Point of View and Theory of Mind Jill de Villiers Smith College Thomas Roeper University of Massachusetts, Amherst

Definitions What do we mean by Point of View? In using language, it is necessary to appreciate the different perspectives of speaker and hearer. Point of View is entailed in each of: – personal reference(I/you) – spatial terms (here/there, infront/behind) – emotional attitudes (desire verbs, attitudinal adjectives and adverbs) –mental state verbs (think, know) –in complex interactions among these domains

Where does it begin? By the end of the first year of life, normally developing infants –Respond to another’s eye gaze by looking at the same object –Respond to pointing by following the point and gaze of the other –Assume intentionality e.g. for animate but not inanimate entities in reaching (Woodward) –Take turns both vocally and in play behavior –Make “proto-requests” for help By one year of age, infants attend to other people’s behavior and treat others as sources of information or help.

Deixis Pronouns: “I” and “you” are attached to speaker and hearer, not to a fixed referent. Very early, children mistake these for names and say e.g. “Pick you up” (even signers-Pettito,1987) This stage rapidly disappears, usually by 2.5 years, but is protracted in children with autism. This/that: These introduce the additional difficulty of size of space: “ this hotel”, “this pencil”, “this comma” - the space contrast shifts! With a defined barrier, children can attend to the contrast at 3 years.

Deixis, continued Here/there: Like “this/that”, they not only switch with speaker, but the space can zoom out or in in reference. With a barrier to define the difference, 3 year olds can handle the contrast in comprehension and production (de Villiers & de Villiers, 1974). Question: Do children in fact attend to the speaker’s PoV to accomplish this, or do they just have a “switch reference” possibility? Spanish, Japanese have a three way contrast: here, there, and “over there” i.e. away from BOTH. Perhaps this is the one that requires true perspective taking? ( Ueda, p.c. 2004)

Desire Want: the verb is among the first fifty words in MacArthur inventory. It’s mostly in reference to the child’s own desires However, children by 2 understand that others may like things they don’t like (Rechapoli & Gopnik, 1997) At least, they give someone a food that that person has expressed pleasure towards, even when they hate it. And by 3, they refer not only to I want but also you want/he wants etc. (Bartsch & Wellman. 1995)

Desire, continued At 3.5, they judge that someone wanted something even though they did not achieve it (Witt, 2000). They appreciate that the person wanted it under a certain description e.g. Cookie Monster reaches for what he thinks is a cookie but then discovers it’s a ball: Children at 3-4 years agree that he didn’t want the ball, he wanted a cookie. So by 4, they understand that referents are linked to their subjects, in the case of desire. The actual is irrelevant.

Mental verbs The appearance of mental verbs like think, know is early (3 years) but often stereotyped e.g. “I don’t know” or “I think I can”. There are sporadic real uses e.g. The breakthrough comes around age four years when children can understand that mental verbs can take a whole sentence in their scope (a complement) e.g Mom thought that the shampoo was the toothpaste And the embedded sentence can be FALSE from the child’s Point of View, but TRUE for Mom.

Mental verbs Once the child has this capacity, he can represent two worlds: his own, and someone else’s mental world. Verbs of communication like say, tell, provide the bootstrap for figuring out complements with mental verbs (de Villiers, 1995;2004). The language paves the way for reasoning about others’ mental states: False Belief understanding. Language in this domain seems to drive Theory of Mind rather then vice versa.

Mental verbs How do we know? A) longitudinal studies with typically developing children (de Villiers & Pyers, 2002) B) Studies of language delayed deaf children, who are equivalently delayed in ToM reasoning (de Villiers & de Villiers, 2000;2003) C) Studies of language disordered children (de Villiers, Burns & Pearson, 2003) D) Training studies that teach normally developing children communication verbs with complements and improve ToM reasoning (Hale & Tager- Flusberg, 2003;Lohmann & Tomasello, 2003)

Reference under embedding Referential opacity Children still have to figure out the right Point of View for the nouns in the embedded clause. For example, suppose Mom mistakes the shampoo for toothpaste. We know she is holding shampoo. Does Mom think she is holding shampoo? 4 and 5 year olds often say “yes” even after they have appreciated her mistake. They must learn that they need to use her word inside the complement, despite what they know the object to be. They may have the rules for referring under their own control, but not necessarily see other’s mistakes in usage for a while (de Villiers, 2004).

Model of PoV and ToM Early ToM: gaze shared attention, pointing Differentiation of self and other Appreciation of switch in perspective Early language: names, actions, social routines I/you. Here/there This/that Articles a/the He says that p He thinks that p He knows that p Ability to represent two different worlds, hence, false beliefs, content of other minds Appreciation of different tastes, likes, attitudes I want, you want, he wants Yucky, nice, scary Deixis, pronouns, adjectives, reference and tense markers under embedding, Plus multiple embedding… Increasing capacity for abstract reasoning about complex human events ToM PoV

Some subtleties Consider the way these different elements interact in the language. These cases represent the challenge to the language learning child and much remains to be understood about them.

Articles A => the may just require a switch w/o PoV. Bridge: A boy arrived. The boy was tall I bought a car. The muffler fell off. Which uses require POV? POV of speaker emerges: Did the baby eat the best cheese? Speaker or Speaker/Hearer POV Variable POV: –You each have a pencil--> pick up the pencil = must be pencil of each of you (not neighbor’s!)

Articles allow Temporal Displacement: 1. “All the sick children are well” 2. The professors were radicals in the sixties = current professors, who were students then 3. There were radical professors in the sixties = No article, therefore professors then Bock and Romero (2000): Mice got hot, then went swimming in a cool pool Were the hot mice in the pool => yes Were there hot mice in the pool => no Children yrs 17 No article variation 12 Adult pattern Articles and Time

Articles and Speaker -PoV Imagine Sarah tells Sam that she is going to buy a new coat. Sam comes home and finds a coat lying on the sofa. In fact it is Sarah’s old coat, but Sam thinks it is a new one. One can say: Sam thought the old coat was the new coat. which is paradoxical, on the surface! But “the old coat” is the speaker’s PoV And “the new coat” is Sam’s PoV.

Adjectives=> Subject or Speaker Mary likes yucky clothes = Speaker-POV = Speaker thinks they are yucky Do children grasp POV contrast? Do they see yucky as Mary’s view too? Susan’s darn beloved dog Speaker Subject *beloved darn dog Universal Grammar: Speaker adjective is on outside

Adverbs Unfortunately, definitely, sure, really, maybe maybe = it may be = General POV “Cause you're really tired” (Nina, 2;9.26) = very or it is real that… Verbal modifier: “Yeah, really she didn't.” (Nina, 3;2.12) “Is Paul really just a baby?” (Adam, 3;4.18)

Subject-adjectives Meanly, anxiously, eagerly 1. Wisely, John told the truth = John was wise Speaker Adverbs: honestly, truthfully, wisely, luckily 2. Honestly, Bill lied *it was honest that Bill lied [I am honest] Bill lied = Speaker POV Verbuk (2003): Children below 5yrs Fail to reliably construe Speaker POV

Pronouns under embedding Quotation; John said “I can do it” I = subject John said that I can do it I = Speaker Indefinite embedding: John said that Bill said that Susan believed that I can do it I = Speaker John believes that I made you invite him

Bart (speaker): One day we were going for a bike ride. On this bicycle. And you know bike rides can be quite dangerous. So, I decided to wear a helmet. And Deanne? She decided to wear these big blue gloves. But we weren’t all that sure whether that was safe enough and so Deanne was going to ask Daddy. But Daddy was at work. So, she had to call him and ask him. Deanne asked Daddy: “Can I ride a bike with my blue gloves? And can Bart ride a bike with a helmet? Bart : “How did Deanne ask can I ride a bike?” Hollebrandse (2000): Quotation

If Quote: How did Deanne ask “Can I ride a bike?” => on the phone Bart speaking: How did Deanne ask can I ride a bike => I = Bart => with a helmet Children: “with blue gloves” => failure to shift POV 60% 3yr olds => long-distance = ride a bike with helmet 20% 6yr olds => short-distance General Conclusion: Children do not understand POV shift with quotation immediately Results

Navajo and Arabic: (Speas, Abdul-Karim) Navajo: John thought that I can do it I = John Arabic: She said that I (fem) can, I (masc) think, do it I (fem) = Subject she I (masc) = Speaker Challenge: all children must be able to test if English might be Navajo or Arabic Time expressions in English: Yesterday John said he did it two days ago. = two days ago = Speaker = three days ago = Subject Language variation

Deixis under embedding John said yesterday on the phone “can you send him to me here now” What did he say? He said could I send you to him there then

Tanz (1978) Ask John what color he thinks my eyes are “What color do you think his eyes are?” Children 4yrs can make joint POV shift Conclusion: all POV elements are linked in a POV-CHAIN PoV chain