Paris - July 2007Discourse – External Referents ESF- Metacognition 1 Discourse and External Anchors in Developmental Thought Josef Perner Austria Financial.

Paris - July 2007 Discourse – External ReferentsESF- Metacognition

1

Discourse and External Anchors in

Developmental Thought

Josef Perner

Austria

Financial Support:


2

In collaboration with

Johannes Brandl — Philosophy Salzburg

Martin Doherty — Psychology Sterling

Alan Garnham — Psychology Sussex

Bibiane Rendl — Psychology Salzburg

Manuel Sprung — Psychology S. Mississippi Innsbruck

Gabi Waidmann — Psychology Salzburg

Inspirations by: Mike Martin


3

Referential Expressions

Russell’s Problem

Referential expressions are expressions that refer to something.

What do referential terms refer to? “Napoleon B.”

“The King of France”

“The present King of France” ?

Louis XIII

Louis XIV

?


4


Russell’s Theory of Description

There are more or less no referential descriptions but existential claims: “The present king of France is bald” RTD: x (y (Ky x = y) & Bx)

which captures: At least one thing is K (present King of France) At most one thing is K Whatever is K is B (bald).


5


Problems with Russell

The existential interpretation makes it difficult to integrate information from different sentences in a text.

The present King of France is bald. The present King of France uses NANO*shampoo. These are two false sentences (full stop). No sense that

we are talking, within a story, about the same entity.

* nicotinic acid N-Oxide


6

Escaping Russell

Intentional objects as referents

Discourse Referents (Karttunen, 1976) Discourse Referents as Hubs for Information

Integration: Discourse Representation Theory DRT (Kamp &

Reily, 1995) Discourse Referents as File Cards:

File Change Semantics (Heim, 2002):


7

1

is a womanwas bitten by 2

2

is a dogbit 1jumped over 3

3

is a fencewas jumped over by 2

+

(a) A woman was bitten by a dog. (b) It jumped over a fence.

Integrating Information within a story

File Change Semantics: Heim's Example


8

Integrating information within a story Separation of “what is talked about” (DR) from “what is said

about it” (info on DR): cross reference by DR#s. Reference within story:

Descriptions on card Relating story to the world

External anchors Reference to external objects: anchoring conditions

Perspective relative talk Defining labels put a “perspective” on the external referent

This mouse is big This animal is small

4 Functions of discourse referents


9

#1

:= a mouseis BIG …

cond: is a mouse,on this display, looks like:

Discourse referents

Refinements

DR-identifier

Defining label (name): sets perspectivediscourse reference

Attributive information: interpreted in relation to perspective of label

Discourse referent (DR)

Anchoring conditions (formal anchors): determine external referent (anchor)

external referent (external anchor)


10

Discourse referent = mental referent

Discourse referents are mental entities required for understanding discourse

hence their name But really they are “intentional objects”

(thought-of objects) Also required for any kind of thinking that goes

beyond perception (maybe even there).

NOT intrinsically tied to language


11

Purpose of all this

Explaining difficulties with alternative naming


12

Alternative Naming (Doherty & Perner 1998): Vocabulary check

Where is the “bunny?”

Where is the “cup?”

Where is the “rabbit?”


13

Puppet, what’s this?

[Name of child], now you say the other name!

It is a rabbit

It is a bunny

Alternative Naming: Synonyms

Children have difficulties until they are about 4½ years old (see Perner et al., 2002)


14

Alternative Names: Name-Name (NN)

Synonyms

Bunny - Rabbit

Categories

Fruit - Pear


15

Control Conditions

Name - Colour

Cup - Red

Colour - Colour

Yellow - Green

Name - Part

Monkey - Tail

Part - Part

Head - Tail


16

Results: Children’s Performance ctd.


18

Any explanations?


19

File-card Explanation


22

External anchor

Alternative Naming: NN Control: CC"This is a mouse.“ “This is green.”"This is an animal.“ “This is yellow.”

#2

:= an animalis small …

cond:

#1


cond:

#1

:= a ballis part yellow is part green

cond:


23

This is “meta-cognitive” “meta-representational”

information:

“DR #2, and DR #1 havesame external referent”

External anchor

Alternative Naming: NN"This is a mouse.“"This is an animal.“

#2

cond:

:= an animalis small …

info: same as #1

#1

cond:


info: same as #2


24

The developmental claim

Around 4 years (3 – 5 years) children attain the necessary metarepresentational ability to represent identity: info Younger than 4 tend to fail altertive naming Older than 4 tend to pass alternative naming

Prediction: Same age trend for understanding identity

statements


25

2 Important Points

The Anchoring Info constitutes “meta-cognitive” / “meta-representational”

information: “DR #2, and DR #1 have same external referent”

It provides an explicit encoding of identity The Anchoring Conditions

provide a sort of implicit understanding of identity as it anchors the two DRs to the same external entity.


26

Important distinctions

Types of information: Defining (identifying) label Attributive information

Referents Discourse referent DR External referent ER

#1


cond: is a mouse,on this display, …

DR

ER


27

Understanding Identity

A prediction tested


28

This is the nurse.

This jewel belongs to Susi’s mother.

Susi’s mother is the nurse.

Prediction: Problems with identity statements

1 a nurse

2

a jewelbelongs to 3

3

Susi’s momowns 2

info: same as 1

Give back the jewel!

?


29

Identity story (Waidmann): Results

0

20

40

60

80

100

young n = 13 older n = 15

FB ID

Percent

correct

r = .77 ** rp= .48** rp= .24

KABC Age

False Belief

Identity condition

0 1 2

0 8 0 0

1 5 0 0

2 3 0 12


30

This is the nurse.

This dog belongs to the nurse

This collar belongsto the dog

Control: no problems with inferences

2 a dogbelongs to 1

Give back the collar! give 3 to 1 (the nurse)

3

a collarbelongs to 2

1

a nurse

Reasoning: If 3 belongs to 22 belongs to 1

then 3 belongs to 1


31

0

20

40

60

80

Number children

Understand Erratic Sys-wrong

Kind of Response

Best Estimate of Percent Children who Understood

IC

ID

FB

Results: Bibiane Rendl

3;3n=11

0,0

0,5

1,0

1,5

2,0

Mea

n c

orr

ect

nu

mb

er o

f te

st q

ues

tio

ns

Age group

123IC

ID

FB

3;8n=14

4;1n=15

4;5n=14

Inference control

Identity task

False belief task


32

Instructive Pitfalls

Uncovered by using file cards


33

This is the nurse.

This jewel belongs

to Susi’s mother.

Susi’s mother

is the nurse.

1 a nurse

2

a jewelbelongs to 3

3

Susi’s momowns 2

is a nurse

Give back the jewel!

?

Pitfalls uncovered by file cards: Attributive “is”

Attributive interpretation

Susi’s mom Nurse


34

Avoiding attributive interpretations of identity statements

1

a nurselost 2

2

a jewelbelongs to 1

The nurse lost her jewel.

Susi’s sister is the nurse.

3

Susi’s sister

is a nurse

info: same as 1

A man finds the jewel. Who should he give it to— ?

Here are Susi and her sister. 4

Susi

?


35

Summary and Outlook


36

Summary: theoretical analysis

Discourse Coherence intentional objects as referents (discourse referents)

Discourse about reality Internal (intentional/discourse) vs. external referents

Implicit identity: DRs anchored to same ER Explicit identity: representing that DRs share same ER (a

case of metarepresentation). Standard means of internal referring: labels

Labels enable use of Perspectival simplification

(“big” vs. “big for a <label>”) Default assumptions (birds fly, penguins don’t)


37

Summary: development

Metarepresentation develops around 4 years Children below 4 years fail metarepresentational

tasks: Alternative naming Identity statements Many others: false belief, visual perspective, …

File-card analysis provides Processing account of task difficulty


38

Future agenda

Can we fit the following into the developmental picture? Piaget’s class inclusion task: “More boys or

children?” Piaget’s seriation tasks: identity of the middle term Doherty’s Rejection Task (extension of alternative

naming) How do Discourse Referents relate to Mental

Models?


39

References Discourse ReferentsPerner, J., Rendl, B., & Garnham, A. (in press). "Objects of desire, thought, and

reality: Problems of anchoring discourse referents in development." Mind & Language, Vol, pp-pp.

Perner, J., & Brandl, J. (2005). File change semantics for preschoolers: alternative naming and belief understanding. Interaction Studies, 6(3), 483-501. 501.

Alternative Naming and False Belief:Perner, J., Brandl, J., & Garnham, A. (2003). What is a perspective problem?

Developmental issues in understanding belief and dual identity. Facta Philosophica, 5, 355-378.

Perner, J., Stummer, S., Sprung, M. & Doherty, M. J. (2002). Theory of mind finds its Piagetian Perspective: Why alternative naming comes with understanding belief. Cognitive Development, 17, 1451–1472.

Perner, J. (2000). RUM, PUM, and the perspectival relativity of sortals. In J. Astington (Ed.). Minds in the making: Essays in honour of David R. Olson (212-232). Oxford: Blackwell.

Doherty, M. J. & Perner, J. (1998). Metalinguistic awareness and theory of mind: just two words for the same thing? Cognitive Development, 13, 279-305.

Card SortingKloo, D. & Perner, J. (2005). Disentangling Dimensions in the Dimensional

Change Card Sorting task. Developmental Science, 8, 44-56.


40

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The END

Paris - July 2007Discourse – External Referents ESF- Metacognition 1 Discourse and External Anchors in Developmental Thought Josef Perner Austria Financial.

Documents

external objects

present king of france

referential descriptions

referential terms

information integration

story file change semantics

story separation

nicotinic acid noxide