Understanding communicative intentions and semiotic vehicles by children and chimpanzees
(2013) In Cognitive Development 28(3). p.312-329- Abstract
- Developmental and comparative studies of the ability to understand communicative intentions using object-choice tasks raise questions concerning the semiotic properties of the communicative signals, and the roles of rearing histories, language and familiarity. We adapted a study by Tomasello, Call, and Gluckman (1997), in which a “helper” indicated the location of a hidden reward to children of three ages (18, 24, and 30 months) and to four chimpanzees, by means of one of four cues: Pointing, Marker, Picture and Replica. For the chimpanzees, we controlled for familiarity by using two helpers, one unfamiliar and one highly familiar. Even 18-months performed well on Pointing and Marker, while only the oldest group clearly succeeded with... (More)
- Developmental and comparative studies of the ability to understand communicative intentions using object-choice tasks raise questions concerning the semiotic properties of the communicative signals, and the roles of rearing histories, language and familiarity. We adapted a study by Tomasello, Call, and Gluckman (1997), in which a “helper” indicated the location of a hidden reward to children of three ages (18, 24, and 30 months) and to four chimpanzees, by means of one of four cues: Pointing, Marker, Picture and Replica. For the chimpanzees, we controlled for familiarity by using two helpers, one unfamiliar and one highly familiar. Even 18-months performed well on Pointing and Marker, while only the oldest group clearly succeeded with Picture and Replica. Performance did not correlate with scores for the Swedish Early Communicative Development Inventory (SECDI). While there were no positive results for the chimpanzees on the group level, and no effect of familiarity, two chimpanzees succeeded on Pointing and Marker. Results support proposals of a species difference in understanding communicative intentions, but also highlight the need to distinguish these from the complexity of semiotic vehicles and to consider both factors. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
https://lup.lub.lu.se/record/3798880
- author
- Zlatev, Jordan LU ; Madsen, Elainie LU ; Lenninger, Sara LU ; Persson, Tomas LU ; Sayehli, Susan LU ; van de Weijer, Joost LU and Sonesson, Göran LU
- organization
- publishing date
- 2013
- type
- Contribution to journal
- publication status
- published
- subject
- keywords
- Pointing, Object-choice, Indexicality, Conventionality, Familiarity, Iconicity
- in
- Cognitive Development
- volume
- 28
- issue
- 3
- pages
- 312 - 329
- publisher
- Elsevier
- external identifiers
-
- wos:000324964800011
- scopus:84881017991
- ISSN
- 0885-2014
- DOI
- 10.1016/j.cogdev.2013.05.001
- project
- Centre for Cognitive Semiotics (RJ)
- Precursors of Sign Use in Intersubjectivity and Imitation (PSUII)
- language
- English
- LU publication?
- yes
- additional info
- The information about affiliations in this record was updated in December 2015. The record was previously connected to the following departments: Cognitive Science (015001004), Cognitive Semiotics (015030003), Humanities Lab (015101200), Linguistics and Phonetics (015010003)
- id
- 10d4848b-7b96-4fe4-91ee-c742ba3a83e0 (old id 3798880)
- alternative location
- http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0885201413000348#
- date added to LUP
- 2016-04-01 13:04:43
- date last changed
- 2024-03-12 22:33:33
@article{10d4848b-7b96-4fe4-91ee-c742ba3a83e0, abstract = {{Developmental and comparative studies of the ability to understand communicative intentions using object-choice tasks raise questions concerning the semiotic properties of the communicative signals, and the roles of rearing histories, language and familiarity. We adapted a study by Tomasello, Call, and Gluckman (1997), in which a “helper” indicated the location of a hidden reward to children of three ages (18, 24, and 30 months) and to four chimpanzees, by means of one of four cues: Pointing, Marker, Picture and Replica. For the chimpanzees, we controlled for familiarity by using two helpers, one unfamiliar and one highly familiar. Even 18-months performed well on Pointing and Marker, while only the oldest group clearly succeeded with Picture and Replica. Performance did not correlate with scores for the Swedish Early Communicative Development Inventory (SECDI). While there were no positive results for the chimpanzees on the group level, and no effect of familiarity, two chimpanzees succeeded on Pointing and Marker. Results support proposals of a species difference in understanding communicative intentions, but also highlight the need to distinguish these from the complexity of semiotic vehicles and to consider both factors.}}, author = {{Zlatev, Jordan and Madsen, Elainie and Lenninger, Sara and Persson, Tomas and Sayehli, Susan and van de Weijer, Joost and Sonesson, Göran}}, issn = {{0885-2014}}, keywords = {{Pointing; Object-choice; Indexicality; Conventionality; Familiarity; Iconicity}}, language = {{eng}}, number = {{3}}, pages = {{312--329}}, publisher = {{Elsevier}}, series = {{Cognitive Development}}, title = {{Understanding communicative intentions and semiotic vehicles by children and chimpanzees}}, url = {{http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cogdev.2013.05.001}}, doi = {{10.1016/j.cogdev.2013.05.001}}, volume = {{28}}, year = {{2013}}, }