Citation: Chiyoko Kobayashi Frank. Reviving pragmatic theory of theory of mind[J]. AIMS Neuroscience, 2018, 5(2): 116-131. doi: 10.3934/Neuroscience.2018.2.116
[1] | Zoha Deldar, Carlos Gevers-Montoro, Ali Khatibi, Ladan Ghazi-Saidi . The interaction between language and working memory: a systematic review of fMRI studies in the past two decades. AIMS Neuroscience, 2021, 8(1): 1-32. doi: 10.3934/Neuroscience.2021001 |
[2] | Amory H. Danek, Virginia L. Flanagin . Cognitive conflict and restructuring: The neural basis of two core components of insight. AIMS Neuroscience, 2019, 6(2): 60-84. doi: 10.3934/Neuroscience.2019.2.60 |
[3] | Anna Lardone, Marianna Liparoti, Pierpaolo Sorrentino, Roberta Minino, Arianna Polverino, Emahnuel Troisi Lopez, Simona Bonavita, Fabio Lucidi, Giuseppe Sorrentino, Laura Mandolesi . Topological changes of brain network during mindfulness meditation: an exploratory source level magnetoencephalographic study. AIMS Neuroscience, 2022, 9(2): 250-263. doi: 10.3934/Neuroscience.2022013 |
[4] | Annette Karmiloff-Smith . An Alternative to Domain-general or Domain-specific Frameworks for Theorizing about Human Evolution and Ontogenesis. AIMS Neuroscience, 2015, 2(2): 91-104. doi: 10.3934/Neuroscience.2015.2.91 |
[5] | Siri-Maria Kamp, Melissa Lehman, Kenneth J. Malmberg, Emanuel Donchin . A Buffer Model Account of Behavioral and ERP Patterns in the Von Restorff Paradigm. AIMS Neuroscience, 2016, 3(2): 181-202. doi: 10.3934/Neuroscience.2016.2.181 |
[6] | Donald G. MacKay, Rutherford Goldstein . Creativity, Comprehension, Conversation and the Hippocampal Region: New Data and Theory. AIMS Neuroscience, 2016, 3(1): 105-140. doi: 10.3934/Neuroscience.2016.1.105 |
[7] | Spyridon Doukakis . Exploring brain activity and transforming knowledge in visual and textual programming using neuroeducation approaches. AIMS Neuroscience, 2019, 6(3): 175-190. doi: 10.3934/Neuroscience.2019.3.175 |
[8] | Byron Bernal, Alfredo Ardila . From Hearing Sounds to Recognizing Phonemes: Primary Auditory Cortex is A Truly Perceptual Language Area. AIMS Neuroscience, 2016, 3(4): 454-473. doi: 10.3934/Neuroscience.2016.4.454 |
[9] | Brion Woroch, Alex Konkel, Brian D. Gonsalves . Activation of stimulus-specific processing regions at retrieval tracks the strength of relational memory. AIMS Neuroscience, 2019, 6(4): 250-265. doi: 10.3934/Neuroscience.2019.4.250 |
[10] | Mani Pavuluri, Amber May . I Feel, Therefore, I am: The Insula and Its Role in Human Emotion, Cognition and the Sensory-Motor System. AIMS Neuroscience, 2015, 2(1): 18-27. doi: 10.3934/Neuroscience.2015.1.18 |
Theory of Mind (ToM) refers to the ability to attribute mental states such as beliefs and intentions to self and/or others [1]. To date, ToM or mentalizing [2] has been tested with a variety of tasks in several psychiatric conditions. Many of these studies found aberrant patterns of performances in the clinical groups compared to the healthy control groups. Deficits in ToM or under-mentalizing has been found in several psychiatric conditions including autism spectrum conditions (ASC) [2,3,4] and schizophrenia [5,6,7], while over-mentalizaing has been found in a few conditions such as social anxiety disorder (SAD) [8] and borderline personality disorder (BPD) [9]. A core cognitive feature of individuals with ASC has been described as a difficulty in understanding others' mental states including their false-beliefs [3,4]. Likewise, a key feature of psychotic symptoms has been described as misrepresentation of one's own and others' intentions [5,6]. In contrast, it has been found that people with SAD and BPD show more excessive mentalizing than healthy adults [8,9].
The pragmatic component of language is difficult to define. But to state simply, it involves bringing in general world knowledge, integrating the individual utterances with the context, and making inferences based on one's prior knowledge [10]. Grice [11,12,13] proposed that our everyday conversations are based on a cooperative principle which has four maxims or rules; i.e., quantity, quality, relation or relevance, and manner. For instance, based on the relevance maxim, we generally do not tell someone about a book that we read in the middle of giving the person a direction to a hospital. Depending on the contexts, pragmatics can include understanding humors, ironies, metaphors, and indirect requests [14,15]. In a broader sense, pragmatics can be thought as speech acts, the main purpose of which is to change the attitudes or beliefs of the other conversant [12,16,17] and they may be present even in infants [16].
It has long been debated whether or not a person has to have sophisticated language skills in order to have ToM capacity. Some argue that ToM ability precedes language in development [18,19,20], while others maintain that language is a necessary precursor for ToM [21,22]. A seminal longitudinal study demonstrated that earlier language task competency predicts ToM performance later in development [21]. However, the reverse was not the case; i.e., earlier ToM task competency did not predict later language performance. A meta-analysis of more than a hundred studies that examined the relationship between language and ToM supported the latter, often dubbed “linguistic determinism” hypothesis of ToM [22,23]. The meta-analysis strengthened the seminal study's results by demonstrating that across different versions of the false-belief task, earlier language capacity independently contributes to later ToM and not the other way around [23]. However, the meta-analysis was limited in that it did not take into account the effects of pragmatics on ToM.
A more recent meta-analysis using a quantitative method found a significant overlap between the neural basis of ToM and that of pragmatic language comprehension [24]. The overlapping brain regions include typical ToM regions; i.e., the medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC) [25,26,27,28,29] and the bilateral temporo-parietal junction (TPJ) [27,28,29,30]. These results are in line with the observation that children with ASC have primary deficits in pragmatic aspects of language [31,32,33]. Children with ASC, for example, might understand a request, “Can you pass me the salt?” as a question about their ability to pass the salt because of the pragmatic deficit. Moreover, it has been shown that people with schizophrenia have impairments not only in ToM but also in understanding figurative, pragmatic aspects of language [6,34,35]. These findings point to a close relationship between pragmatics and ToM.
Over the past 10 years, the field of ToM research has changed dramatically. There are now numerous studies of infants aged 6-18 months using various non-verbal ToM tasks claiming that even the pre-verbal infants understand ToM [36,37,38,39]. These results presented challenge to the commonly accepted hypothesis that ToM develops only around 4 years of age [40]. In order to fill-in the seeming incongruence between results from child studies and those from infant studies of ToM, two main developmental hypotheses were presented. These are the two-system [41] and two-stage [42] hypotheses on the developmental trajectory of ToM (see below for more detailed explanations of these hypotheses). However, the seemingly large gap in the developmental trajectory of ToM can also be explained by the pragmatic hypothesis (as I will explain below).
There are two main aims for this review paper. One is to examine the pragmatic theory of ToM. The pragmatic theory of ToM is not new. Frith, for instance, described schizophrenia as a disorder of pragmatics and thereby, he equated pragmatics to ToM [6,34]. Likewise, Sperber and Wilson [43] described ToM as a specialized sub-module of pragmatics. Similarly, Malle [44] posited that ToM and pragmatics are co-evolved functions. Most recently, Westra and Carruthers [45] claimed that ToM development is largely dependent upon the pragmatic (i.e., perspective-taking) development. According to my version of the pragmatic theory of ToM, ToM and pragmatic aspects of language are so fused that they cannot be separable. In other words, mine is a stronger position than those mentioned above and is akin to Tom Givón's view [44]. While this theory is preliminary and subject to criticisms and challenges which I will explain in Section 7, results from recent developmental and neuroscientific studies all seem to point to this stronger position. I maintain that research evidence from both developmental and neurological studies including my (and my colleagues') own, has converged to support the long forgotten theory. The other main aim of this review is to delineate the seeming gap in the developmental trajectory of ToM. On this issue, I maintain that the pragmatic theory provides the best explanation for the seeming jump in the development of ToM. Thus my view is in agreement with Westra and Carruthers' [45]. Implications of this theory may or may not challenge the notion of domain-specificity and nativist framework of ToM.
There are several mainstream theories of ToM and pragmatics. The mainstream theories of ToM are modular [46,47], theory-theory [40,48], simulation [49,50], and the aforementioned linguistic determinism theory [22]. Current prominent theories of pragmatics are Grice's speech act (see above) and relevance theory [43]. Previously, these theories have received both validations and invalidations empirically by different researchers [40,51,52,53,54,55]. However, none of these theories has fully delineated the relationship between pragmatics and ToM. In this short review, in order to provide focused arguments, I will discuss some of these theories only in relation to the pragmatic theory of ToM. Readers can refer to other reviews (including my own) [40,51,52,53,54,55,56] that provide more extensive discussions or comparisons of these theories of ToM and/or pragmatics.
If language is necessary for ToM, it follows that preverbal infants and toddlers do not understand ToM. Results from some studies of ToM in infants demonstrated otherwise. A series of infant studies that used looking-preference paradigm found that even 13-15 month-old infants have the capacity for ToM [36,37,38,39,57]. However, these results are seemingly inconsistent with the results from other studies that tested older preschool children using false-belief tasks [40]. In a typical false-belief test, a child is presented with a scenario, in which an object is moved by a protagonist while another protagonist is absent, so that the latter mistakenly believes the object is still in its last location. The child is then asked about the false-belief of the latter protagonist. The purpose of the false-belief test is to assess one's understanding of others' beliefs that may be different from his/her own [3,4]. The nearly universally observed results are that 4 and 5 year-olds are successful at the false-belief test, while 3 year-olds and older children with ASC are not [3,4,44]. Some posit that the seeming gap in the developmental trajectory of ToM can be explained by the two-stage or two-system hypothesis of ToM [41,42]. According to the former, the verbal, explicit ToM matures only after the non-verbal, implicit ToM [42]. According to the latter, the first subsystem that enables infants to discriminate multiple mental states emerges earlier than the second subsystem that capacitates 4 year-olds to discriminate reality incongruent informational states [41].
In contrary to the above hypotheses, Westra and Carruthers [45] posited that apparent incongruent results can better be accounted for by the development of pragmatics. According to this view, a child's success or failure in the false-belief task depends on whether the child can take the detached third person perspective. Because three year-old children can only take the second person perspective, they respond based on their interpretation of ostensive communicative intention [12,43]. The ostensive communicative intention (the main purpose of which is to produce a perceptual/cognitive/behavioral change in the recipient) can either be cooperative or competitive [58]. For instance, children fail the task because they try to help the main character in the story (cooperative bias) or to exhibit their knowledge and show the experimenter where the toy is now (competitive bias). Thus, according to the pragmatic hypothesis, children younger than three fail the false-belief task because of their immature pragmatic interpretation which can either be cooperative or competitive [45,58].
Ultimately, from the perspective of the full-fledged pragmatic theory of ToM, which I maintain in this review, the above seemingly incongruent results between studies on preschool children and those on preverbal infants are not inconsistent at all. This is because in a broader sense, pragmatic aspects of language include any communicative actions or speech acts such as turn-taking, pointing, cooing, or bubbling that typical infants display [59]. It has been shown that as early as 3 months, infants can coordinate their rhythms with caretakers' rhythms [59,60,61]. The turn-taking, the first prototypical pragmatic ability, appears as early as 3 to 6 months of age [62,63]. Pointing, another prototype of the speech act [64,65], emerges around 9 to 12 months of age [66].
Thus, according to the pragmatic theory of ToM, the seemingly incongruent research results from the infants and preschool children are not at all incogruent. This theory views that developmental trajectory of ToM is more continuous and gradual than the two-system or the two-stage hypothesis. At very early points in life, newborns already have the prototypical ToM/speech acts, which will later develop to the full-fledged speech acts. According to this scenario, children learn some prototypical pragmatic ability in early, preverbal stage of life and later these skills develop to an array of speech acts including making requests and conveying refusals, with appropriate inputs from adults [59]. Also, according to this scenario, as children acquire the expressive pragmatic skills along with other aspects of language; i.e., syntactic and semantic aspects, they develop higher levels of speech acts such as understanding of ironies, jokes, metaphors, and false-beliefs.
It has been well-established that in human adults, syntactic and semantic aspects of language are specialized in the left hemisphere of the brain [67], while pragmatic aspects of language are specialized in the right hemisphere of the brain [68,69,70]. Several studies on patients with brain injuries showed that right-hemisphere-damaged (RHD) patients have difficulty with understanding non-literal verbal expressions while they have no problem in understanding literal expressions [69,70]. It has been shown that RHD patients have difficulty with understanding indirect speeches [71], non-literal and figurative expressions including idioms and proverbs [72,73], humors [74], lies and jokes [75], and sarcasms [76]. Likewise, it has been demonstrated that RHD patients have difficulty in recognizing prosodic cues such as tone of voices and facial expressions [77,78,79]. In a more recent study, the RHD patients with aphasia performed significantly worse in tasks involving formulaic or pragmatic language processing than the left-hemisphere-damaged (LHD) patients with aphasia [80]. On the contrary to the RHD group, the LHD group performed significantly better in tasks that involved literal language processing. Taken together, these results support a dual model of discourse processing which claims that sentence grammar and discourse grammar are processed in different hemispheres of the brain [81]. The discourse grammar involves non-literal, pragmatic aspects of language and is processed primarily in the right hemisphere of the brain, while the sentence grammar concerns constitutive aspects of language and is processed primarily in the left hemisphere of the brain [81,82].
Similar results were found in ToM studies on brain damaged patients. These studies consistently demonstrated that while RHD patients fail the false-belief task, LHD patients pass the task [83,84,85]. For instance, a study found a specific impairment in attributing mental states in the second-order format in a group of RHD patients [84]. Similar results were found in another study that used a non-verbal, cartoon-based task in which patients were asked to infer the intentions from geometric shapes. In this study, a group of RHD patients attributed intentions to geometric shapes more inappropriately compared to a group of people without brain damage [86]. Moreover, in a different study, RHD patients performed more poorly than the typical adults, both in a task that required understanding of pragmatic aspects of language and in another task that required ToM capacity [87]. Taken together, these results are in agreement with the pragmatic theory of ToM indicating that both ToM and pragmatics are subserved by the right hemisphere of the brain. However, the brain injury studies are relatively ambiguous about precisely which regions in the right hemisphere are involved in both ToM and pragmatics. In what follows, I will discuss brain imaging studies to address the issue of regional specificity of the neural basis of ToM/pragmatics.
As the results from the developmental studies and brain lesion studies, which I described above, results from brain imaging studies of ToM seem to be in agreement with the pragmatic theory of ToM. Among the ToM brain regions, the medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC) has been the most consistently implicated in ToM [25,88,89]. The dorsal mPFC (dmPFC), in particular, has been found to be activated during pragmatic language processing [90,91,92]. For instance, it has been demonstrated that understanding verbal ironies recruits the dmPFC [79,80]. This region has also been most frequently implicated in both verbal and nonverbal ToM [27,28,89,93,94]. Moreover, the dmPFC has been shown to be active during both a ToM task and another, different task that requires pragmatic language processing [90]. Results from my study are consistent with this line of results. Through a convergent analysis, I also found converged ToM-specific activity across 56 monolingual and bilingual adult and child participants in the right dmPFC, although the most robust convergence was found in a region more right-lateral than the dmPFC [52].
As I mentioned earlier, a large meta-analysis across more than a hundred of brain imaging studies found a significant functional and anatomical overlap between ToM and pragmatic language comprehension [24]. These results are consistent with a different, earlier meta-analysis that found an extended overlap between the neural correlates of ToM and those of pragmatics, even after excluding verbal ToM tasks [10]. Most recently, my colleagues and I examined whether pragmatic language or ToM has independent contribution to false-belief reasoning in adults [29]. In this study, we found no evidence for the independent contribution of ToM or pragmatics, in either men or women. Both men and women activated the TPJ during both the coherent story condition (that tapped pragmatic comprehension ability) and false-belief condition equally strongly (Figure 1). As I mentioned earlier, TPJ is another brain region most frequently implicated in ToM [26,28,29,30,89]. These results indicate that neural correlates of ToM and those of pragmatic comprehension are very similar if not the same.
Taken together, converged results from developmental, brain lesion and brain imaging studies of ToM and pragmatics are in agreement with the pragmatic theory of ToM. In contrast, as I maintained in my 2010 paper [52], these results are inconsistent with the constitutive language hypothesis or “linguistic determinism” hypothesis of ToM put forward by several others [21,22]. It is not an aim of this article to argue for that constitutive aspects of language are unimportant for ToM. However, the converged results indicate that these aspects are relatively less important than the pragmatic aspects for ToM.
It might be warranted to discuss whether or not the pragmatic theory of ToM is in agreement with the idea of domain-specificity. Some researchers argued for the modularity or domain-specificity of ToM [20,55,95,96,97] and others posited for the domain-generality of ToM [21,98,99]. The pragmatic theory of ToM is in line with neither of these extreme positions. Instead, it may be consistent with the domain-relevance hypothesis of ToM put forward by Karmiloff-Smith [100]. The domain-relevance hypothesis maintains that a domain-specificity develops from neither a tabula rasa start state nor a modular box state; but from a largely undifferentiated domain-general state to a more differentiated domain-specific state. Research evidence that I will describe below seems to support the domain-relevance hypothesis, but only in the reverse direction; i.e., from the domain-specificity to domain-general.
As I discussed earlier, the pragmatic theory of ToM views pragmatics as an equivalent function to ToM. Even though the pragmatics is a component of language, it is strongly tied to contexts unlike other components such as syntactic and semantic components. Pragmatic capacity or ability to understand communicative intentions cannot develop without appropriate environmental inputs or cultural influences. To support this point, while developmental, longitudinal studies of pragmatics are relatively scarce, there are numerous cross-cultural studies that showed evidence of cultural influences on pragmatics [101]. For instance, there are some significant cultural differences in how politeness [102], self-assertion [103], requests [104], and interrogative communicative acts [103] are recognized and conveyed. Likewise, there are equally numerous studies that demonstrated that mental states are understood and interpreted differently in different cultures [27,105,106]. In other words, research evidence has demonstrated that both ToM and pragmatics are significantly malleable and vulnerable to contextual or cultural influences. Thus, they are by no means “informationally encapsulated” or “universal” in Fodor's [96] sense. Therefore, I would argue that neither ToM nor pragmatics is a strictly modular function. However, ToM may become increasingly less modular or domain-specific as a person matures or develops as evidenced in the results of my (and my colleagues') developmental neuroimaging study [89]. In this imaging study my colleagues and I tested bilingual adults and children for their false-belief story understanding. The relevant results are that bilingual adults activated seemingly more dorsal mPFC area during the L1 (Japanese) ToM condition but more ventral mPFC area during the L2 (English) condition. However, bilingual children activated more converged or overlapping mPFC regions of the brain for both conditions. I would argue that it is bilingual adults' ToM that had experienced more contextual or cultural impacts cumulatively over the years. Similar results were found in research on pragmatics. A systematic meta-analysis of brain injury studies on adults indicated that pragmatic capacity is associated with an array of cognitive domains [107]. In this meta-analysis, the authors computed correlations between pragmatics and five key cognitive constructs (i.e., declarative memory, working memory, attention, executive functions, and social cognition). They found significant moderate-to-strong correlations between pragmatics and all of these constructs. These results demonstrate progressively less functional specialization and more generalization in adults' ToM/pragmatics than in children's ToM/pragmatics; therefore, they seem to support the progressively less domain-specificity or the domain-relevance hypothesis of ToM in the reverse direction.
Along with the domain-specificity, Fodor [96] included innateness as one of the criteria for modularity. It may not be an exaggeration to state that many of the aforementioned developmental studies were conducted in order to support the innateness of ToM because one can claim that if a cognitive function appears at a very early point in life, it is more likely that the function is innate. On this issue, my position is similar to the above on the domain-specificity. ToM/pragmatics may be considered as an innate capacity in the sense that some genetic components might be involved in ToM/pragmatics as evidenced in the case of ASC; but ToM/pragmatics may not be innate in the sense that it is considerably malleable or vulnerable to contextual inputs. In fact, as I maintained above, a defining feature of pragmatics is that it has a strong tie to social cognition and hence it is susceptible to contextual and cultural influences. But this does not necessarily rule out the involvement of genetic or biological basis of ToM/pragmatics. As I discussed above, it has been shown that even 13-15 month olds have been shown to have ToM capacity [36,37,38,39]. Likewise, a prototypical pragmatic capacity (i.e., turn-taking) is even demonstrated by 3 to 6 months-old infants [62,63].
However, it has been shown that children with ASC will develop ToM with appropriate environmental inputs or trainings that predominantly focus on various speech acts [108,109,110]. For example, a study showed that through an in-home verbal imitation training, toddlers with ASC can increase the usage of single words [109]. Likewise, a recent training/learning study demonstrated that ToM capacity improves in children who showed below average performance in ToM tasks initially [111]. Similar results were found in brain damaged patients. A group of brain damaged patients who initially showed below average performances in ToM tasks improved their performances through an adequate training [112]. Interestingly, however, the results from neither of these studies supported a strong tabula rasa hypothesis. In the former study, only those children who demonstrated some competency in the knowledge access, which is a precursor ability of ToM [113], improved their performances in the ToM task in a microgenetic [114,115,116] way [112]. In the latter study, only those brain damaged patients who were trained with a ToM (not executive functions) training protocol showed improvements [112]. Similarly, it has been demonstrated that augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) intervention, which utilizes a sign-based imitation technique, is not very effective for individuals with ASC who showed severe impairments in vocal skills [117]. Thus, similar to the above debate on the domain-specificity, these results are more in line with the reverse domain-relevance theory which supports neither the strong nativist nor the tabula rasa hypothesis of ToM/pragmatics.
As other researchers [33,51,56] aptly addressed there are several challenges to confirming the present pragmatic theory of ToM. One of the challenges is associated with definitions of both pragmatics and ToM. Currently, neither ToM nor pragmatics is operationally and conceptually defined either clearly or consistently by different researchers. As Cummings [51] aptly expressed, ToM is currently very poorly defined construct. This difficulty seems to stem from the fact that ToM can encompass different functional components including volition, intentions, motivation, and beliefs. To make matters even more complicated, ToM can also include both affective and cognitive components such as empathizing and reasoning [29]. Any of these facets of ToM may overlap with some facets of pragmatics which also embraces both linguistic and intentional/volitional components. For instance, one broad definition of pragmatics is that by Levinson, “relations between language and context that are basic to an account of language understanding” [118]. This definition can encompass mental as well as non-mental aspects. Also, one of ToM's definitions, “ability to perceive intentions of others” [119,120] is practically identical to a hallmark definition of pragmatics; i.e., “understanding contexts and intentions of speakers” [121]. Moreover, the problem of conflation or semantic mish-mash may extend to developmental studies of ToM. For instance, turn-taking and joint-attention are considered to be precursors for both ToM and pragmatics [59,123]. These definitional challenges of ToM and pragmatics have generated confusions and lengthy debates among researchers.
To make matters even more challenging, many developmental and neurological studies of ToM have not distinguished between tasks that tap into pragmatics and those that test ToM. For instance, irony and metaphors are often used to test either ToM [123,124] or pragmatic language comprehension [125,126]. In these studies, the boundary between ToM and pragmatics is blurred and subject to individual interpretations. Likewise, several researchers pointed out problems associated with the use of false-belief task to test ToM [127,128]. One of these problems is that current false-belief tasks employ not only ToM but also other related but non-specific cognitive skills such as verbal memory and executive functions [51,129]. Therefore, it may be necessary for future studies, first, to clearly distinguish ToM from pragmatics by defining each of them operationally and, second, to devise tasks that specifically test the clearly and operationally defined ToM and/or pragmatics.
In sum, in this article, I argued for the pragmatic theory of ToM. In order to reconcile apparent incongruent results between studies on infants and those on preschool children, two hypotheses were proposed; i.e., the two-system, and the two-stage hypothesis of ToM. As an alternative to these two hypotheses, I proposed the yet third hypothesis; i.e., the pragmatic theory of ToM. I discussed some results from developmental and neurological studies that clearly support the theory. The pragmatic theory of ToM equates ToM with pragmatic capacity which is present from very early, preverbal periods of life in the form of turn-taking. Thus, this theory explains the incongruent results between studies on infants and those on preschool children well by eliminating the requirement of verbal capacity for ToM.
As I delineated above, the pragmatic theory of ToM seems to be consistent with the domain-relevance theory of ToM in the reverse direction. This theory is also in agreement with the microgenetic theory [114,115] which, I would argue, is a mid-way between the nativist and tabula rasa theories of cognition. ToM/pragmatics may involve some genetic underpinnings; however, this capacity is too malleable and vulnerable to contextual and cultural influences to be considered as a domain-specific or innate capacity. In this review, I also discussed some definitional challenges of both ToM and pragmatics and problems in current task batteries to test either capacity. Until the definitional problem is solved, the pragmatic theory of ToM may remain as preliminary and subject to further refinement. Therefore, more research is definitely needed to confirm the theory. Lastly, once this theory is confirmed, an interesting clinical application drawn from it is that ToM or pragmatic deficits in individuals with brain damages or other psychiatric conditions can be attenuated through adequate trainings that will target either ToM and/or pragmatics.
The writing of this article was partially funded by a Faculty Research Fund from Fielding Graduate University to the author. A portion of the discussion in this article was presented as a poster at a scientific meeting, titled: “Of mice and mental health: Facilitating dialogue between basic and clinical neuroscientists” by the Royal Society in London, UK, in April, 2017. I would like to thank Randall Frank for assistance.
The author declares no conflict of interest.
[1] | Dennet DC (1980) The milk of human intentionality (commentary on Searle). Behav Brain Sci 3: 428–430. |
[2] |
Frith U, Frith CD (2003) Development and neurophysiology of mentalizing. Philos Trans R Soc London 358: 459–473. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2002.1218
![]() |
[3] |
Baron-Cohen S, Leslie AM, Frith U (1985) Does the autistic child have a "theory of mind"? Cognition 21: 37–46. doi: 10.1016/0010-0277(85)90022-8
![]() |
[4] |
Baron-Cohen S, Leslie AM, Frith U (1986) Mechanical, behavioural and Intentional understanding of picture stories in autistic children. Br J Dev Psychol 4: 113–125. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-835X.1986.tb01003.x
![]() |
[5] |
Brüne M (2005) "Theory of mind" in schizophrenia: A review of the literature. Schizophrenia Bull 31: 21–42. doi: 10.1093/schbul/sbi002
![]() |
[6] | Frith CD (1992) The cognitive neuropsychology of schizophrenia. Hove, England: Psychology Press. |
[7] |
Sprong M, Schothorst P, Vos E, et al. (2007) Theory of mind in schizophrenia: Meta-analysis. Br J Psychiatry 191: 5–13. doi: 10.1192/bjp.bp.107.035899
![]() |
[8] |
Washburn D, Wilson G, Rose M, et al. (2016) Theory of mind in social anxiety disorder, depression, and comorbid conditions. J Anxiety Disord 37: 71–77. doi: 10.1016/j.janxdis.2015.11.004
![]() |
[9] | Vaskinn A, Antonsen BT, Fretland RA, et al. (2015) Theory of mind in women with borderline personality disorder or schizophrenia: Differences in overall ability and error patterns. Front Psychol 6: 1239. |
[10] |
Ferstl EC, Neumann J, Bogler C, et al. (2008) The extended language network: A meta-analysis of neuroimaging studies on text comprehension. Hum Brain Mapp 29: 581–593. doi: 10.1002/hbm.20422
![]() |
[11] |
Grice HP (1969) Utterer's Meaning and Intentions. Philos Rev 78: 147–177. doi: 10.2307/2184179
![]() |
[12] | Grice HP (1975) Logic and conversation, In: Cole P, Morgan JL, eds., Speech Acts, New York, NY: Academic Press, 41–58. |
[13] | Grice HP (1989) Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. |
[14] | Ruiz-Gurillo L, Alvarado-Ortega MB (2013) The pragmatics of irony and humor, In: Ruiz-Gurillo L, Alvarado-Ortega MB, eds., Irony and humor: From pragmatics to discourse, Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins, 1–14. |
[15] | Van Ackeren MJ, Casasanto D, Bekkering H, et al. (2012) Pragmatics in action: Indirect requests engage theory of mind areas and the cortical motor network. Cognit Neurosci J 24: 2237–2247. |
[16] | Austin JA (1962) How to do things with words. Analysis 23: 58–64. |
[17] | Searle JR (1969) Seech acts. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. |
[18] | Baron-Cohen S (1995) Mindreading: An essay on autism and theory of mind. London, England: MIT Press. |
[19] | Fodor JA (1975) The language of thought. New York, NY: Crowell. 22: 69–71. |
[20] |
Leslie AM, Friedman O, German TP (2004) Core mechanism in "theory of mind". Trends Cognit Sci 8: 528–533. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2004.10.001
![]() |
[21] |
Astington JW, Jenkins JM (1999) A longitudinal study of the relation between language and theory of mind development. Dev Psychol 35: 1311–1320. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.35.5.1311
![]() |
[22] | De Villiers JG, De Villiers PA (2000) Linguistic determinism and the understanding of false beliefs, In: Mitchell P, Riggs KJ, eds., Children's reasoning and the mind, East Sussex, England: Psychology Press, 191–228. |
[23] |
Milligan K, Astington JW, Dack LA (2007) Language and theory of mind: Meta-analysis of the relation between language ability and false-belief understanding. Child Dev 78: 622–648. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01018.x
![]() |
[24] |
Mar RA (2011) The neural basis of social cognition and story comprehension. Ann Rev Psychol 62: 103–134. doi: 10.1146/annurev-psych-120709-145406
![]() |
[25] |
Amodio DM, Frith CD (2006) Meeting of minds: The medial frontal cortex and social cognition. Nat Rev Neurosci 7: 268–277. doi: 10.1038/nrn1884
![]() |
[26] |
Krall SC, Rottschy C, Overwelland E, et al. (2015) The role of the right temporoprietal junction in attention and social interaction as revealed by ALE meta-analysis. Brain Struct Funct 220: 587–604. doi: 10.1007/s00429-014-0803-z
![]() |
[27] |
Kobayashi C, Glover GH, Temple E (2006) Cultural and linguistic influence on neural bases of "Theory of Mind": An fMRI study with Japanese bilinguals. Brain Lang 98: 210–220. doi: 10.1016/j.bandl.2006.04.013
![]() |
[28] |
Kobayashi C, Glover GH, Temple E (2007) Children's and adults' neural bases of verbal and nonverbal "Theory of Mind". Neuropsychologia 45: 1522–1532. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2006.11.017
![]() |
[29] |
Frank CK, Baron-Cohen S, Ganzel BL (2015) Sex differences in the neural basis of false-belief and pragmatic language comprehension. NeuroImage 105: 300–311. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2014.09.041
![]() |
[30] |
Saxe R, Wexler A (2005) Making sense of another mind: The role of the right tempro-parietal junction. Neuropsychologia 43: 1391–1399. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2005.02.013
![]() |
[31] | Frith U (2003) Autism: Explaining the enigma. Malden, MA: Blackwell. |
[32] |
Happé FG (1993) Communicative competence and theory of mind in autism: A test of relevance theory. Cognition 48: 101–119. doi: 10.1016/0010-0277(93)90026-R
![]() |
[33] | Tager-Flusberg H (2000) Language and Understanding Minds: Connections in autism, In: Baron-Cohen S, Tager-Flusberg H, Cohen DJ, eds., Understanding other minds: Perspectives from autism and developmental cognitive neuroscience, 2nd Edition., Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, 124–149. |
[34] |
Corcoran R, Frith CD (2003) Autobiographical memory and theory of mind: Evidence of a relationship in schizophrenia. Psychol Med 33: 897–905. doi: 10.1017/S0033291703007529
![]() |
[35] | Gavilan IJM, Garcia-Albea RJE (2013) Theory of mind and language comprehension in schizophrenia. Psiothema 25: 440–445. |
[36] |
Buttelmann D, Carpenter M, Tomasello M (2009) Eighteen-month-old infants show false belief understanding in an active helping paradigm. Cognition 112: 337–342. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2009.05.006
![]() |
[37] |
Buttleman D, Over H, Carpenter M, et al. (2014) Eighteen-month olds understand false beliefs in an unexpected contents task. J Exp Child Psychol 119: 120–126. doi: 10.1016/j.jecp.2013.10.002
![]() |
[38] | He Z, Bolz M, Baillargeon R (2012) 2.5-year-olds succeed at a verbal anticipatory-looking false-belief task. Br J Dev Psychol 30: 14–29. |
[39] |
Onishi KH, Baillargeon R (2005) Do 15-month-old infants understand false belief? Science 308: 255–258. doi: 10.1126/science.1107621
![]() |
[40] |
Wellman HM, Cross D, Watson J (2001) Meta-analysis of theory-of-mind development: The truth about false-belief. Child Dev 72: 655–684. doi: 10.1111/1467-8624.00304
![]() |
[41] |
Baillargeon R, Scott RM, He Z (2010) False-belief understanding in infants. Trends Cognit Sci 14: 110–118. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2009.12.006
![]() |
[42] |
Low J, Perner J (2012) Implicit and explicit theory of mind: State of the art. Br J Dev Psychol 30: 1–13. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-835X.2011.02074.x
![]() |
[43] |
Sperber D, Wilson D (2002) Pragmatics, modularity, and mindreading. Mind Lang 17: 3–23. doi: 10.1111/1468-0017.00186
![]() |
[44] | Malle BF (2002) The relation between language and theory of mind in development and evolution, In: Givón T, Malle BF, eds., The evolution of language out of pre-language, Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Benjamins, 265–284. |
[45] |
Westra E, Carruthers P (2017) Pragmatic development explains the theory-of-mind scale. Cognition 158: 165–176. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2016.10.021
![]() |
[46] |
Leslie AM (1992) Autism and the "theory of mind" module. Cur Dir Psych Sci 1: 18–21. doi: 10.1111/1467-8721.ep10767818
![]() |
[47] |
Roth D, Leslie AM (1998) Solving belief problems: Towards a task analysis. Cognition 66: 1–31. doi: 10.1016/S0010-0277(98)00005-5
![]() |
[48] |
Gopnik A, Wellman HM (1992) Why the child's theory of mind really is a theory. Mind Lang 7: 145–171. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0017.1992.tb00202.x
![]() |
[49] |
Goldman AI (1989) Interpretation psychologized. Mind Lang 4: 161–185 doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0017.1989.tb00249.x
![]() |
[50] |
Harris PL (1992) From simulation to folk psychology: The case for development. Mind Lang 7: 120–144. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0017.1992.tb00201.x
![]() |
[51] |
Cummings L (2013) Clinical pragmatics and theory of mind. Springer Int Publishing 2: 23–56. doi: 10.1186/2193-1801-2-23
![]() |
[52] |
Frank CK (2010) Linguistic effects on the neural basis of theory of mind. Open Neuroimaging J 4: 37–45. doi: 10.2174/1874440001004020037
![]() |
[53] | Frank CK (2012) Cultural and linguistic influence on developmental neural basis of theory of mind: Whorfian hypothesis revisited. Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers. |
[54] |
Saxe R (2005) Against simulation: The argument from error. Trends Cogit Sci 9: 174–179. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2005.01.012
![]() |
[55] |
Scholl BJ, Leslie AM (1999) Modularity, development and "Theory of Mind". Mind Lang 14: 131–153. doi: 10.1111/1468-0017.00106
![]() |
[56] | Zufferey S (2010) Lexical pragmatics and theory of mind. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins. |
[57] |
Surian L, Caldi S, Sperber D (2007) Attribution of beliefs by 13-month-old infants. Psychol Sci 18: 580–586. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01943.x
![]() |
[58] |
Helming KA, Strickland B, Jacob P (2016) Solving the puzzle about early belief ascription. Mind Lang 31: 438–469. doi: 10.1111/mila.12114
![]() |
[59] | Airenti G (2017) Pragmatic Development, In: Cummings L, ed., Research in Pragmatics, Cham, Switzerland: Springer, 3–28. |
[60] | Malloch SN, Sharp DB, Campbell AM, et al. (1997) Measuring the human voice: Analyzing pitch, timing, loudness and voice quality in mother/infant communication. Proc Inst Acoustics 19: 495–500. |
[61] | Trevarthen C, Kokkinaki T, Fiamenghi GA (1999) What infants' imitations communicate: With mothers with fathers and with peers, In: Nadel J, Butterworth G, eds., Imitation in infancy, Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 127–185. |
[62] | Butterworth GE, Cochran E (1980) Toward a mechanism of joint visual attention in human infancy. Int J Behav Dev 3: 253–272. |
[63] | Stern HH (1975) What can we learn from the good language learner? Can Mod Lang Rev 34: 304–318. |
[64] | Bates E, Camaion L, Volterra V (1975) The acquisition of performatives prior to speech. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly 21: 205–226. |
[65] | Bruner JS (1975) The ontogenesis of speech acts. J Child Lang 2: 1–19. |
[66] |
Liszkowsku U, Brown P, Callaghan T, et al. (2012) A prelinguistic gestural universal of human communication. Cognit Sci 36: 698–713. doi: 10.1111/j.1551-6709.2011.01228.x
![]() |
[67] | Friederici AD, Rüschemeyer SA, Hahne A, et al. (2003) The role of left inferior frontal and superior temporal cortex in sentence comprehension: Localizing syntactic and semantic processes. Cereb Cortex 13: 117–177. |
[68] |
Martin I, McDonalds S (2005) Exploring the cause of pragmatic deficits following traumatic brain injury. Aphasiology 19: 712–730. doi: 10.1080/02687030500172203
![]() |
[69] |
Surian L, Siegal M (2001) Sources of performance on theory of mind tasks in the right hemisphere-damaged patients. Brain Lang 78: 224–232. doi: 10.1006/brln.2001.2465
![]() |
[70] |
Weed E, Mcgregor W, Nielsen JF, et al. (2010) Theory of Mind in adults with right hemisphere data: What's the story? Brain Lang 113: 65–72. doi: 10.1016/j.bandl.2010.01.009
![]() |
[71] |
Weylman ST, Brownell HH, Roman M, et al. (1989) Appreciation of indirect requests by left- and right-brain damaged patients: The effect of verbal context and conventionality of wording. Brain Lang 36: 580–591. doi: 10.1016/0093-934X(89)90087-4
![]() |
[72] | Brundage S (1996) Comparison of proverb interpretations provided by right-hemisphere damaged adults and adults with probable dementia of the Alzheimer type. Clin Aphasiol 24: 215–231. |
[73] |
Cutica I, Bucciarelli M, Bara BG (2006) Neuropragmatics: Extralinguistic pragmatic ability is better preserved in left-hemisphere-damaged patients than in right-hemisphere-damaged patients. Brain Lang 98: 12–25. doi: 10.1016/j.bandl.2006.01.001
![]() |
[74] |
Cheang H, Pell M (2006) A study of humour and communicative intention following right hemisphere stroke. Clin Linguist Phonetics 20: 447–462. doi: 10.1080/02699200500135684
![]() |
[75] |
Winner E, Brownell H, Happe F, et al. (1998) Distinguishing lies from jokes: Theory of mind deficits and discourse interpretation in right hemisphere brain damaged patients. Brain Lang 62: 89–106. doi: 10.1006/brln.1997.1889
![]() |
[76] |
Mcdonald S (2000) Exploring the cognitive basis of right-hemisphere pragmatic language disorders. Brain Lang 75: 82–107. doi: 10.1006/brln.2000.2342
![]() |
[77] |
Kucharskapietura K, Phillips ML, Germand W, et al. (2003) Perceptions of emotion from faces and voices following unilateral brain damage. Neuropsychologia 41: 1082–1090. doi: 10.1016/S0028-3932(02)00294-4
![]() |
[78] |
Parola A, Gabbatore I, Bosco FM, et al. (2016) Assessment of pragmatic impairment in right hemisphere damage. J Neurolinguistics 39: 10–25. doi: 10.1016/j.jneuroling.2015.12.003
![]() |
[79] | Shamaytsoory SG, Tomer R, Berger BD, et al. (2005) Impaired "affective theory of mind" is associated with right ventromedial prefrontal damage. Cognit Behav Neurol 18: 55–62. |
[80] | Sidtis DVL, Yang S (2016) Formulaic language performance in left- and right-hemisphere damaged patients: Structured testing. Aphasiology 31: 82–99. |
[81] |
Heine B, Kuteva T, Kaltenöck G (2014) Discourse, grammar, the dual process model, and brain lateralization: Some correlations. Lang Cognit 6: 146–180. doi: 10.1017/langcog.2013.3
![]() |
[82] | Heine B, Kuteva T, Kaltenöck G, et al. (2015) On some correlations between grammar and brain lateralization, In: Oxford Handbooks Online, Oxford, England: OUP. |
[83] | Brownell H, Griffin R, Winner E, et al. (2000) Cerebral lateralization and theory of mind, In: Baron-Cohen S, Tager-Flusberg H, Cohen D, eds., Understanding other minds: Perspectives from developmental cognitive neuroscience, 2, Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 306–333. |
[84] |
Griffin R, Friedman O, Ween J, et al. (2006) Theory of mind and the right cerebral hemisphere: Refining the scope of impairment. Laterality 11: 195–225. doi: 10.1080/13576500500450552
![]() |
[85] |
Siegal M, Carrington J, Radel M (1996) Theory of mind understanding following right hemisphere damage. Brain Lang 53: 40–50. doi: 10.1006/brln.1996.0035
![]() |
[86] |
Weed E (2011) What's left to learn about right hemisphere damage and pragmatic impairment? Aphasiology 25: 872–889. doi: 10.1080/02687038.2010.545423
![]() |
[87] |
Champagne-Lavau M, Joanette Y (2009) Pragmatics, theory of mind and executive functions after a right-hemisphere lesion: Different patterns of deficits. J Neurolinguistics 22: 413–426. doi: 10.1016/j.jneuroling.2009.02.002
![]() |
[88] |
Frith CD, Frith U (2006) The neural basis of mentalizing. Neuron 50: 531–534. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2006.05.001
![]() |
[89] |
Kobayashi C, Glover GH, Temple E (2008) Switching language switches mind: Linguistic effects on developmental neural bases of "Theory of Mind". Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci 3: 62–70. doi: 10.1093/scan/nsm039
![]() |
[90] |
Ferstl EC, Cramon DYV (2002) What does the frontomedian cortex contribute to language processing: Coherence or theory of mind? Neuroimage 17: 1599–1612. doi: 10.1006/nimg.2002.1247
![]() |
[91] |
Bašnáková J, Weber K, Petersson KM, et al. (2014) Beyond the language given: The neural correlates of inferring speaker meaning. Cereb Cortex 24: 2572–2578. doi: 10.1093/cercor/bht112
![]() |
[92] |
Spotorno N, Koun E, Prado J, et al. (2012) Neural evidence that utterance-processing entails mentalizing: The case of irony. NeuroImage 63: 25–39. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.06.046
![]() |
[93] |
Castelli F, Frith C, Happé F, et al. (2002) Autism, Asperger syndrome and brain mechanisms for the attribution of mental states of animated shapes. Brain 125: 1839–1849. doi: 10.1093/brain/awf189
![]() |
[94] | Gallagher HL, Frith CD (2003) Functional imaging of "theory of mind". Trends Cognit Sci 7: 77–83. |
[95] |
Barrett HC, Kurzban R (2006) Modularity in cognition: Framing the debate. Psychol Rev 113: 628–647. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.113.3.628
![]() |
[96] | Fodor JA (1983) The modularity of mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. |
[97] |
Scholl BJ, Leslie AM (2001) Minds, modules, and meta-analysis. Child Dev 72: 696–701. doi: 10.1111/1467-8624.00308
![]() |
[98] |
Carlson SM, Moses LJ, Claxton LJ (2004) Individual differences in executive functioning and theory of mind: An investigation of inhibitory control and planning ability. J Exp Child Psychol 87: 299–319. doi: 10.1016/j.jecp.2004.01.002
![]() |
[99] | Perner J (1991) Understanding the representational mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. |
[100] |
Karmiloffsmith A (2015) An alternative to domain-general or domain-specific frameworks for theorizing about human evolution and ontogenesis. AIMS Neurosci 2: 91–104. doi: 10.3934/Neuroscience.2015.2.91
![]() |
[101] | Trosborg A (2010) Pragmatics across language and culture. Berlin, Germany: Walter de Gruyter. |
[102] | Zhu J, Bao Y (2010) The pragmatic comparison of Chinese and Western "Politeness" in cross-cultural communication. J Lang Teach Res 1: 848–851. |
[103] | Wierzbicka A (2003) Cross-cultural pragmatics: The semantics of human interaction. Berlin, Germany: Walter de Gruyter. |
[104] | Wierzbicka A (2010) Cultural scripts and intercultural communication, In: Trosborg A, ed., Pragmatics across language and culture, Berlin, Germany: Walter de Gruyter, 43–78. |
[105] |
Liu D, Wellman HM, Tardif T, et al. (2008) Theory of mind development in Chinese children: A meta-analysis of false-belief understanding across cultures and languages. Dev Psychol 44: 523–531. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.44.2.523
![]() |
[106] |
Kobayashi FC, Temple E (2009) Cultural effects on the neural basis of theory of mind. Prog Brain Res 178: 213–223. doi: 10.1016/S0079-6123(09)17815-9
![]() |
[107] |
Rowley DA, Rogish M, Alexander T, et al. (2017) Cognitive correlates of pragmatic language comprehension in adult traumatic brain injury: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Brain Inj 31: 1564–1574. doi: 10.1080/02699052.2017.1341645
![]() |
[108] | Landa R (2007) Early communication development and intervention for children with autism. Dev Disabil Res Rev 13: 16–25. |
[109] | Seung HK, Siddiqi S, Elder JH (2006) Intervention outcomes of a bilingual child with autism. J Med Speech Lang Pathol 14: 53–63. |
[110] | Thunberg G, Johansson M, Wikholm J (2015) Meeting the communicative rights of people with autism-using pictorial supports during assessment, intervention and hospital care, Chapter 15, Open Access, In: Fizgerald M, ed., Autism spectrum disorder-Recent advances, London, England: In Tech. |
[111] | Rhodes M, Wellman H (2013) Constructing a new theory from old ideas and new evidence. Cognit Sci 37: 592–604. |
[112] |
Ludgren K, Brownell H (2015) Selective training of theory of mind in traumatic brain injury: A series of single subject training studies. Open Behav Sci J 9: 1–11. doi: 10.2174/1874230001509010001
![]() |
[113] |
Wellman H, Liu D (2004) Scaling of theory-of-mind tasks. Child Dev 75: 523–541. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2004.00691.x
![]() |
[114] | Brown JW (1977) Mind, brain and consciousness. New York, NY: Academic Press. |
[115] | Brown JW (2015) Microgenetic theory and process thought. New York, NY: Academic Press. |
[116] |
Siegler R, Stern E (1998) Conscious and unconscious strategy discoveries: A micrognetic analysis. J Exp Psychol Gen 127: 377–397. doi: 10.1037/0096-3445.127.4.377
![]() |
[117] | Howlin P (2006) Augmentative and alternative communication systems for children with autism, In: Charman T, Stone W, eds., Social and communication development in autism spectrum disorders, New York, NY: Guilford Press, 236–266. |
[118] | Levinson SC (1984) Pragmatics (Cambridge textbooks in linguistics). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. |
[119] |
Blakemore SJ, Decety J (2001) From the perception of action to the understanding of intention. Nat Rev Neurosci 2: 561–567. doi: 10.1038/35080587
![]() |
[120] |
Iacoboni M, Dapretto M (2006) The mirror neuron system and the consequence of its dysfunction. Nat Rev Neurosci 7: 942–951. doi: 10.1038/nrn2024
![]() |
[121] | Haugh M (2008) The place of intention in the interactional achievement of implicature, In: Kecskes I, Mey J, eds., Intention, common ground and the egocentric speaker-hearer, Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter, 45–86. |
[122] |
Charman T, Baroncohen S, Swetternham J, et al. (2000) Testing joint attention, imitation, and play as infancy precursors to language and theory of mind. Cognit Dev 15: 481–498. doi: 10.1016/S0885-2014(01)00037-5
![]() |
[123] |
Rapp AM, Felsenheimer AK, Langohr K, et al. (2018) The comprehension of familiar and novel metaphoric meanings in schizophrenia: A pilot study. Front Psychol 8: 2251. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02251
![]() |
[124] |
Varga E, Simon M, Tényi T, et al. (2013) Irony comprehension and context processing in schizophrenia in remission-a functional MRI study. Brain Lang 126: 231–242. doi: 10.1016/j.bandl.2013.05.017
![]() |
[125] |
Mo S, Su Y, Chan RC, et al. (2008) Comprehension of metaphor and irony in schizophrenia during remission: The role of theory of mind and IQ. Psychiatry Res 157: 21–29. doi: 10.1016/j.psychres.2006.04.002
![]() |
[126] |
Wang AT, Lee SS, Sigman M, et al. (2006) Neural basis of irony comprehension in children with autism: The role of prosody and context. Brain 129: 932–943. doi: 10.1093/brain/awl032
![]() |
[127] |
Apperly IA, Butterfill SA (2009) Do humans have two systems to track beliefs and belief like states? Psychol Rev 116: 953–970. doi: 10.1037/a0016923
![]() |
[128] |
Bloom P, German TP (2000) Two reasons to abandon the false belief task as a test of theory of mind. Cognition 77: B25–B31. doi: 10.1016/S0010-0277(00)00096-2
![]() |
[129] |
Sabbagh MA, Xu F, Carison SM, et al. (2006) The development of executive functioning and theory of mind: A comparison of Chinese and U.S. preschoolers. Psychol Sci 17: 74–81. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2005.01667.x
![]() |
1. | Jean Baratgin, Marion Dubois-Sage, Baptiste Jacquet, Jean-Louis Stilgenbauer, Frank Jamet, Pragmatics in the False-Belief Task: Let the Robot Ask the Question!, 2020, 11, 1664-1078, 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.593807 | |
2. | Mariia Pronina, Iris Hübscher, Judith Holler, Pilar Prieto, Interactional training interventions boost children’s expressive pragmatic abilities: evidence from a novel multidimensional testing approach, 2021, 57, 08852014, 101003, 10.1016/j.cogdev.2020.101003 | |
3. | Antonia Lonigro, Emiddia Longobardi, Fiorenzo Laghi, Pragmatics in the elementary school years: the contribute of mental state language used in narrative and persuasive texts, 2021, 1046-1310, 10.1007/s12144-021-01462-8 | |
4. | Belen Rosello, Carmen Berenguer, Inmaculada Baixauli, Rosa García, Ana Miranda, Theory of Mind Profiles in Children With Autism Spectrum Disorder: Adaptive/Social Skills and Pragmatic Competence, 2020, 11, 1664-1078, 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.567401 | |
5. | Monica Mazza, Maria Chiara Pino, Roberto Keller, Roberto Vagnetti, Margherita Attanasio, Angela Filocamo, Ilenia Le Donne, Francesco Masedu, Marco Valenti, Qualitative Differences in Attribution of Mental States to Other People in Autism and Schizophrenia: What are the Tools for Differential Diagnosis?, 2021, 0162-3257, 10.1007/s10803-021-05035-3 | |
6. | Simon Scheider, Kai-Florian Richter, Pragmatic GeoAI: Geographic Information as Externalized Practice, 2023, 0933-1875, 10.1007/s13218-022-00794-2 | |
7. | Aleksandra Janowska, Brianna Balugas, Matthew Pardillo, Victoria Mistretta, Katherine Chavarria, Janet Brenya, Taylor Shelansky, Vanessa Martinez, Kitty Pagano, Nathira Ahmad, Samantha Zorns, Abigail Straus, Sarah Sierra, Julian Paul Keenan, The Neurological Asymmetry of Self-Face Recognition, 2021, 13, 2073-8994, 1135, 10.3390/sym13071135 | |
8. | Signe Tonér, Conveying a fictional false belief in narrative, 2022, 26, 2083-8506, 242, 10.2478/plc-2022-0011 | |
9. | Anna Filip, Arkadiusz Białek, Marta Białecka-Pikul, Both syntactic and pragmatic sentence adequacy matters for recursive theory of mind in 5-year-olds, 2023, 66, 08852014, 101297, 10.1016/j.cogdev.2023.101297 | |
10. | Roberto Rotta Escalante, Osvaldo Fustinoni, María Elisa Barone, José R. Elli, María del Carmen Martínez Perea, Disparidades de salud en el mundo real de los pacientes con esclerosis múltiple, 2023, 18530028, 10.1016/j.neuarg.2023.02.001 | |
11. | Jihene Bahri, Zeineb S. Abbes, Houda Ben Yahia, Soumeyya Halayem, Selima Jelili, Melek Hajri, Isabelle Amado, Alice Medalia, Asma Bouden, Toward an integrative socio-cognitive approach in autism spectrum disorder: NEAR method adaptation—study protocol, 2023, 14, 1664-0640, 10.3389/fpsyt.2023.940066 | |
12. | Zehra ERTUĞRUL YAŞAR, Zihin Kuramı- İstek, Kanı, Bilgi, Duygu ve Yanlış Kanı Anlayışı- İle Dil İlişkisinin İncelenmesi, 2023, 2023, 2717-6665, 1, 10.55543/insan.1189311 | |
13. | Dimitrios Tsolakopoulos, Dimitrios Kasselimis, Nikolaos Laskaris, Georgia Angelopoulou, Georgios Papageorgiou, Georgios Velonakis, Maria Varkanitsa, Argyro Tountopoulou, Sofia Vassilopoulou, Dionysis Goutsos, Constantin Potagas, Exploring Pragmatic Deficits in Relation to Theory of Mind and Executive Functions: Evidence from Individuals with Right Hemisphere Stroke, 2023, 13, 2076-3425, 1385, 10.3390/brainsci13101385 | |
14. | Ouerchefani Riadh, Ouerchefani Naoufel, Mohamed Riadh Ben Rejeb, Didier Le Gall, Pragmatic language comprehension: Role of theory of mind, executive functions, and the prefrontal cortex, 2023, 00283932, 108756, 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2023.108756 | |
15. | Bálint Forgács, Meaning as mentalization, 2024, 18, 1662-5161, 10.3389/fnhum.2024.1384116 | |
16. | Marianna Beradze, Natalia Meir, Disfluencies as a Window into Pragmatic Skills in Russian-Hebrew Bilingual Autistic and Non-Autistic Children, 2024, 0162-3257, 10.1007/s10803-024-06533-w | |
17. | Aimee O’Shea, Rita Cersosimo, Paul E. Engelhardt, Online Metaphor Comprehension in Adults with Autism Spectrum Disorders: An Eye Tracking Study, 2024, 0162-3257, 10.1007/s10803-024-06562-5 |