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

2. Paris - July 2007Discourse – External Referents ESF- Metacognition 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. Paris - July 2007Discourse – External Referents ESF- Metacognition 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. Paris - July 2007Discourse – External Referents ESF- Metacognition 4 Referential Expressions 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. Paris - July 2007Discourse – External Referents ESF- Metacognition 5 Referential Expressions 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. Paris - July 2007Discourse – External Referents ESF- Metacognition 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. Paris - July 2007Discourse – External Referents ESF- Metacognition 7 1  is a woman  was bitten by 2 2  is a dog  bit 1  jumped over 3 3  is a fence  was 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. Paris - July 2007Discourse – External Referents ESF- Metacognition 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. Paris - July 2007Discourse – External Referents ESF- Metacognition 9 #1 := a mouse  is BIG  …  cond: is a mouse, on this display, looks like: Discourse referents Refinements  DR-identifier Defining label (name):  sets perspective  discourse 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. Paris - July 2007Discourse – External Referents ESF- Metacognition 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. Paris - July 2007Discourse – External Referents ESF- Metacognition 11 Purpose of all this Explaining difficulties with alternative naming

12. Paris - July 2007Discourse – External Referents ESF- Metacognition 12 Alternative Naming (Doherty & Perner 1998) : Vocabulary check Where is the “bunny?” Where is the “cup?” Where is the “rabbit?”

13. Paris - July 2007Discourse – External Referents ESF- Metacognition 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. Paris - July 2007Discourse – External Referents ESF- Metacognition 14 Alternative Names: Name-Name (NN) Synonyms Bunny - Rabbit Categories Fruit - Pear

15. Paris - July 2007Discourse – External Referents ESF- Metacognition 15 Control Conditions Name - Colour Cup - Red Colour - Colour Yellow - Green Name - Part Monkey - Tail Part - Part Head - Tail

16. Paris - July 2007Discourse – External Referents ESF- Metacognition 16 Results: Children’s Performance ctd.

17. Paris - July 2007Discourse – External Referents ESF- Metacognition 17 Results: Crosstabs and Correlations

18. Paris - July 2007Discourse – External Referents ESF- Metacognition 18 Any explanations?

19. Paris - July 2007Discourse – External Referents ESF- Metacognition 19 File-card Explanation

20. Paris - July 2007Discourse – External Referents ESF- Metacognition 20 Heim’s rule for adults (familiarity rule of definite descriptions ): For every definite, update an old card. For every indefinite, start a new card. FILE CHANGE RULE for preschoolers: ? Perhaps: start a new card when a new descriptor is used referentially: “My friend has a rabbit,” but not attributively:“My friend is a rabbit.” open questions: File Change rules:

21. Paris - July 2007Discourse – External Referents ESF- Metacognition 21 “This … open questions: Referents for Demonstratives …probably means: the man. BUT …evidently “This” doesn’t mean: the man. is a tap dance

22. Paris - July 2007Discourse – External Referents ESF- Metacognition 22 External anchor    Alternative Naming: NNControl: CC "This is a mouse.“ “This is green.” "This is an animal.“ “This is yellow.” #2 := an animal  is small  …  cond: #1 := a mouse  is BIG  …  cond : #1 := a ball  is part yellow  is part green  cond:

23. Paris - July 2007Discourse – External Referents ESF- Metacognition 23 This is “meta-cognitive” “meta-representational” information: “DR #2, and DR #1 have same external referent” External anchor Alternative Naming: NN "This is a mouse.“ "This is an animal.“   #2  cond: := an animal  is small  …  info: same as #1 #1  cond: := a mouse  is BIG  …  info: same as #2

24. Paris - July 2007Discourse – External Referents ESF- Metacognition 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. Paris - July 2007Discourse – External Referents ESF- Metacognition 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. Paris - July 2007Discourse – External Referents ESF- Metacognition 26 Important distinctions Types of information: Defining (identifying) label Attributive information Referents Discourse referent DR External referent ER #1 := a mouse  is BIG  …  cond: is a mouse, on this display, …  DR ER

27. Paris - July 2007Discourse – External Referents ESF- Metacognition 27 Understanding Identity A prediction tested

28. Paris - July 2007Discourse – External Referents ESF- Metacognition 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 jewel  belongs to 3 3  Susi’s mom  owns 2  info: same as 1 Give back the jewel!   ??

29. Paris - July 2007Discourse – External Referents ESF- Metacognition 29 Identity story (Waidmann) : Results Percent correct r =.77 ** r p =.48 ** r p =.24 KABC Age False Belief Identity condition 012 0800 1500 23012

30. Paris - July 2007Discourse – External Referents ESF- Metacognition 30 This is the nurse. This dog belongs to the nurse This collar belongs to the dog Control: no problems with inferences 2  a dog  belongs to 1 Give back the collar!  give 3 to 1 (the nurse) 3  a collar  belongs to 2  1  a nurse   Reasoning: If 3 belongs to 2 2 belongs to 1 then3 belongs to 1

31. Paris - July 2007Discourse – External Referents ESF- Metacognition 31 Results: Bibiane Rendl 3;3 n=11 0,0 0,5 1,0 1,5 2,0 Mean correct number of test questions Age group 1 2 3 IC ID FB 3;8 n=14 4;1 n=15 4;5 n=14 Inference control Identity task False belief task

32. Paris - July 2007Discourse – External Referents ESF- Metacognition 32 Instructive Pitfalls Uncovered by using file cards

33. Paris - July 2007Discourse – External Referents ESF- Metacognition 33 This is the nurse. This jewel belongs to Susi’s mother. Susi’s mother is the nurse. 1  a nurse 2  a jewel  belongs to 3 3  Susi’s mom  owns 2  is a nurse Give back the jewel!  ?? Pitfalls uncovered by file cards: Attributive “is” Attributive interpretation  Susi’s mom  Nurse 

34. Paris - July 2007Discourse – External Referents ESF- Metacognition 34 Avoiding attributive interpretations of identity statements 1  a nurse  lost 2 2  a jewel  belongs 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. Paris - July 2007Discourse – External Referents ESF- Metacognition 35 Summary and Outlook

36. Paris - July 2007Discourse – External Referents ESF- Metacognition 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 ”) Default assumptions (birds fly, penguins don’t)

37. Paris - July 2007Discourse – External Referents ESF- Metacognition 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. Paris - July 2007Discourse – External Referents ESF- Metacognition 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. Paris - July 2007Discourse – External Referents ESF- Metacognition 39 References  Discourse Referents Perner, 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 Sorting Kloo, D. & Perner, J. (2005). Disentangling Dimensions in the Dimensional Change Card Sorting task. Developmental Science, 8, 44-56.

40. Paris - July 2007Discourse – External Referents ESF- Metacognition 40 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The END

41. Paris - July 2007Discourse – External Referents ESF- Metacognition 41 is is a is in is a Obj L MOUSE ANIMAL "A mouse" "An animal" 1  a mouse  is in location L  is big  info: Same as 2 2  an animal  is in location L  is small  info: Same as 1  ≈15 cm long  Generalisations: Consciousness is Perspectival