study. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 25, 443–460.Google Scholar
Blum-Kulka, S., & Weizman, E. (1988). The inevitability of misunderstanding: Discourse ambiguities. Text, 8, 219–241.Google Scholar
Bosco, F. M., Angeleri, R., Colle, L., Sacco, K., & Bara, B. G. (2013). Communicative abilities in children: An assessment through different phenomena and expressive mean. Journal of Child Language, 40, 741–778.Google Scholar
Bosco, F. M., Angeleri, R., Sacco, K., & Bara, B. G. (2015). Explaining pragmatic performance in traumatic brain injury: A process perspective on communicative errors. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders, 50, 63–83.Google Scholar
Bosco, F. M., Bono, A., & Bara, B. G. (2012). Recognition and repair of communicative failures: The interaction between theory of mind and cognitive complexity in schizophrenic patients. Journal of Communication Disorders, 145, 181–197.Google Scholar
Bosco, F. M., & Bucciarelli, M. (2008). Simple and complex deceits and ironies. Journal of Pragmatics, 40, 583–607.Google Scholar
Bosco, F. M., Bucciarelli, M., & Bara, B. G. (2004). The fundamental context categories in understanding communicative intention. Journal of Pragmatics, 36, 467–488.Google Scholar
Bosco, F. M., Bucciarelli, M., & Bara, B. G. (2006). Recognition and repair of communicative failures: A developmental perspective. Journal of Pragmatics, 38, 1398–1429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bosco, F. M., Colle, L., & Tirassa, M. (2009). The complexity of theory of mind. Consciousness and Cognition, 18, 323–324.Google Scholar
Bosco, F. M., Vallana, M., & Bucciarelli, M. (2009). Comprehension of communicative intentions: The case of figurative language. Journal of Cognitive Science, 10, 245–277.Google Scholar
Bosco, F. M., Vallana, M., & Bucciarelli, M. (2012). The inferential chain makes the difference between familiar and novel figurative expressions. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 24, 525–540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bucciarelli, M., Colle, L., & Bara, B. G. (2003). How children comprehend speech acts and communicative gestures. Journal of Pragmatics, 35, 207–241.Google Scholar
Cummings, L. (2009). Clinical pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cummings, L. (2014). Pragmatic disorders and theory of mind. In Cummings, L. (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of communication disorders (pp. 559–577). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dascal, M. (1985). The relevance of misunderstanding. In Dascal, M. (Ed.), Dialogue: An interdisciplinary approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamin.Google Scholar
Feldman, C. F., & Kalmar, D. (1996). You can't step in the same river twice: Repair and repetition in dialogue. In Bazzanella, C. (Ed.), Repetition in dialogue. Tubingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Garvey, C. (1984). Children's talk. New York: Fontana.Google Scholar
Golinkoff, R. M. (1986). “I beg your pardon?”: The preverbal negotiation of failed messages. Journal of Child Language, 13, 455–476.Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation . In Cole, P. & Morgan, J. L. (Eds.), Syntax and semantics 3: Speech acts. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Grice, P. (1989). Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Grosse, G., Behne, T., Carpenter, M., & Tomasello, M. (2010). Infants communicate in order to be understood. Developmental Psychology, 46, 1710–1722.Google Scholar
Habermas, J., & Cooke, M. (2000). On the pragmatics of communication. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Happé, F. G. (1994). An advanced test of theory of mind: Understanding of story characters’ thoughts and feelings by able autistic, mentally handicapped, and normal children and adults. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 24, 129–154.Google Scholar
Happé, F. G., & Loth, E. (2002). Theory of mind and tracking speaker's intentions. Mind and Language, 17, 24–36.Google Scholar
Hoff-Ginsberg, E. (1998). The relation of birth order and socioeconomic status to children's language experience and language development. Applied Psycholinguistics, 19, 603–629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hollingshead, A. B. (1975). Four Factor Index of Social Status. Unpublished manuscript, Yale University.Google Scholar
Keen, D. (2003). Communicative repair strategies and problem behaviours of children with autism. International Journal of Disabilities, Development and Education, 50, 53–63.Google Scholar
Langdon, R., & Coltheart, M. (1999). Mentalising, schizotypy, and schizophrenia. Cognition, 71, 43–71.Google Scholar
Loukusa, S., Leinonen, E., Jussila, K., Mattila, M. L., Ryder, N., Ebeling, H., et al. (2007). Answering contextually demanding questions: Pragmatic errors produced by children with Asperger syndrome or high-functioning autism. Journal of Communication Disorders, 40, 357–381.Google Scholar
Marcos, H. (1991). Reformulating requests at 18 months: Gestures, vocalizations and words. First Language, 11, 361–375.Google Scholar
Marcos, H., & Kornhaber-le Chanu, M. (1992). Learning how to insist and how to clarify in the second year. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 3, 359–377.Google Scholar
Noble, K. G., Norman, M. F., & Farah, M. J. (2005). Neurocognitive correlates of socioeconomic status in kindergarten children. Developmental Science, 8, 74–87.Google Scholar
Perner, J., Leekam, S. R., & Wimmer, H. (1987). Three-year-olds’ difficulty with false belief: The case for a conceptual deficit. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 5, 125–137.Google Scholar
Perner, J., & Wimmer, E. (1985). “John thinks, that Mary thinks that. . .” Attribution of second-order belief by 5- to 10-year-old children. Journal of Child Experimental Psychology, 39, 437–471.Google Scholar
Peterson, C., Danner, F., & Flavell, J. (1972) Developmental changes in children's response to three indications of communicative failure. Child Development, 43, 1463–1470.Google Scholar
Premack, D., & Woodruff, G. (1978). Does the chimpanzee have a theory of mind? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1, 515–526.Google Scholar
Robinson, E. J., & Robinson, W. P. (1977). The young child's explanations of communication failure: A reinterpretation of results. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 44, 363–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Row, M. (2008). Child-directed speech: Relation to socioeconomic status, knowledge of child development and child vocabulary skill. Journal of Child Language, 35, 185–205.Google Scholar
Shwe, H. I., & Markman, E. M. (1997). Young children's appreciation of the mental impact of their communicative signals. Developmental Psychology, 33, 630–636.Google Scholar
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (2002). Pragmatics, modularity and mind-reading. Mind and Language, 17, 3–23.Google Scholar
Sullivan, K., Winner, E., & Hopfield, N. (1995). How children tell a lie from a joke: The role of second-order mental state attributions. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 13, 191–204.Google Scholar
Tirassa, M., & Bosco, F. M. (2008). On the nature and role of intersubjectivity in human communication. Emerging Communication: Studies in New Technologies and Practices in Communication, 10, 81–95.Google Scholar
Tirassa, M., Bosco, F. M., & Colle, L. (2006a). Rethinking the ontogeny of mindreading. Consciousness and Cognition, 15, 197–217.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tirassa, M., Bosco, F. M., & Colle, L. (2006b). Sharedness and privateness in human early social life. Cognitive Systems Research, 7, 128–139.Google Scholar
Volden, J. (2004). Conversational repair in speakers with autism spectrum disorder. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders, 39, 171–189.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weigand, E. (1999). Misunderstanding: The standard case. Journal of Pragmatics, 31, 763–785.Google Scholar
Wellman, H. M., & Liu, D. (2004). Scaling of theory-of-mind tasks. Child Development, 75, 523–541.Google Scholar
Wilcox, J., & Webster, E. J. (1980). Early discourse behavior: An analysis of children's responses to listener feed-back. Child Development, 51, 1120–1125.Google Scholar
Wimmer, H., & Perner, J. (1983). Beliefs about beliefs: Representation and constraining function of wrong beliefs in young children's understanding of deception. Cognition, 13, 103–128.Google Scholar